Immigration or Invasion into the UK

Immigration or Invasion

Written by Mister Fox  At the  http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/

December 2010

The Mass immigration of aliens since 1948 is justified by deceitful arguments that they bring economic benefits. But only for the elites – the rest are pushed out of employment and their communities, their children disinherited. It is advanced behind utopian ideals and unrealistic plans for a one-world of one people but in practice, Global capitalists are importing cheap labour. Free trade has been promoted as a pancea since Richard Cobden's speech of 1846 as: “drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonism of race”, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace”. In practice it is a policy that allows completely open economic borders, whereby cheap foreign goods can flood into the country unchallenged and undercut the wages of our own people and decimate the economic livelihood of the nation. Of course there will be those that profit from cheap labour, cheap imports and the peddling of third world goods on an open market. This country is governed for business interests not the nation as a whole and they defend their interests against critics with the Trotskyite term "racist"! We get alarm stories of how the government has lost control of its borders but what is happening is what they want to happen. Opponents speak of it as an invasion or colonisation. But which is it? The replacement of a people is not painless but causes great misery and suffering and people who inflict misery and suffering on innocent people are evil and the distinction between an invasion or immigration, depends three factors: the strength or treason of the ruling elite plus numbers of the incomers and how they behave towards the hosts when they are in. These are present in most of my example. A precedent from history is the internal conquest of Rome in 376AD by Goths after weak Emporer Valens had allowed them to settle. This is how demography works: if there had not been so many with strength from numbers they would not have rebelled The Goths had been displaced by Huns and asked the Romans for asylum. The Romans allowed them in and when they were provoked by offensive Roman officials, revolted. Roman historian Ammianus explained the folly: “The affair caused more joy than fear and educated flatterers immoderately praised the good fortune of the Prince, which unexpectedly brought him so many young recruits from the ends of the earth...” Pat Buchanan gives pertinent examples in Death of the West. When Mexico got independence in 1821 when it had got independence and invited Americans to settle in Texas, its northern province. They applied two conditions: the Americans must swear allegiance to Mexico and convert to Catholicism, like our facile citizenship tests. But when the Americans were a sizable majority of ten to one they begun to think about independence as European Muslims are. The catalyst came under tyrant General Santa Anna - the Americans rebelled and took that part of Mexico for America. Now Mexicans are pouring into America and taking it back! (1) Bishop Ali Nazir has exposed how Muslims take over areas of our country and keep us out. (2) The same behaviour can be seen in Tamils in Sri Lanka, Tibet where China have invaded, in Hawaii where most of the original people have been displaced as also happened in South America and the West Indies. What happened to Native Americans is well documented as is the displacement of Aborigines and Maoris. This behaviour of invaders whether invited or not goes back as far as recorded history. Take our own country. Julius Caesar invaded Britain in 53AD with a small Roman force and realised the Britons were not easy so the Romans withdrew to Gaul. They needed more men for full-scale invasion. Caesar returned the next year bringing 30,000 soldiers. The Britons delayed by not fighting the Romans as they landed which allowed them to establish themselves. Then they fought British tribes one at a time. Caesar neglected Gaul and they rose up so Caesar had to withdraw to put down the rebellion. The Britons aidded their Celtic kinfolk in Gaul in their fight to defend their territory. Emperor Claudius decreed they should feel the might of Rome. The Romans invasion of AD 43 was to to take over the island. Emperor Claudius sent an army of 40,000 men. Many tribes realised the power of this army and soon made peace but some took on the might of the Roman army. These clashes lasted for many years in parts of Britain. Rivalry led to war and to the Romans war could only end with the submission or destruction of their foes. In Europe, whole tribes of Gauls, Britons and Germans were killed or enslaved. After the Gauls surrendered Caesar took 50,000 slaves with as many killed. The Gallic warlord Vercingetorix honorably surrendered but was kept in chains for six years before being ritually strangled in the arena. Caesar boasted of killing five million Gauls - an act of genocide. In Briton the Iceni tribe, an ally of the Romans, was driven to rebellion by the cruelty of the Roman governor. Their tribal lands were seized and people enslaved. Boudicca, their Queen, was publicly whipped and her daughters raped by Roman slaves. The Celts had coinage no written language, and were divided. The Romans had a developed culture, organisation and great self-belief.They came to conquer and take the people under their authority. It is in this sense that people speak of Liberty: Liberty from foreign yolk and the creative security of living amongst your own folk in your own culture. Compared to the Romans the Celts were disunited. They shared basic race with the Romans but were ethnically different and followed different religions which increases conflict as it does with the rival White and Muslim comminities now. An ethnicity is a group whose members belong together through a common heritage, usually a common language, a common culture which is a shared religion and sense of common ancestry and awareness of a group's distinctiveness from others. Patrick J.Buchanan describes it as a “blood and soil” nation.(3) Civilisation broke down after the Roman army left and to defend themselves from Vikings, the inhabitants brought in European mercenaries. These were Angles and Saxons from northern Germany. To begin the Anglo Saxons were allowed to bring their families and got paid with land which they could farm then when they were strong enough the Anglo Saxons took the territory. This is a parallel with how contemporary elites are allowing our territory to be taken and our children dispossessed. The Anglo Saxon invasion was the most thorough case of ethnic cleansing in this country until 1948. DNA evidence shows that in some parts of the country up to 90% of the inhabitants were displaced. The Anglo Saxons re-named roads and places which shows dominance. The Viking raids finally became a “Great Army” in 865 AD. It landed in East Anglia and Northumbria and Mercia had fallen by 875 with only Wessex left. The Vikings attack Wessex in 878. By 1016 the Vikings ruled under Cnute. Once again on Cnut's death the country broke down into competing Earldoms under weak king Edward the Confessor. When he died Harold became King. The Tower of London was built to emphasise the new rulers power and dominance. William had castles. The new landowners built magnificent castles that proclaimed their authority to be obeyed like Warwick and Windsor that survive. Now it is fabulous and dominant mosques and culture centres. The landed gentry were replaced by Normans who took the best land and any women they wanted: the Anglo Saxon people became their serfs. Only one Anglo-Saxon Bishop was left in office. We are not supposed to defend ourselves but Muslims are allowed to develop militant and terrorist networks against us. The enemy within, The Equalities and Human Rights Commission have made it illegal for an ethnic or racial nationalist political party to exist in Britain but allow other ethnic groups right of association. (4) The elites are oppressing us as conquerors do so immigrants replace us. Contemporary Politics is based on racism - the global Establishment pushes relentlessly to displace, dispossess, deracinate the peoples' of Europe THAT is racism. It treats us as not a real people, not worthy of consideration, subhuman.We must be proud of our "racialism" of defending ourselves against dispossession and of being determined to live! These are the instructions of Bedfordshire Police to officers on anti-terrorist courses: ''UK’s Bedfordshire Police’s rules regarding terrorists and dangerous criminals If they’re non-Muslim. Consider the most opportune time of day to be able to arrest suspects with minimum resistance. Apply all necessary force to enter the premises and arrest suspects accordingly. If they’re Muslim: Community leaders must be consulted before raids into Muslim houses. Officers must not search occupied bedrooms and bathrooms before dawn. Use of police dogs will be considered serious desecration of the premises. Cameras and camcorders should not be used in case of capturing women inappropriately dressed. If people are praying: home officers should stand aside and not disrupt, They should be allowed the opportunity to finish. Officers should take off their shoes before raiding a Muslim house. The reasons for pre-dawn raids on Muslim houses needs to be clear and transparent. Officers must not touch holy books or religious artefacts without permission. Muslim prisoners should be allowed to take additional clothing to the station.'' Our culture is being changed. Anjem Choudary has said that under sharia law in Britain people who commit adultery would be stoned to death, adding that “anyone who becomes intoxicated by alcohol would be given 40 lashes in public”. He described an Army homecoming parade a: “vile parade of brutal murderers”.(5) Meanwhile evil Harriet Harman brings in discriminatory laws and praises immigrants who exploit us by sending money to their own countries.(6) The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were part of a secret plan by ministers to change the population to "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. It was done behing our backs to "open up the UK to mass migration." They decieved people with false arguments that immigrants are bringing economic benefits. A Swedish government minister showed in a radio interview that they are allowing Muslims to take over their country. It's betraying the indigenous population especially the women: The utopian fantasy depends on not seeing Muslims as human like us and wanting revenge for historical reasons against their Christian rivals. “We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.” Immigrants are consciousness of their strength and knowingly taking our territory and establishing their symbols of conquest like mosques and education centres. These are alien bulkheads in our civilisation and used to develop a new generation of street soldiers with the right mentality. The important point in assessing the true nature of immigration is how are the immigrants behaving: this is not to be seen as on a par with our people's criminal behaviour because the immigrants treat us as other and also have grudges against us for the way we treated them when we were conquerers. It is not the fault of poor whites but they are the only ones the immigrants can get as the elites are happily rich in safe places. The other way of assessing whether this is immigration or invasion is to consider their attitude to us. The widespread mass child-rapes of our young girls is guerilla warfare: fighting us by other means. In Pakistanis in Britain: The Second Generation Allison Shaw studied the Pakistani community in Oxford(1988) The third generation of British Pakistanis is now grown up and claiming our territory and taking young British women as booty. Shaw shows the relative loyalties to one's own kind of the Pakistanis and the English. The Pakistanis are extended families, the English atomised and anomic. From Alison Shaw, A Pakistani Community in Britain (Blackwell Ltd., Oxford, 1988): [p.157] […] These young men are westernized in that they are fluent in English, interested in western music and Sport, and comfortable in English company, where they move with a sophistication that their parents lack. What does this imply about their attitudes to their family and biradari? It is striking that young men such as these retain very strong social and financial links with their families; even those who live and work away from Oxford come home whenever they can and hope to get work locally when the opportunity arises. These young men tend to spend their leisure time with each other and their peers within the community rather than with English friends and also participate in family and community social events. A woman gave this account of the punishments for failing to follow rules: [p.171] The Prophet Mohammed was out walking one day when he saw a woman in torture, hanging by her hair, but still alive. A little further on, he saw a woman being hung by her breasts and then he saw a woman being put into a huge fire, screaming. Horrified, he asked Allah, ‘Why are these women being tortured like this? Please let them go free!’ But Allah replied, ‘The first woman used to tantalize men with her hair, the second used to reveal her breasts to strange men and the third slept with a man who was not her husband. That is why I cannot set them free.’ At the same time it is considered that women must be protected because they are the dependants of men. . The corollary of this is that a woman who is ‘outside’, among men, unprotected, is ‘free for anyone to take.’ Western women in particular appear to break all the rules of purdah. They are regarded as sexually promiscuous, moving freely from one man to another, behaving and dressing in order to provoke men. A woman out alone is in effect asking for sexual relations with a man. Rape, young and older men have insisted, is always the woman’s fault, because it is the natural result of a woman dressing provocatively and being out alone. In this view, western women are simultaneously exciting and despised for having no sense of shame and being ‘used by more than one man; like prostitutes’. ’ [p.173] One young man said: The point is, English girls don’t mind; there’s no restriction for them. In fact, they chase you and laugh at you if you don’t go with them. It was like that at school: the girls chasing men. I know I shouldn’t have, it’s against our religion, but how could I refuse? It’s natural for a man to feel like that; you can’t really avoid it. I blame the western system. Almost all of the unmarried men among the young adults surveyed above have had clandestine relationships with English girls, yet do not feel that this contradicts their acceptance of an arranged marriage or the Islamic moral code. It is tacitly accepted by most men and women that men will have girlfriends because ‘men are like that’ and because English girls are easily available ... I would like to thank the owner of the blog http://songlight-for-dawn.blogspot.com/ for introducing me to the books of Alison Shaw http://songlight-for-dawn.blogspot.com/ (1)Death of the West.Patrick J.Buchanan. http://www.stewartsynopsis.com/death_by_blackness_files/Deathofthewest.htm (2 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3176455.ece (3) State of Emergency.Patrick J.Buchanan (Thomas Dunne Books) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEO1yqJVXEU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npbpK4yQ4tg http://www.vdare.com/fulford/100513_fulford_file.htm (4) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12014807 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXjOd4A63Ak&feature=player_embedded http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337876/Harman-praises-hero-immigrants-send-welfare-handouts-home.html#ixzz17t6BLwTq http://fred.wheatonma.edu/wordpressmu/mdrout/category/battle-of-brunanburh/ http://www.bing.com/search?q=Sex+in+Rochdale&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article2237940.ece

Another case of electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets London ?

Another case of electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets

 by Giuseppe De Santis. 

Last Thursday a by-election was held in Tower Hamlets, Spitafield and Banglatown, to fill a council place left vacant after Lutfur Rahman (who previously was a councillor there) was elected mayor of Tower Hamlets.
We reported how the Labour candidate, Abdul Alim, was jailed 20 years ago for assaulting BNP activists in Brick Lane.
The result of the election was as follows:
* Abdul Alim, Labour Party – 553 votes
* Jewel Chowdhury, Independent – 28 votes
* Magaret Ann Crosbie, The Green Party – 52 votes
* Fozol Miah, Respect – 666 votes (elected)
* Ferdy North, Liberal Democrats – 33 votes
* Matthew James Smith, Conservative Party – 135 votes
Number of ballot papers spoilt: 19
Electorate for Spitalfields and Bangaltown Ward: 8,827
Votes polled: 1,486
Turnout: 16.83 per cent
Nice to see Labour losing its seat to Respect, even though this will change nothing.
But can an election in Tower Hamlets be held without any hint of electoral fraud?
Of course not.
Below is an article about this, written by Ted Jeory on his blog.
It’s very interesting as clearly something similar happened in Barking & Dagenham the 6th of May.

There is a long tradition in Tower Hamlets that any election held here is accompanied by allegations of vote fraud. And so it is the case with yesterday’s events in Spitalfields and Banglatown.
While nothing can match the comedy of the general election when a large burkha-clad person with a suspiciously deep voice quickly legged it after being challenged as (s)he tried to vote in Poplar, there were still a couple of moments of high farce yesterday.
They have all been reported to the police and/or Returning Officer Kevan Collins. And all allegations are being made by Respect, which won the by-election, and against Labour supporters.
Concerned that Labour supporters might get up to dirty tricks, Respect placed polling agents with deep knowledge of the local area at the various polling stations. It was their job to spot suspected malpractice.
The first was at a polling station at Christ Church Primary School. There, according to Respect, a Bengali man giving the correct name for a someone registered at a flat in Chicksand House was challenged by a polling agent who knew that the named property was actually let to white students. The presiding officer then asked the man to name the other occupants of the flat. He could not and not only that, he admitted he did not live there himself! However, because he had already marked his ballot paper and because his name was on the electoral register, the presiding officer felt unable to invalidate his vote. I’m not clear whether the presiding officer asked for verification of the man’s name.
The second incident was described by Respect’s Rob Hoveman in an email sent to Mr Collins yesterday:
We are very concerned about attempted personation at Osmani polling station where an individual gave an address as XXX Arthur Deakin House. Fortunately, [Respect's winning candidate] Fozol Miah was aware that this is the address of his niece and challenged the individual. He was not given a ballot paper and left the area with some others quickly. Our concern is obviously that this may not be an isolated incident and that there may be a concerted attempt to corrupt the election. Is there anything that can be done to deter this?
The third incident at Canon Barnett Primary School polling station had a Keystone Cops flavour to it. When a man purporting to be a Mr Uddin of Brune House came to collect his ballot paper, the Respect polling agent looked at him and said, “I know Mr Uddin; you’re not him.” The imposter tried to scarper, but was detained under a “citizen’s arrest” by some Respect supporters. They then “escorted” him back to the party’s HQ and took a statement from him while they waited for the police to arrive. When the police did finally turn up – some 30 minutes later, I’m told – their concern was not whether the man had breached election law, but whether he had been unlawfully detained and kidnapped!
Respect’s supporters should, of course, have allowed the presiding officer handle the matter, but I suppose that in Tower Hamlets we’re used to the law of the jungle and their reaction was perhaps understandable. When the situation calmed, Respect say they offered the police the man’s statement, but the officers declined to take it. I expect it will now be passed on to the police through more formal channels. I understand that the statement names the man who put him up to the attempted fraud and that he was going to vote for Labour’s Abdul Alim. For the avoidance of doubt, Alim was not named in the statement.
Clearly, if Tower Hamlets council and the Met Police are serious about clamping down on electoral fraud, they will want to fully investigate these incidents. If they don’t – and the suspicion is that they won’t because such fraud is considered a “victimless crime” that costs money to examine – what message does that send out?
As an aside, there were also some interesting developments on the postal voting front in this by-election. As of Tuesday, according to Respect, some 500 postal ballots had been sent in and of those the council’s new electronic signature checking systems had rejected a huge 20 per cent. Another 137 postal votes came in after Tuesday, but the council has so far been unable to say how many of those were rejected.
Now, either the system itself needs examining, or people need to remember what signatures they actually use, or there was attempted electoral fraud on a relatively large scale. Remember that the turnout was barely 1,500…

How many bogus voters used similar tricks in Barking & Dagenham?
As for the Police investigating electoral fraud this is just a dream, after all they may be accused of scapegoating a whole community and then Trevor Phillips will sue them for being racist, and don’t forget that Muslims have the habit of starting a riot whenever they think they are treated unfairly.
Nonetheless the idea of placing polling agents with deep knowledge of the area is quite good and we should take it seriously.
The only problem is that in a council (or parliamentary) election it’s impossible to find enough people with such knowledge to cover every polling station but even if we can manage to do it for one or two polling stations per ward it would still be useful to contain this problem.

Nick griffin MEP represented at Stockholm Anti Multiculturalism protest

MEP represented at Stockholm protest

by Martin Wingfield Nick Griffin MEP Euro News

 DECEMBER 2010: 
AT the end of November, Tony Bamber from Preston was asked by Nick Griffin MEP to represent him and the British National Party at one of Europe’s largest protests against multiculturalism which was held in Salem a suburb of the Swedish capital Stockholm.


 The protest is held annually to commemorate the brutal and totally unprovoked slaying of a 17-year boy called Daniel Wretstrom by a gang of immigrants.
This is Tony's report:
"It was with a heavy heart that I listened to the details of this murder. The parallels with the murder of our own Kriss Donald were all too obvious.  Like Kriss, Daniel was tortured by foreign monsters before they tossed him into a ditch to die alone and in agony.
I felt genuinely honoured to be trusted by the party to speak at such a gathering, but also a little intimidated, this would certainly be the biggest audience I had ever addressed. However, the organisers, especially the leader of the Swedish National Democrats, Marc Abramson, could not have been more helpful or kind. Indeed I was treated like a VIP - a very, very unusual state of affairs for me! - fed in restaurants, put up for the weekend in a swanky hotel and driven around like I had my own chauffeur. It was only as I got to know my hosts that I realised the reason for this most welcome treatment did not spring from their innate hospitality alone, but because of the very high regard in which the BNP and our chairman is held by our European counterparts. I had no idea that Mr Griffin is something of a hero to our European friends, who almost universally credit him as being the most successful nationalist politician in the union.
The protest began at approx 6pm on the 11th December with a silent torchlight procession through the streets, and when I say torchlight I don’t mean something from Ever-Ready. Each of us was issued with one of those wax & oil drenched sticks that burnt brightly in what was a crisp and beautifully clear winter’s evening. Fortunately, the weather was very kind to us, not only was it dry, but it was also not too cold – only minus two. Given the numbers attending – the authorities estimated 850 but it felt like thousands to me - the stewards kept excellent discipline by ensuring that the procession maintained the four abreast format -  not an easy task as many of the protestors were women, children and the elderly. I ask you to imagine a very long fiery snake slowly winding its way through a town blanketed in feet of the cleanest white snow which not only looked spectacular but gave the silence of the protestors an eerie and profound quality – it felt like a Viking funeral. After about 40 minutes we reached a small but dignified shrine bedecked in candles and flowers that marked the spot were the tortured body of Daniel was left to die. Near-by a modern stage with a state of the art public address system had been erected and it was from this stage that, interspersed by music from a folk singer, delegates from different countries spoke to the crowd.
In truth I cannot imagine a more dignified, well organised and impressive protest than the one I attended in Sweden. Unfortunately, on the same night that this protest was being held a Muslim was protesting in the same city but in a very different way – the contrast spoke volumes."

 

A Christmas message of Hope for the West

A Christmas message of Hope

Written by Tim Heydon   at the http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/

December 2010

What the End of a Civilisation Looks Like: Britain and the West 2010 It is a truism to say that we live in an increasingly secular society. What those who welcome this present trend do not seem to realise is that it means the end of civilisation as we have known it. And if it were to continue and expand it would ultimately mean the end of any civilisation worthy of the name whatsoever. A Society cannot survive without agreed Standards of Morality Why so? Because a society cannot survive if there are no agreed standards of morality, and there can be no such standards without religion. That is because without religion the universe is meaningless. Our lives have no purpose beyond the animal urges endowed us by our genes which are themselves the mere accidental outcomes of physical laws. In a Meaningless World, No one has the Right to decree Right and Wrong. And so there can be no binding rules of behaviour on anyone, since if there is no absolute right or wrong, who or what is there to bind? And why should anyone behave in a way another wants him or her to behave?  In such a world, if someone says to you, ‘you must behave in such and such a way,’ all one has to do is say, ‘I don’t agree’, because your preference is as good as anyone else’s. Political Correctness: Merely the Preferences of the Left imposed through Power That is or should be the end of it, but of course it isn’t, as we are seeing. Because the secularisers have tried to substitute Political Correctness  for religion as the basis of morality. Since the nihilism on which Political Correctness is based denies that any one morality is superior to another, this means that their imposition of the morality of Political Correctness is invalid. But they choose to ignore that. As Nietzsche foretold, what is left without religion is power and the Politically Correct merely impose their own preferences on the rest of us through the exercise of it. Whatever the secularisers might say about religion, they cannot claim that it is self contradictory in the imposition of morality in the way that Political Correctness is. When there is no Religion and no Right or Wrong. What a Society on the Brink of Destruction Looks Like In the 1930’s  the  pioneering Harvard Sociologist and historian Pitirim Sorokin predicted that values in the West would continue to be undermined, would become more and more influenced by relativistic thinking, would lose their binding power and would be .‘ground to dust’ Distinctions between right and wrong, true and false, beautiful and ugly and positive and negative would more and more disappear in the opaque and chaotic world of crumbling ‘sensate ‘ culture as he termed it. Sorokin’s Chillingly Accurate Prophesy He has been proved absolutely right. Huge numbers of people are increasingly incapable of telling right from wrong including politicians, judges, journalists and even many clergymen. A quick glance at Modern Art (where Lucian Freud for example depicts human beings as soulless mounds of flesh and Frances Bacon saw them as ugly, tortured and almost dissected, staring into the void), modern  music (based round the rhythm of the sex act), modern architecture (which banishes the human and the fitting in favour of deliberately meaningless gimmickry and the celebration of glass, steel and concrete),  the cinema and TV,  ‘all show that the borderline between the beautiful and the ugly, the positive and the negative have been erased’. Becoming more and more materialistic Sorokin also asserted that Man himself in the declining modern world would become more materialistic and less spiritually minded. Science would seek to strip life of its sacred character (think genetic engineering, abortion on demand and ‘designer babies’) and Mankind would become increasingly debased and sensual (Any TV soap and many  town centres  on a Saturday night are  proof of this). Most people would ‘sink deeper into the muck of the sociological sewers’ and would be ‘progressively destructive rather than constructive, representing in their totality a museum of sociological pathology rather than the imperishable values of the Kingdom of God’  (It is hard to disagree with these remarks given the morality -free wastelands of so many of our towns and cities). The ancient place of true religion in society would be replaced by pseudo religions (such as Political Correctness, Environmentalism, all those little Buddhas used as ornaments, the devotion to ‘Yoga,’ the fawning over Islam etc. ) The Disappearance of Personal Honour and of Duty Sorokin also predicted that ’contracts and covenants in our age would lose the remnants of their binding power.’ This would make virtually impossible the proper functioning of representative government. (Do you trust our politicians?) The Rise in  Violence  and the Loss of Respect for the Law With the fragmentation of other values, Sorokin predicted that respect for law and civil order would dramatically decrease. Government would turn to its only remaining weapons; naked force and fraud. There would be an increasing war of all against all (such as we are beginning to see in our inner cities), riots, civil disturbances and brutality would become commonplace. (Is this not true?). The Hollowing out of the Meaning of Words Men once Died for. Words which previously were meaningful such as ‘freedom’ would gradually lose their definition and become mere fiction. (We can see that in our ‘liberal’ ie ‘free’ society in which people are in reality less free than they have been since Cromwell). Our rights would be alienated. Constitutions would be abolished or used as ‘beautiful screens for an unadulterated coercion.’ (The enforcement of EU membership and mass immigration and multiculturalism on this country by its Political Class speaks for itself); The Disintegration of the Family Sorokin also foresaw the attack on the family as an institution and as the fundamental building block of society. The sacredness of the family unit, of husband, wife and children would continue to disintegrate. Genuine difference between marriage and illicit relationships would disappear. (Helped along by the ‘marriage’ of homosexuals). Children would be separated from their parents at an earlier and earlier age (as they are doing through divorce and separation). These trends would continue to accelerate until, he remarks, ‘the family becomes a mere accidental cohabitation for male and female while the home becomes a mere overnight parking place mainly for sex relationships.’ (This state of affairs has already arrived for many). The Prediction of the Overwhelming of Western Civilisation Sorokin  wrote in the 1930’s that Western culture, as a separate entity,  would soon be overwhelmed by a grotesque collage of bits and pieces of every culture on earth (‘enrichment’). Culturally speaking, he thought that our culture would become a bazaar like those of Cairo or Damascus with everything and anything tossed into a muddled heap. The End of Creativity Sorokin though that genuine creative thinking in the crippled remnants of Western Society would wither and die. The Beethovens, Newtons, Rembrandts Shakespeares of our former civilisation would be replaced by mediocrities (Tracy Emin, David Hockney etc)  vulgar showmen, pseudo-thinkers (Foucault , Derrida, the Frankfurt School etc etc) and the like. The End of Rising Living Standards Finally, with the collapse of moral values and ethics and the withering of creativity, Sorokin saw that economic production would eventually decline, and that standards of living would grow worse. With this, security of life and of possessions would fade as would peace of mind and happiness. Violence and criminal activity would grow to terrifying proportions and ever –increasing numbers of people would grow weary from the struggle for existence. (The ultimate decline in living standards Sorokin foretold may or may not be here –watch this space -  but the rise in criminality  certainly is) Sorokin’s truly chilling accuracy as to the way our society has evolved (written some 55-75  years ago let us not forget) demands that we take his ideas seriously.

Put Blair, Brown and Cameron on trial for war crimes Madame President

Put Blair, Brown and Cameron on trial for war crimes

Martin Wingfield Nick Griffin MEP Eoro News

DECEMBER 2010: 
HEADS were bowed and there was silence in the chamber of the European Parliament in Strasbourg yesterday as embarrassed MEPs slunk deep into their seats, trying to avoid looking at their colleague making his speech.



That was because Nick Griffin was pulling no punches in his condemnation of 'this criminal war' during a debate on the conflict in Afghanistan.
This is what the MEP for the North West of England had to say:
"Madame President
This report demolishes the lies of the British political class about the Afghan War.
I don´t know the names of any of the innocent Afghan victims of this wicked war. But I do know that it has nothing to do with British interests. And I know the names of the 18 brave young men from my constituency who have paid with their lives for this corrupt madness in the last year alone:
Cpl Simon Hornby, Liverpool
Warrant Officer David Markland, Lancashire
Kingsman Sean Dawson, Stalybridge
Cpl Harvey Holmes, Hyde
Cpl Terry Webster, Chester
L/Cpl Andrew Breeze, Manchester
Marine Steven Birdsall, Warrington
Marine Paul Warren, Preston
Sgt Steven Darbyshire, Wigan
Private Alex Isaac, Wirral
Private Douglas Halliday, Wallasey
Colour Sgt Martyn Horton, Runcorn
Private Thomas Sephton, Warrington
Sgt David Monkhouse, Cumbria
Sapper Darren Foster, Carlisle
L/Cpl Jordan Bancroft, Burnley
Kingsman Darren Deady, Bolton
Guardsman Christopher Davies, St. Helens.
What a criminal waste of brave young lives!
It is, of course, no business of the European Union what wars Britain should or should not fight. That is for the British people, and our elected representatives, in our Houses of Parliament in Westminster, to decide.
Just as it will be for us to decide, one happy day, to put Messrs Blair, Brown and Cameron on trial for war crimes. Because Afghanistan, just like Iraq, is a criminal war."

European Union Helps Everyone Except Great Britian

European Union Helps Everyone Except the UK

by  David Hannam Nick Griffin MEP N.W England Euro News

 DECEMBER 2010:
AS British National Party MEP’s voted this week in the European Parliament, the BNP renewed its call for withdrawal from the European Union (EU) as more UK money is being used to fund poor, developing and third world countries whilst UK industry suffers terminal decline and massive redundancies.

 The European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF) is an EU body which administers a budget of €500m and its purpose is to help people suffering from being made unemployed and help them to reintegrate into the labour market.
According to the EU, the EGF was “created in order to provide additional assistance to workers suffering from the consequences of major structural changes in world trade patterns.”
In other words, due to the failed policies of globalisation many European countries face massive outsourcing of European jobs to third world countries as European workers could not compete with the low wage standard in the third world.
Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Poland, Belgium, Austria, and even the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) as recognised by the EU have all benefited from the EGF.
Recently, EU MEP’s voted on The Banana Accompanying Measures (BAM) in a motion whereby it was proposed that European and inevitably UK money will be used to prop up third world economies by investing €200 million to 10 third world ACP countries for four years.
In contrast, Britain has not received one penny from the EGF, though substantial portions of the EGF is funded from British taxpayers’ money.
As of this week, MEP’s, including our own BNP MEP’s voted on the following proposals to help other states who are suffering from redundancies forced by the failings of globalisation.
These include:
• Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: redundancies in ICT wholesale trade in the Netherlands
• Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: redundancies in diesel engine manufacturing in Poland
• Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: redundancies in the automotive sector in Spain
• Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: redundancies in the automotive industry in Poland
• Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: redundancies in retail trade in Spain
• Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: redundancies in the textile sector in Spain
• Mobilisation of the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund: redundancies in the manufacture of natural stone products in Spain
If passed, these states will all benefit from financial help.
Britain is also facing a massive decline in industry and has suffered a high number of redundancies. The BNP believes that British taxpayers’ money should be used to help alleviate the hardships our own industries instead of being used to help others.
As an example:
 • The UK wholesale energy industry is facing criticism of its pricing policies. Three companies – British Gas, ScottishPower and Scottish & Southern have all increased prices, hitting our elderly at a time we are facing one of the harshest winters in decades. We believe that any portion of UK money currently sat in EU coffers should be reinvested back into helping our own wholesale trade industry, perhaps the energy industry in particular in order to lower energy prices.
 • Manufacturing industry. Considering the recent depreciation of sterling, which helps to promote UK exports, we feel it would be wiser to reinvest UK funds back into the UK manufacturing industry. According to Confederation of British Industry (CBI) monthly Industrial Trends survey for December, a balance of 4 per cent more employers reported export orders being above normal rather than below it. With sterling currently weakening, we should reinvest UK funds currently sat in EU coffers back into our recovering export manufacturing industry.
 • Automotive industry. In 2008 the automotive manufacturing sector employed more than 163,000 people but two years later it was down to 116,000 - that's a 28 per cent cut according Prof. Garel Rhys, chairman of Welsh Automotive Forum. We believe that UK funds should be reinvested back into the UK automotive industry.
 • Retail trade industry. According to a recent report by The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) the recession has claimed over 6,000 insolvencies in the UK. We recommend that any UK portion of EU funds should be reinvested into helping those affected by insolvency.
 • Textile industry. According to Co-operatives UK, a national trade body, textile jobs in Britain are lost at rate of one per hour. We say invest our portion of UK money residing in the EU back into helping our own textile industry
Naturally, none of these UK industries will receive any help whatsoever from the EGF.
It is important to make the point that the BNP does not oppose help being given to fellow Europeans hit by the failed policies of economic globalisation and the inevitable outsourcing of jobs to the third world, we only oppose UK taxpayers’ money being used for any other use than its reinvestment back into Britain.
The BNP believes that Britain should withdraw completely from the EU to ensure that all British taxpayers’ money is used solely for the benefit of British interests.
David Hannam is a political adviser to Nick Griffin MEP.
for more Euro News from Nick Griffin MEP visit  http://www.nickgriffinmep.eu/news

Horwich Nationalist BNP Supporters Group: Understanding the Culture War: a Essay on the Evil called Political Correctness

Horwich Nationalist BNP Supporters Group: Understanding the Culture War: a Essay on the Evil called Political Correctness: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"

UK Govt ConDem Regime Cuts 715 New Schools in Britain, As Foreign Aid Budget Repairs 1,500 Schools in Pakistan

ConDem Regime Cuts 715 New Schools in Britain, but Foreign Aid Budget Repairs 1,500 Schools in Pakistan

  BNP News

The ConDem regime has announced that British taxpayers have been forced to pay for the repair of 1,500 schools in nuclear-power Pakistan, while at the same time ordering the halting of a building programme which would have given Britain 715 new school buildings.

The shockingly arrogant display of ‘British people put last’ policy is contained in the latest press release from the Department for International Development (DFID), issued by minster Andrew Mitchell.

The statement said that Mr Mitchell “confirmed that the UK will help 200,000 children return to education in Pakistan, by repairing 1,500 schools damaged by the recent floods and providing 200 temporary facilities for children whose schools have been destroyed across Sindh and the Punjab.”

In July this year, Tory education minister Michael Gove cancelled a school building programme in Britain which would have built 715 schools, citing “budgetary constraints.”

The DFID statement went on to inform us that the “UK”  (read “British taxpayers”)  have also provided “shelter for 25,000 people” in Pakistan, and will still provide “basic health care for more than half a million people over the next six months.”

British people who are currently unemployed and struggling to find jobs because of the destruction of this nation’s economy and manufacturing base by decades of Tory and Labour misrule, will no doubt be ecstatic to hear that the DFID has also given our tax money to another project in Pakistan which will “help around one million people in rural areas to earn a living by providing jobs, skills training, and farming tools, seeds, animals so families can restart farming.”

The announcement of further millions to Pakistan forms part of the £134 million previously committed by Mr Mitchell to Pakistan in September 2010.

Total UK bilateral aid in Pakistan for the 2009/10 year totalled £140.4 million, broken up as follows: Humanitarian assistance: 33%; Governance: 20%; Education: 18%; Growth: 15%; Health: 8%; Other social services: 5%; Other: 1%.

According to the World Bank, Pakistan has the 25th largest economy in the world in terms of purchasing power, and the 45th largest in absolute dollar terms. It is also officially classed as a “semi-industrialised economy,” which mainly encompasses textiles, chemicals, food processing, agriculture and other industries.

In 2009, Pakistan’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was set at $185 billion, with its manufacturing sector showing double-digit growth from 2000 to 2007. Large-scale manufacturing in Pakistan grew from 1.5 percent in 1999 to a record 19.9 percent in 2004-05 and averaged 8.8 percent by end of 2007, mostly the result of the deindustrialisation of the West.

The Pakistani armed forces are the seventh largest in the world in terms of active troops, with approximately 617,000 personnel on active duty, 513,000 in reserve and 304,000 in its paramilitary forces giving a total of almost 1,451,000 personnel.

Britain’s army, by contrast, has 194,440 professional soldiers and 39,420 volunteer forces, giving a total of 233,860 troops.

Pakistan’s defence budget stands at $7.8 billion (the 23rd highest defence spend in the world) which consumes 4.5 percent of its GDP (2006 estimate).

In addition, Pakistan posses at least 90 nuclear bombs, and has refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

These figures make it absolutely clear that Pakistan requires no “foreign aid” at all and that it is nothing short of treason against the British taxpayer for the ConDem and Labour regimes to continue to pump money into that region while there is such crying need at home.

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

British National Party Develops New UAF Marxist Anti-Fascist Technology

British National Party Develops New Anti-Fascist Technology

The British National Party Newsroom

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

Some typical UAF Thingy Mi Bobs

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

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

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

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

Multiculturalism Hits The Wall 

from Sarah The Maid of Albion Blog

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

Multiculturalism Hits The Wall

By J.R. Dunn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CLICK HERE to read the whole article at American Thinker

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

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

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

CEHR - Official. British National Party NOT racist

Written by Green Arrow

December 2010

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

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

Race Gestapo Lose Bid to Kill British National Party

The British National Party Newsroom

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

Nick griffin MEP after the Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welsh Tory and “Independent” Bridgend Councillors Want Democracy Banned

Tory and “Independent” Bridgend Councillors Want Democracy Banned

The British National Party newsroom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marxist Socialists and Leftists For a Second Holocaust ?

Leftists For a Second Holocaust 
Paul Bogdanor,

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

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

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

The British National party Newsroom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Crusaders facebook Page 

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

Are Golliwogs offensive? Only to the Lunatic PC Brigade

Are golliwogs offensive?

Written by The Pilgrim

15 December 2010

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