British Nationalist Economics: Important Questions Answered

Nationalist Economics: Important Questions Answered

The British National Party Newsroom

Andrew Moffat, lead European Parliamentary researcher to British National Party MEPs Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, answers a number of important questions which arose in the comments section of this website after his last article “Economics — The Dismal Science” appeared.

By Andrew Moffat— My previous article, the primary purpose of which was to explain how the government debt markets operated, raised significant interest.

It is not possible, alas, to reply to all the comments and queries that appeared. A number, however, were of sufficient merit to prompt a follow-up article.

Q1: The article assumes there has always been and always will be government debt. Surely it is a basic fact that wherever possible a government or indeed an ordinary person should live within their means and avoid debt?

A: Essentially, this is correct. A successful government, however, whose tax base is secure, whose credit is favourable and whose prospects are based upon a fundamentally sound economy will be in a position to afford an element of sensible gearing, i.e. debt. This is akin to the private individual, who borrows to improve his homestead.

The difficulty relates to the question of the sound level of prudent debt and this has risen from approximately 30 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at the turn of the century, to around 65 percent last Autumn.

Were interest rates to rise significantly, perhaps to combat inflation, then an increased element of the tax base would be required to service the interest.

In the past, government debt has risen above 200 percent of GDP. This occurred, for the most part, in the aftermath of the war against the rebellious American colonists, immediately followed by the Napoleonic Wars. Again, in WW2, the national debt rose substantially.

It should also be borne in mind, however, that private debt was lower in those days, long before the existence of credit cards, mass mortgages and sophisticated bond markets.

High government debt crowds out private investment and undermines the economy. The aim of a successful administration is to target neutrality during the economic cycle: thus, during recession, when the tax-take diminishes, government spending will rise and the government will borrow. The reverse occurs when the economy booms.

There is another interesting consideration: when debt was successfully being paid down a decade ago, pension funds worried that they could not find sufficient long term secure investments to generate income for their pensioners/investors.

A certain level of government debt, which need not be large, does provide security for pension funds.

Q2: QE (Quantitative Easing) is described as the process of "creating" money. Surely the money "created" should be based on some tangible asset, the obvious example being gold? If creating money was the answer, you would continue printing money. The problem with this is that you end up requiring a barrow load of money to pay for the weekly groceries.

A: Governments can and do create money. To that extent, they differ from individuals. Money is an equivalent of a ticket of exchange.

Simplistically, if total production is 100 units and there are 100 tickets, then one unit will theoretically exchange for one ticket of production.

If production collapses, then those tickets of exchange will diminish in value and more will be required to absorb the remaining units.

Say, however, production doubles: in this scenario, if ticket circulation remains unchanged, then its value will rise and more units will be exchangeable for each ticket in circulation.

At this point, to reflect rising production, the number of tickets in circulation should also rise. This will avoid both deflation and inflation.

Whilst simplistic, similar considerations apply to money within an economy. To avoid both inflation and deflation it is necessary to ensure that money in circulation is calculated to reflect the production of goods and services and the annual growth thereof.

If money is created without any regard for production, then inflation will result – as is the case in Zimbabwe. Inflation transfers wealth from the prudent to the imprudent.

The gold standard maintains advantages in terms of price stability but there are drawbacks in terms of volatility and inflexibility. The topic of the gold standard and its pros and cons deserves a separate article.

Q3: Quantitative economics is likened to nationalist economics. Why is this?

A:  QE was introduced during the recent economic crisis.

In the run-up to the crisis, many banks borrowed monies from the international markets to finance their lending, which was well in excess of their depository base.

When interest rates rose, these banks found they were unable to meet their obligations and found no market for their newly created debt instruments, i.e. packages of loans to retail customers. This is what happened to Northern Rock.

Other banks, such as RBS, Lloyds and Barclays found it necessary to re-finance their balance sheets to prevent insolvency, with state aid provided in the case of RBS and Lloyds.

The result was a collapse in lending, massive de-leveraging as banks sought to repay their loans, and recession. Bloated asset prices, on which loans were secured, collapsed.

The backdrop is a little more complicated than this but the above presents a broad-brush description.

The government, via the Bank of England, therefore commenced QE, the process of injecting newly created electronic money, interest free and debt free. This was for the most part employed to purchase debt, i.e. gilt-edged stock and similar instruments from the money markets, creating demand for such debt and, hence, maintaining downward pressure on interest rates.

Many nationalists have complained that new money is created in the form of interest bearing loans and refer to the term ‘fractional reserve banking’.

In the instance of QE, new money has been created by the state, via the Bank of England, to lubricate the economy, reduce interest rates – to stimulate business – and obviate recession.

It is what a nationalist government would do, i.e. it would create new money in regulated circumstances, via Crown authority and so as not to create inflation. This holds many potential advantages.

In my earlier article, I made the simple point that no one has yet explained why, if this process of QE can operate in recession, then why cannot it also operate in a period of expansion?  This is a topic which must be explored.

Q4: Who owns the Bank of England?

A:   The Bank of England is owned by the government and, therefore, the citizens of the UK.

Is it Multiculturalism Which Has Failed? or rather the entire policy of mass Third World immigration?

Is it Multiculturalism Which Has Failed? 

The British National Party Newsroom 

French president Nicolas Sarkozy has also announced that “multiculturalism had failed,” echoing David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia's former prime minister John Howard and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar — but is it multiculturalism which has failed, or rather the entire policy of mass Third World immigration?

Much ado has been made of Mr Cameron’s recent announcement in this regard, and he has even been accused of “racism” and “stoking racial tension.”

However, a closer analysis of what Mr Cameron — and these other leaders — actually means by their statements reveals that they have not admitted that their policies of flooding European countries with Third World immigrants is wrong.

On the contrary.

What Mr Cameron and his ilk actually mean is that their policy of allowing separate cultures and identities to be maintained by immigrant groups after they moved to First World countries, is wrong.

In other words, Mr Cameron believes that the problem is that there has not been enough integration, and what is needed is even more mixing.

According to Mr Cameron, the problem only lies in the fact that these immigrants have not been forced to adopt First World culture, and have been allowed to continue with their Third World culture and traditions.

This bizarre worldview is the liberal mindset’s latest trick to try and explain why the policy which they have endorsed for the last 50 years — mass Third World immigration — has not led to peace and harmony, but rather social discord and the wholesale importation of Third World poverty, chaos and lately, even terrorism.

In his now ‘infamous’ speech in Munich last weekend, Mr Cameron claimed that “we must build stronger societies and stronger identities at home.  Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism.”

According to Mr Cameron, a “passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone.  It stands neutral between different values.”

And therein lies the rub.

The liberal mindset has claimed for the past 50 years that “diversity” would bring harmony and that “multiculturalism” was a good thing which would broaden peoples’ worldview and make them more tolerant.

The opposite has of course happened, as racial tensions have spiralled upwards in all First World nations subjected to this insanity.

Now, Mr Cameron has argued, that there must be a change. Immigrants, he said, must be “educated in the elements of a common culture and curriculum. It will also help build stronger pride in local identity, so people feel free to say, ‘Yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian, but I am also a Londonder or a Berliner too’. It’s that identity, that feeling of belonging in our countries, that I believe is the key to achieving true cohesion.”

Mr Cameron is wrong. It is not the lack of a “common identity” which is to blame for the disaster  which Britain and other First World nations face.

Rather, it is the policy of mass immigration itself which is the cause of the problem, not the maintenance of separate cultures by immigrant groups.

“Multiculturalism” is, of course, doomed to failure as well. But this is not, per se, the problem. The real danger facing Britain is not if there is a policy of multiculturalism, but rather if the indigenous British people continue to exist or not.

Multiculturalism is a disaster, but forced integration into a “common culture” which will see the British people extinguished, is a disaster of equally great proportions.

This is the truth, and no amount of chameleon-like distortions by the fraudster establishment politicians can disguise it.

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

USA Discovers Price of Mass Islamic Immigration

And Now, Americanistan: USA Discovers Price of Mass Immigration

 The British National Party Newsroom

The United States of America faces an unprecedented Islamist terrorist threat from Muslims born inside that country, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has announced.

 Recent Muslim immigrants in New York City pray every Friday on Madison Avenue.Speaking before a congressional Homeland Security Committee, Ms Napolitano said that the threat of terrorism in America is at "its most heightened state" since the September 11 attacks.

"The terrorist threat facing our country has evolved significantly in the last ten years — and continues to evolve — so that, in some ways, the threat facing us is at its most heightened state since those attacks," Ms Napolitano said.

“One of the most striking elements of today's threat picture is that plots to attack America increasingly involve American residents and citizens," she continued.

According to official statistics, at least 24 “Americans” have been arrested on terrorism charges in the past two years, and in the ten years since September 11, more than 50 Islamists arrested for their involvement in 32 high-profile terrorism plots were U.S. citizens at the time of their arrests, according to a study by the New York State Intelligence Center.

"[We] are now operating under the assumption, based on the latest intelligence and recent arrests, that individuals prepared to carry out terrorist attacks and acts of violence might be in the United States, and they could carry out acts of violence with little or no warning," Ms Napolitano added.

According to reports, FBI and Justice Department officials have reported a dramatic increase in the number of terrorism-related investigations and prosecutions involving U.S. residents since 2009.

News reports said that many of the suspects — including Najibullah Zazi, who plotted New York City subway bombings in September 2009, and Faisal Shahzad, the convicted would-be Time Square bomber — lived and worked for years inside the United States before preparing their attacks.

Just as in Britain, the blind liberals who lead the American government have failed to understand the most simple of basic truths: that if you import millions of Third Worlders and Muslims, you are merely importing Third World poverty, chaos and terrorism.

According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), there are around 7 million Muslims in America today. Of that number, approximately 24 percent are black, which means that over three quarters are of recent immigrant stock.

American immigration policy has therefore encouraged mass immigration from Muslim countries in the ten years since the 9-11 attacks, and now, as Ms Napolitano has revealed, America faces an internal Islamist terrorist threat.

The cause is so obvious as to be screaming, yet there are none so blind as liberals who refuse to see basic truths.

Barnsley – The Next Battle Nick Griffin MEP Chairmans Update

Barnsley – The Next Battle

Dear Fellow Patriot,

Another Labour party thief is caught red handed with his hands in the taxpayers’ till. Quite rightly he is losing his seat in Parliament, and our next by-election will soon be upon us.

Working closely with our hard-working Barnsley branch, we have selected a superb candidate – Enis Dalton, a professional trainer and well-known local community campaigner – to be our candidate in this high-profile election.

As a local girl, she is perfect for a constituency like Barnsley with its close-knit community. Predictably, Labour have parachuted in a candidate, from Hampshire.

Last year, at the General Election, the British National Party candidate polled 3,307 (8.9%) votes in Barnsley Central. With the party united behind Enis, and a strong local branch under dynamic organiser Ian Sutton leading the campaign, all we need to secure an excellent vote is the money to stand against Labour and run a really professional campaign.

We’ve already hit the ground running, with a fantastic total of 150 activists joining me and Enis Dalton on our first Day of Action. The whole constituency was blanket leafleted in just a few hours, with more specialised teams also out canvassing and using specially designed questionnaires to collect the information about what Barnsley voters really worry about. This information will allow us to tailor our message for maximum possible impact. We’re aiming to make this our most professional campaign ever.

“We need to remind voters that Labour are no friends of the people of Barnsley. They have betrayed us. The British National Party is now the true voice of the British people” – British National Party candidate, Enis Dalton.

Your help is always appreciated. All nationalists are required to assist in this battle. Please help us in any way you can. Come and join us on the streets, or send your most generous gift today. It is almost impossible to put a monetary target on this appeal for Barnsley, but every single penny you send will make a difference. You will help us confront the Labour thieves, raise public awareness and ensure that the British National Party become the true voice of Barnsley... because we’re in it for the long haul.

By working together, we will win the battle for local hearts and minds in Barnsley. Thank you for your continued and generous support. I know that Enis will appreciate your help as much as I do.
 

Yours faithfully,

Nick Griffin, MEP
Leader, British National Party

An Open Letter to the Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron MP

From: Dr Frank Ellis
To: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron MP
Date: 9th February 2011 A.D.

Re: The Prime Minister’s Speech at the Munich Security Conference February 2011 Concerning the Threat to Western Liberal Democracies by Islam and Islamic-Sponsored Terrorism

Dear Mr Cameron

I am writing to you in connection with the speech you delivered at the Munich Security Conference last week since its subject matter pertains not just to the security of the United Kingdom and other Western European states but also to the long-term survival of the indigenous population of this country itself: the ultimate security question.

You begin your speech by seeking to reassure fellow member NATO states that despite the dire condition of the UK economy Britain will continue to meet the NATO 2% defence-spending target. In general terms that is good. However, the standard government line notwithstanding – Labour as well as Tory – Britain is not made safer nor is our national security enhanced by the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan. The NATO presence in Afghanistan has, I believe, more to do with the nuclear ambitions of Iran.

Now, you begin your discussion of the terrorist threat in the UK by saying that some of these attacks are carried out ‘by our own citizens’ and that the perpetrators, Muslims, ‘are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens’ (my emphasis). But these Muslim terrorists do not regard me, us, as ‘their fellow citizens’. Indeed, they are correct: I am not one of ‘their fellow citizens’. Nor do I wish to be. Formally these people may have acquired a British passport but in what way can these people be regarded as ‘our own citizens’ when they live in parallel societies paid for by the white indigenous population and are at best indifferent to, and at worst murderously hostile, to the interests of the host indigenous population? If I went to live in Munich and started to make demands of indigenous Germans that they adapt to my folkways, habits and customs and threatened to kill them, would Germans regard me as one of their own? I doubt it.

True, Europe has suffered from terrorism before the arrival of Al Qaeda and its imitators. The key difference is however that groups such as The Angry Brigade (England) IRA (Northern Ireland), The Red Brigades (Italy), Direct Action (France) and Baader-Meinhof & RAF (West Germany) were all home-grown groups. People who were active in the IRA belong to the tribes of the British Isles. Muslims have no such claim. They are alien. Islamic terrorism would not be a problem in the United Kingdom had we maintained strict control over our borders and not permitted the huge influx of immigrants from Pakistan, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and Somalia. This was and remains a direct consequence of the cult of multiculturalism, a cult that preaches the poisonous view that, for example, sub-Saharan Africans have as much right to live in Britain as the white indigenous population.

You say that: ‘Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries’. Who exactly needs to wake up? Millions of people throughout Europe who over the last 40 years have seen their cities turned into Third World slums, who have witnessed, and suffered from, the relentless influx of immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, who have seen their institutions – police, armed forces, health services – corrupted by multiculturalism, who have seen their primary and secondary schools and universities turned into centres of politically correct indoctrination, where to be white, middle class, heterosexual and Christian is to suffer a constant stream of insults and barely concealed hatred, where, on the other hand, to be black or non-white is to enjoy special, protected-species status since non-whites are supposed to be bearers of some wonderful gift (referred to as diversity) and a source of great wisdom. Those of us all over Europe need no lectures from you Mr Cameron on what has been happening. If they are not exceptionally wealthy and have no choice but to endure the daily grind of commuting into our large cities or may actually have to live there, white people are confronted every day of their lives with the consequences of ‘vibrant multicultural diversity’ and have been for a long time. Take it from me they hate it and where possible they will avoid it all costs (white flight). If they work in the public sector and have large mortgages they will endure the consequences of the cult in silence, confiding their fears only to a trusted few.

All over Europe an unaccountable class of political-functionaries has sought to impose the alien cult of multiculturalism on the white indigenous populations. Your call that we need to stand up to Muslims - and it is not just Muslims – comes far too late and is, in any case, thoroughly dishonest. The danger to the white indigenous population posed by mass non-white immigration has been evident for a long time and politicians of all parties have either encouraged this process of dispossession or have been too cowardly to speak out in public. When, in his famous speech, Enoch Powell warned of what was to come he was mocked, derided and abandoned by people like you. The damage done to the indigenous population, its history, culture and future may now be irreversible. I pray to God that I am wrong; that it is not too late to save our nation.

Your attempts to distinguish between Islam as a religion of peace and Islamic terrorism are doomed to failure. Such is the overwhelming collectivist ethos of Islam and the complete absence of any respect for the dissenting individual that Muslims resident in this country who do not take part in acts of terrorism are not going to break ranks with the extremists. For Muslims the rule of law, free speech and liberal democracy are alien Western abstractions that mean very little. Given the choice between the rule of law, free speech and the civil society and Islam - in any shape or form - Muslims resident in this country will support the cause of Islam. There is no love for the British: we are just a source of welfare payments and material provision that would be impossible in Pakistan and Somalia (the reason immigrants come here).

You state the following: ‘It is vital that we make the distinction between religion on the one hand, and political ideology on the other. Time and again people equate the two’. Again, your attempt to separate religion from ideology is doomed to failure for the obvious reason that Islam, the ideology-religion, recognises no lay principle: it is all or nothing; it is Islam for the believers; Dhimmitude for the rest. Consequently, whatever action Western governments take to neutralise what they believe to be the purely political, ideological aspect of Islam, will always be interpreted as an attack on Islam as a whole. Indeed, such measures will be an attack on Islam as a whole since Islam does not recognise the division between state and civil society; the right of the individual to resist its collectivist ethos (just like communism incidentally).

The other factor that makes Islam a threat to the Christian West is the birth rate among Islamic immigrants resident in the West. The huge increase in the Muslim population throughout the West may well turn out to be the decisive factor that overwhelms the white indigenous population in their ancient lands, reducing them to a suppressed minority. In all the discussions about rising food prices, metals, access to water and productive farm land no one wishes to identify the real problem: specifically the reckless and unsustainable breeding of Third World Populations either in the Third World itself or in the Third World estates that Third-Worlders have been allowed to create in the First World.

You cite what has happened on the streets of Tunis and Cairo as an example of the compatibility of Western values and Islam: ‘hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy’. Middle-class, English-speaking protesters might well press the right buttons when interviewed by some BBC reporter but the underlying problem of Arab states and Sub-Saharan Africa is massive, out-of-control and unsustainable population growth. This is the Malthusian nightmare writ large and it is being played out all over the Third World. Egypt’s unemployed will remain unemployed (many of them are unemployable in any case). Hunger and hopelessness will gnaw at them. The results are predictable. Democracy and civil society are preposterous and irrelevant abstractions outside of Western Europe and will not feed people, certainly not in Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Where populations spiral out of control, as they are doing in so many parts of the world, violence, exacerbated by religious/ideological fanaticism, is inevitable.

Concerning multiculturalism in the United Kingdom you state the following:

Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

For the avoidance of any doubt your repeated exculpatory use of “we” does not include me and, I suspect, millions of other Britons. Your use of ‘we’ refers to the last Labour government and the xenophiles who sought to impose the anti-white racist cult of multiculturalism on the indigenous population. It is emphatically not the responsibility of the indigenous population ‘to provide a vision of a society to which they [immigrants] feel they want to belong’. If, according to you, the ‘we’ failed to provide this vision, then why did millions of Islamic immigrants join the first wave who could not find this ‘vision’? If they have no ‘vision of society to which they feel they want to belong’ why do they stay? Why not go home to Somalia, Waziristan and Sub-Saharan Africa? That these millions of immigrants have no ‘vision of society to which they feel they want to belong’ yet still stay in the Christian-infidel-infested wasteland of Britain suggests to me that their continued presence in Britain has everything to do with the fantastically generous welfare provision they receive (all the wives included) and absolutely nothing at all to do with any lack of ‘vision of society’.

You have been reported as saying that multiculturalism has failed. I see no clear statement of that in your speech at all. In fact, you claim that it is the indigenous population that has driven Muslims into their parallel societies. That you are still advocating some form of the cult is clear when you argue that ‘instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone’. National identity by its very nature is exclusive, partial and narrow. A national identity that is ‘open to everyone’ is not a national identity. National identity is determined by a combination of genetic, racial, cultural, psychological, geographical, linguistic and mental factors, tempered by the blows of history, by shared suffering in war and peace, by humiliation and glory, by the memory of those gone before. How can my English national identity be open to everyone? The answer is that it cannot. National identity that is open to everyone ceases to be a national identity; national identity that is open to everyone is just another way of promoting multiculturalism without using the m-word. In other words, it is a deceit, a ploy to disarm the critics of multiculturalism who have instinctively and rationally apprehended the cult’s national-identity-hating agenda all along. As an Englishman who still values his national identity I have no desire at all to share it with others. Do Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Japanese and Zulus want to share their national identity with me? Of course not: and why should they? It is their exclusive property.

Nor do immigrants wish to share their identity with white Europeans. When, in 2008, he addressed a large Turkish audience in Cologne, the Turkish Prime Minister, Reccep Erdogan was quite clear by what he understood on the question of integration. He told his audience: ‘I understand the sensitivity you show towards the question of assimilation. Nobody can expect that you tolerate assimilation. Nobody can expect that you submit yourself to assimilation. Then assimilation is a crime against humanity.’ Erdogan’s vision of how he expects Turks to behave in Europe is just one of a number of reasons why a Muslim non-European state such as Turkey can have no place at all in the EU.

You argue that Muslims are attracted to extremism from a sense of not belonging. Again you claim that this is the failure of ‘the wider society’. You might like to ask yourself why indigenous Britons - ‘the wider society’ - do not wish to engage with Muslims. Here are some of the reasons why indigenous, white Christian (or heathen) Britons want nothing to do with Islam: Tuesday 11th September 2001; Thursday 7th July 2005; suicide-homicide bombers; sharia; jihad; the obscene practice of female circumcision; so-called honour killings; stoning women to death; polygamy, the sexual grooming of white girls; extreme censorship; hatred of free speech; welfare parasitism; mosques; continuing, active terroristic hatred of white European host societies; and the cruel murders of Christians in the Middle East (and Turkey).

I am not convinced that you are serious about combatting the damage done by multiculturalism. If you are then the following measures should be taken:

(i). in the interests of clarity and in order to remove any remaining ambiguities you shall publicly state that multiculturalism has failed in the United Kingdom and that it shall no longer be promoted as policy, above all in education, so that white indigenous children are not denied their history, culture and national pride to which they are entitled and that where such subjects are taught they are not taught in away that denigrates the great achievements of Britain across the entire spectrum of human endeavour;

(ii). the government shall acknowledge that the Macpherson Report (1999) has had a disastrous effect on policing especially in large cities with large black populations and shall publicly disown the report’s central conclusions and recommendations;

(iii). the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 shall be repealed along with all other legislation which aims to stifle free speech under the banner of preventing ‘hate speech’ and which leads to the persecution of white critics of multiculturalism;

(iv). the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the successor body to the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), shall be disbanded immediately;

(v). the government shall set a limit on the number of immigrants skilled or otherwise, who are permitted to work in this country. The option of working in this country implies no right to citizenship;

(vi). the government shall make it clear in a statement that there shall be no amnesty for illegal immigrants currently resident in the United Kingdom;

(vii). the government shall issue a personal apology to Mr Ray Honeyford, the former Bradford headmaster who warned of the dangers of multiculturalism in1982 and who for his honesty and professional decency was vilified by xenophile extremists and abandoned;

(viii). with immediate effect the government shall ensure that efficient and relentless border control and surveillance (entry and departure) shall be implemented. Such measures will include the explicit use of racial profiling;

(ix). the government shall take all necessary measures to ensure that illegal immigrants are hunted down, rounded up and immediately deported. Where possible the government shall aggressively seek to recover the costs associated with the deportation from the illegal immigrants themselves: property, bank accounts, valuable metals (gold, platinum), cars and so on;

(x). those employers who employ illegal immigrants shall be subject to severe financial penalties and where judged appropriate terms of imprisonment;

(xi). the government shall remove all welfare payments from the huge underclass so that the recipients of state benefits are obliged to work (this removes or weakens the incentive from employers to hire illegal immigrants);

(xii). the government of the United Kingdom shall declare that under no circumstances will the creation of an independent Islamic/Muslim state ever be permitted within the territory of the United Kingdom;

(xiii). the government of the United Kingdom shall declare that the provisions of Sharia are incompatible with the legal, political and cultural traditions of the United Kingdom and that the exercise of Sharia shall not be permitted within the United Kingdom and that any of judgements as may be made by Sharia courts shall enjoy no legal or special cultural status;

(xiv) the government shall initiate an International Church and Mosque Comparison Study (ICMCS). The aim of ICMCS shall be to ascertain the status of Christian churches, artifacts and believers in all Muslim states and the degree to which Christians endure persecution and terror. ICMCS will pay very close attention to the status of Christianity in those states that provide the main Muslim immigrants currently resident in the United Kingdom. A key part of ICMCS will be to ascertain whether the number of mosques existing or planned in the United Kingdom is too high relative to the number of immigrants themselves and whether the number of Christian churches in the immigrant homelands is too low.

Finally, I challenge the Prime Minister David Cameron MP or a senior member of the government to debate multiculturalism and the challenge posed by Islam, immigration and related problems with me on prime time live television. The terms and conditions of any debate (time, format, audience selection; lighting, citing of cameras, among other things) shall be a matter of discussion and formal written agreement between Ellis, Cameron and the television broadcaster.

Yours sincerely

Frank Ellis

Bankrupt UK Dishes Out Half a Billion Pounds in Foreign Aid in First 5 Weeks of 2011

Bankrupt Britain Dishes Out Half a Billion Pounds in Foreign Aid in First 5 Weeks of 2011

  The British National Party Newsroom

Bankrupt Britain has dished out just on half a billion pounds in foreign aid in the first five weeks of 2011, as British taxpayers staggered under a wave of price and tax increases, job losses and cutbacks which threaten to put millions on the dole in this country.

The staggering foreign aid spend includes projects such as the “promotion of free trade in Africa” (£78 million); help to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon (£110 million); a tripling of aid to Somalia (in excess of £126 million); a £40 million donation to the world anti-polio initiative (set to become an annual donation); £134 million in aid to Pakistan; and £55 million in aid to the Sudan.

The grand total comes to £483 million, but when administration costs and logistics are factored in, the final cost to the British taxpayer will be well in excess of half a billion pounds.

The figures and details of the spending spree are contained in a series of press releases issued by the Department for International Development, all of which were of course ignored by the controlled media.

By way of comparison, England's university budgets have been cut by £449 million, which will cause student places to be reduced by an estimated 6,000 in the next academic year.

Teaching budgets in Britain have been reduced by £215 million, while research funding has been frozen and the buildings budget has been cut by £562 million, or 25 percent.

The spending cuts, supposedly to “bring the deficit” under control are so far-reaching that even flood defence systems in Britain have been cut – ironic when it is considered that a large amount of the foreign aid paid out to Pakistan recently has gone to flood relief aid.

According to the Environment Agency, 20 percent of houses in Britain are “at risk of flooding” but more than 1,000 major flood defence projects in Britain have had their funding cut as a result of “budget cutbacks.”

From figures published by the Office National Statistics in October last year, UK public sector net debt was £952.8 billion or 64.6 percent of National Gross Domestic Product (GDP ).

The PBR (annual government borrowing) forecast for 2010/11 is for net borrowing of £149 billion, or 12.6 percent of GDP.

This means that each month, the Government is set to borrow in excess of £12 billion just to stay afloat: and of this, it seems, at least half a billion (and possibly more) is then spent on foreign aid.

EU Fishing Quotas: Discard Usable Fish Policy Scandal

EU Fishing Quotas: Discard Policy Scandal

  Martin Wingfield   Nick Griffin MEP Euro News  

FEBRUARY 2011: Nick Griffin's speech in the European Parliament on the fishing industry at the end of last year certainly struck a chord with his constituents.

 Back then. the MEP for the North West of England told fellow MEPs.
"Britain´s home waters have been fished to near extinction under European Fisheries policies.
"The reality is the protection of fish stocks is best left to local fishermen and national government marine scientists, not EU bureaucrats.
"The advice from the men working in the broken remnants of Britain´s fishing fleets is simple: Scrap quota systems that lead to discards and highgrading (right), and replace them with weight-based catch limits so that all fish caught are landed for human consumption or for processing into animal and fish feed."
Now the issue is being raised again thanks to Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall's "Big Fish Fight"programme.
Hugh is campaigning to stop the fish being thrown back into the sea because of the European Union's "fish quotas".
"Please support this campaign," a constituent from Rossendale in Lancashire asks Nick.
"Trawlers are throwing back nearly three-quarters of their catch into the North Sea DEAD. Tonnes and tonnes of prime cod is being killed for no reason. Please get the European Parliament to stop this madness."
Responding on behalf of Nick Griffin, Constituency Office manager Tina Wingfield wrote:
"Anyone with an ounce of common sense must realise that it is an absolute scandal that every day, half the fish caught in the North Sea are thrown back dead. That is almost a million tonnes of edible fish every year simply wasted as a consequence of EU supposed “conservation” measures.
"Discarding is not limited to the North Sea. According to EU figures, between 40% and 60% of all fish caught by trawlers in 2007 were discarded. Fishermen, constantly struggling to earn a decent living, are forced to waste much of their catch because of the quotas imposed on many species of fish.
"Mr Griffin and the British National Party have campaigned against this nonsensical EU discard policy for many years, so it is encouraging to see the issue now firmly on the political agenda.
"The long-term solution to this problem is clear: national control over our own fishing industry must be restored, and the only way to achieve this is for Britain to withdraw from the European Union.
"In the meantime however, action must to taken to safeguard the immediate future of Britain’s beleaguered fishing businesses. Following discussions with fishermen, Mr Griffin and his fellow British National Party MEP, Andrew Brons, have identified four key priorities which must be addressed. The most immediate priority is to resist any reduction in the number of days they are allowed to fish from 135 days. The drastic 90-day proposal favoured by Brussels Eurocrats would certainly sound the death knell for many British fleets, but any reduction could drive trawler businesses onto the rocks.
"Any reduction in species quotas must also be opposed and the immoral policy of discarding “over-quota” fish must be ended. A fourth priority is to end the clandestine speculation in quotas which increases prices and reduces profit margins for trawler owners. Quotas should only be sold to trawler owners.
"Please be assured that your British National Party MEPS will be campaigning vigorously within the European Parliament to try to revise the Common Fisheries Policy so that it reflects - to some degree at least - a sensible and sustainable fishing

St George's Day celebrations in Manchester have been hijacked and Made Politicaly Correct

St George's Day celebrations in Manchester have been hijacked

  Martin Wingfield

 FEBRUARY 2011: 
MANCUNIANS are upset that the city's traditional St George's Day celebrations have been scrapped and replaced by a Caribbean-style street parade led by a black puppet portraying England’s patron saint!

 Clergy at Manchester Cathedral are even changing the date of England's national day from April 23rd to Sunday 8th of May, and instead of the traditional patriotic bunting and street parties are holding for festival of puppets and poets with a carnival procession and jazz music.
Canon Andrew Shanks, from the cathedral, said he and other churchmen wanted to help ‘rebrand’ St George’s Day by depicting the saint as a young black man cutting free the restraints of a pitiful dragon (right).
This hasn't gone down well with some of the city's residents who have written to their MEP to complain.
"What has it come to when our own church tells us to be ashamed of our Englishness and instead to celebrate the occupation of our country by people who have arrived here from the other side of the world within my lifetime," said one lady.
"I had always hoped that one day the British people would wake up to what has happened to their country and that the English would be the people to lead the Scots, Welsh and Irish in the campaign to reclaim it.
"Let's hope that this hi-jacking of St George's Day stirs the English people of Manchester at the very least," she said.
Nick's constituency office has received more than twenty emails and letters on this issue so far, and as news of the scrapping of the traditional festival gets more widely publicised, you can guarantee that there will be many more!

Nick Griffin MEP joins the battle to save Liverpool Coastguard Station

MEP joins the battle to save coastguard station

FEBRUARY 2011: Nick Griffin MEP Euro News
RESPONDING to requests for help from coastguards across his North West constituency, Nick Griffin has written to the Ministry of Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) raising his concerns over the possible closure of Liverpool's Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre. 

 A recent MCA consultation document has revealed the intention to close 10 of the current 18 coastguard stations throughout the UK including .
The station at Crosby in Liverpool covers a vast area which includes the whole northwest of England, the Isle of Man, parts of Scotland and Wales.
This is not the first time Liverpool coastguard has been earmarked for closure.
In 1999, the station was under threat, but a campaign by staff at the MRCC halted the planned closure although the MCA did close three other coastguard stations in other parts of Britain.
A Transport Select Committeee report on "The Work of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency" published  on 18th July 2004, clearly states in para 64 that "it is unacceptable to contemplate further closures when there has been no full assessement of the closures already made."
Nick Griffin has written to Mr Mike Penning MP (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport) and Vice-Admiral Sir Alan Massey (Chief Executive, Maritime and Coastguard Agency), outlining his concerns with regard to the changes proposed and pointing out that cost-cutting alone should not be the pre-eminent driver of change and that over-zealous efficiency measures must never over-ride emergency response effectiveness.
In his letter he said:
"I have read your Consultation Document on Modernising the Coastguard, which of course potentially affects many of my constituents in North West England. In general I welcome the broad outlines of these changes proposed to equip H.M. Coastguard to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.
There are, however, a number of issues which in my view raise concern, and merit, therefore, further consideration.
Firstly, cost savings to the long-suffering British taxpayer achieved through increases in efficiency are always most welcome. However in a vital service such as this it is essential that cost savings are not seen as a pre-eminent driver of change.
As you rightly observe, the number of incidents with which this Service is expected to have to deal is likely to increase, as is the potential seriousness of these incidents as vessels get bigger and our waters grow more congested with shipping and offshore installations such as wind farms in, potentially, worsening weather conditions.
I need not, I am sure, point out that if excessively zealous cost-cutting leads to just one additional major pollution incident in our coastal waters, the consequent clean-up costs will exceed many times over any savings achieved, to say nothing of less easily quantifiable environmental damage.
To this end, I believe that all possible steps should be taken to avoid losing the services of any more experienced Coastguard Officers than is absolutely necessary, and would ask you to endeavour seriously to confine redundancies to administrative staff only.
Secondly, in any centralisation of emergency coverage to fewer and further away Operations Centres, as proposed, it is essential that local knowledge is not lost. I am familiar with the consequences of this adversely affecting my constituents in another Emergency Service.
When the Ambulance Service was reorganised on broadly similar lines to those you propose, 999 calls for Cumbria were transferred to a call centre outside of the county. The result was a marked and potentially life-threatening decline in service. This was in many cases due to the new call centre staff being unfamiliar with the geography and in some cases the dialect of Cumbria. An ambulance called to attend in Wigton, Cumbria, for example, was sent in error to Wigtown, Dumfries and Galloway, many miles away.
H.M Coastguard needs to study and learn from this and similar reorganisations in other emergency services - including the Fire Service "FiReControl" project the new Government has decided to scrap, citing similar concerns to those which have been widely expressed about this reorganisation.
If it is decided to proceed as planned, I would suggest that the new structure makes full use of the local expertise of the increased number of Coastal Safety Officers, who I understand are intended to provide 24/7 cover. Perhaps the local Coastal Safety team member on watch could be included in the handling of 999 and other urgent calls? The Maritime Operations Centre staff receiving such a call could if required telephone the appropriate local Coastal
Safety Officer on call and include him/her and the caller in a phone conference loop so the caller would be able to talk to someone with detailed local knowledge. This would undoubtedly in some cases make a potentially vital difference to the swift and effective resolution of the incident.
I would add that I particularly welcome the additional support you propose to be provided by local professional Coastguard officers to the local volunteer Coastguard Rescue teams.
Thirdly, I feel that if a choice must be made between Liverpool and Belfast as the site of a Maritime Operations Sub-Centre, Liverpool is significantly preferable. Liverpool is a larger port than Belfast, and is once again expanding after a long period of decline, notably as a result of proposals to use it as a significant port of call for cruise liners as well as cargo shipping.
Unlike Belfast, which is geographically isolated from other significant ports, Liverpool is near for example Birkenhead, Fleetwood and Heysham and well placed to offer additional support if needed to Holyhead. Also Northern Ireland has - for good reason I agree - received a disproportionate amount of public expenditure and public sector employment in recent years, and it is surely time to redress the balance in favour of another economically challenged area, Merseyside. I must therefore firmly oppose any proposal to close the existing MRCC at Crosby rather than incorporating it into the new structure."

British National Party Chairmans Update - Barnsley the Next Battle

Barnsley the Next Battle

Written by Nick Griffin MEP

February 2011

Dear Fellow Patriot, Another Labour party thief is caught red handed with his hands in the taxpayers’ till. Quite rightly he is losing his seat in Parliament, and our next by-election will soon be upon us. Working closely with our hard-working Barnsley branch, we have selected a superb candidate – Enis Dalton, a professional trainer and well-known local community campaigner – to be our candidate in this high-profile election. As a local girl, she is perfect for a constituency like Barnsley with its close-knit community. Predictably, Labour have parachuted in a candidate, from Hampshire. Last year, at the General Election, the British National Party candidate polled 3,307 (8.9%) votes in Barnsley Central. With the party united behind Enis, and a strong local branch under dynamic organiser Ian Sutton leading the campaign, all we need to secure an excellent vote is the money to stand against Labour and run a really professional campaign. We’ve already hit the ground running, with a fantastic total of 150 activists joining me and Enis Dalton on our first Day of Action. The whole constituency was blanket leafleted in just a few hours, with more specialised teams also out canvassing and using specially designed questionnaires to collect the information about what Barnsley voters really worry about. This information will allow us to tailor our message for maximum possible impact. We’re aiming to make this our most professional campaign ever. “We need to remind voters that Labour are no friends of the people of Barnsley. They have betrayed us. The British National Party is now the true voice of the British people” – British National Party candidate, Enis Dalton. Your help is always appreciated. All nationalists are required to assist in this battle. Please help us in any way you can. Come and join us on the streets, or send your most generous gift today. It is almost impossible to put a monetary target on this appeal for Barnsley, but every single penny you send will make a difference. You will help us confront the Labour thieves, raise public awareness and ensure that the British National Party become the true voice of Barnsley... because we’re in it for the long haul. By working together, we will win the battle for local hearts and minds in Barnsley. Thank you for your continued and generous support. I know that Enis will appreciate your help as much as I do. Yours faithfully, Nick Griffin, MEP Leader, British National Party You can donate to the British National Party on their site here. The British National Party’s national organiser, Adam Walker, has called for urgent ‘instant’ demonstrations against convicted thief Labour MP Eric Illsley for tomorrow afternoon