The Art of Deception

The Art of Deception

Written by The Pilgrim

October 2011

We are surrounded by deception. It can take various forms. Dishonesty is one form, another is concealing facts. When the murder of British citizens by immigrants is reported only in local or maybe regional newspapers, then that is a form of deception. It is only when such murders are reported nationally that the British people begin to realise the grim truth. Sometimes deception can be innocent. This occurred to me when I read about a BBC radio bulletin from 1926. It was a carefully rehearsed spoof news broadcast, which claimed that Britain was in the grip of a Bolshevik revolution. Nevertheless, many people thought it was a genuine news report. A similar situation arose in the USA in 1938, when a radio dramatisation of the novel The War of the Worlds by the British author H G Wells took the form of a simulated news bulletin. The result was widespread panic, followed by a mixture of relief and anger when people realised it was all a spoof. H G Wells had a flair for deception. He discovered that many people would believe a story to be true if it were written in a matter-of-fact way. Perhaps his most mischievous example of this was the short story The Sea Raiders. Take a moment to read it; it isn’t very long. In case marine biology is not your strong point, a cephalopod is any creature of a class which includes octopi and squid, and a cachalot is a sperm whale. If you find this impressive, remember that it is entirely innocent. Wells did not have some grand plan for brainwashing people into believing in non-existent sea monsters. Unfortunately many people nowadays do have grand plans, and we need to be on our guard. The 1995 film Toy Story was an innocent frolic, and introduced millions of people to the wonders of computer animation. However computer animation is a powerful weapon in the war of ideas. Surprising as it may seem, the murder of British student Meredith Kercher was reported as far afield as Taiwan, where one television company went so far as to make a short animated film about it. Take a look. The animation begins at around the twenty second mark. Did you spot the mistakes? The first scene shows Amanda Knox enjoying a drink with Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede in the apartment she shared with Meredith Kercher. If we overlook the facts that Knox and Sollecito deny having been in the apartment on the evening of the murder and that Sollecito denies ever having known Rudy Guede, then the fact remains that they are shown sitting on a three-seater sofa, whereas the apartment had only a two-seater sofa. Try watching it a second time, but first take a look at this detailed plan of the apartment. The next scene is in Meredith’s bedroom, and shows an alleged altercation leading to the murder. The room is shown incorrectly, and that’s putting it mildly. For example, the door is shown in the centre of the wall, and adjacent to a wardrobe. The door was actually in the corner of the room, and the wardrobe was in the opposite corner. The third scene is in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli, which is also shown incorrectly. The fourth scene shows Sollecito and Guede breaking the window of Filomena’s bedroom from the outside, and this is so inaccurate as to make me wonder if the people who made the film did any research whatever. The house in question (number 7 Via della Pergola) is set into a steep hillside, and the window is a long way above ground level. Also, the doors to the left hand side and the bay window to the right hand side are imaginary. I have no doubt however that a lot of Taiwanese people who saw this film when it was first broadcast believed that it depicted what actually happened on that fateful night. I am not suggesting that the people who made this film deliberately intended to misrepresent what happened, but that is not really the point. The point is that computer animation can be used to misrepresent actual events, and that can easily be misused for propaganda purposes. Suppose for example that this animated film had shown Guede as a white man instead of a black man. On a positive note, computer animation is not the hardest skill to master, and the software can be purchased easily at no great cost. Maybe it is time that people in the nationalist community began to look into the possibilities afforded by computer animation. In the right hands it can be used to educate and inspire, rather than to deceive.

Intelligent Response to Cameron's October (2011) Immigration Speech

Response to Cameron's October (2011) Immigration Speech

From: Dr Frank Ellis To: Mr David Cameron, Prime Minister MP Date: 12th October 2011 A.D. Re: The Prime Minister’s Speech on Immigration delivered to the Institute of Government 10th October 2011 Dear Mr Cameron Mass immigration is not a natural disaster akin to some tsunami, drought or earthquake that periodically and unpredictably overwhelms a country. Mass immigration is a purely man-made phenomenon which is encouraged openly or covertly by people who benefit from it economically or by people who for ideological reasons wish to see England looking like some failed Third-World state, Pakistan, for example. Mass immigration, especially mass non-white immigration, poses real dangers for the future of England. The idea that England can survive the mass, continual influx of hundreds of thousands of non-white immigrants is hideously naïve. As the white indigenous people of England are relentlessly displaced by the rapid and aggressive breeding of non-whites, the whole texture and nature of our towns and cities will be changed forever, is already changing, and, in some places, Bradford, Birmingham, whole swathes of London, have already changed for the worse. I do not regard these huge, unprecedented changes, changes which were imposed on the white indigenous English without any consultation or any regard for England’s future, with no regard for the links to our past and heritage, as in any way beneficial. In every possible regard they are disastrous. As I have made clear to you before the changes brought about by mass, non-white immigration represent the racial, cultural, physical and psychological dispossession of the white indigenous English. In what way, pray tell, do the indigenous English, especially those left in London, benefit from having their capital, my capital, overrun with non-whites? The short answer is that they do not benefit from being overrun by non-whites. They suffer from overcrowding, reduced quality in public services, noise, freakish behaviour, poor education provision as a consequence of schools overrun with immigrants, exceptionally high levels of crime and corruption and high taxes to pay for foreigners. Moreover, they are daily bombarded with BBC and other state-sponsored propaganda that they should actually be grateful for all these non-white immigrants being here. Furthermore, should the white indigenous English protest about what is happening to their country, they will be vilified as something monstrous when in fact their opposition to being dispossessed is entirely rational and moral, in every way normal. What is not normal, what is perverse, what is most decidedly unnatural is that white politicians such as you Mr Cameron are actively encouraging hordes of non-whites currently resident in England, and others swarming across our borders, to overwhelm our country. Mass, non-white immigration has not delivered a single benefit at all to the white indigenous English. Your portrayal of the immigration debate as one dominated by extremes is itself extreme (and wrong) and designed to show you as the conciliator, the moderate with sensible proposals when in fact you have a long record of colluding with those who have sponsored mass non-white immigration. Some form of immigration subject to exceptionally tough controls is acceptable but the numbers involved should be very small indeed and it should be made clear that employment in England does not in any way imply a right to permanent residence. There are absolutely no benefits to be derived from the mass influx of unemployable Third-World immigrants. One of the main problems, especially with regard to Indian and Pakistani immigrants is the reliability of any qualifications. In the NHS this can literally be a matter of life and death or lead to operations which are bungled because they are carried out by incompetents. Remember Daniel Ubani, the Nigerian with a German passport? Ever heard of the Indian, Manjit Bhamra? One of the weak links in your immigration proposal is that you show no understanding of the race factor. Race and race differences matter and they cannot be made not to matter by government diktat. Nor can endless race relations laws and amendments deny the basic consequences of race and race differences. Large numbers of non-whites in a white country will always be a permanent source of tension and very often violence. We see the evidence for this all over the world. That for most of her history our England has been racially homogenous has been a great blessing. Racial diversity is a curse. As the number of non-whites increases, as it has done grotesquely over the last 30 years, so the racial, social and economic stresses become ever harder to hide or to deny. Blacks engaging in looting and rapine are just obvious and visible examples of how mass, non-white immigration has failed and how the white population bears the costs, economic, cultural and psychological. Immigration is not just about the on-going immigrant threat to England it must also face the problem of those who have come here in large numbers and who have managed to secure a British passport. They have come here and wish to stay because they enjoy a standard of living in a First-World economy that would be impossible in Pakistan or Africa. If the numbers involved were exiguous and all further non-white immigration was almost impossible except for a highly-qualified and suitable few then all the legitimate fears and worries about immigration would disappear. That the rational, logical, healthy and morally reasonable fears of the white English indigenous people with regard to mass, non-white immigration show no sign whatsoever of abating is because the problems associated with mass, non-white immigration – crime, corruption, child abuse, depraved honour killings and forced marriages violence, physical dispossession and overcrowding/overpopulation – are getting worse. On these trends the English will be reduced to a racial minority in their own country some time in this century. Do you really want that outcome for your children Mr Cameron? Immigration policy must therefore deal with two problems: one immediate; the other long term. The threat posed to England by mass, non-white immigration is largely a consequence of immigrants exploiting legal instruments which oblige us to accept them. The obvious first step is to rescind all legislation that prevents or hinders the expulsion of immigrants. Your view, Mr Cameron, that ‘Britain will always be open to those who are seeking asylum from persecution’ is an outrageous proposition and one that has done so much to make it possible for immigrants to enter England under false pretences. It leaves us permanently vulnerable to events in other parts of the world over which we have no control but which when they lead to political collapse mean that we are obliged to permit hordes of so-called asylum seekers (criminals and illegal immigrants) to enter England and “enrich” us. This is something that must change if we are to have any chance of saving England. Leaving the EU must also be a very high priority. The immediate problem is to prevent all further immigration. It must be a matter of the highest priority to hunt down, round up and to deport all illegal immigrants. If they have assets these can be seized to cover the costs of deportation. The next step is make it clear to non-whites currently resident in this country, especially blacks, that they shall not be permitted to enjoy any special status merely because they are non-whites. If large numbers of blacks are incarcerated, having been subjected to the due process of English law then that must be seen as an indication of a black predisposition to commit crime not some insidious racist plot as in the Marxist slander of institutional racism. Again, black educational failure reflects low mean black IQ – well documented – not a white conspiracy. Blacks will have to learn to live with their limitations. Whites are not responsible for black failure and the psychological terror aimed at whites, often by other whites, to make white society feel guilty for black failure should be dismissed out of hand. The next step is to recognise that the welfare state has created a massive parasitic underclass. People who refuse to provide services in return for welfare handouts should be denied any money at all and housed in government hostels where they will receive basic survival provision and no more. This means a bed, basic food and a roof. For those who show willing there will be firmness but fairness and maybe at times some warmth. Those that riot can expect ruthless counter measures to restore order and discipline. Respect, dignity, status, self-esteem, a sense of achievement cannot be donated by charity: they have to be earned. The only politician in England who grasps these facts of life is Frank Field, a very honourable and decent man. Other measures some of which I noted earlier this year can also be taken. First, long term, every effort must be made to encourage large numbers of non-whites to return to their own countries. Generous financial benefits and inducements can be made to encourage repatriation. Second, under no circumstances must there ever be an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Third, under no circumstances will the creation of an independent Islamic/Muslim state ever be permitted within the territory of the United Kingdom. Fourth, the provisions of Sharia are grossly incompatible with the legal, political and cultural traditions of England and shall not be permitted. Fifth, family migration cannot be used as an excuse to bring relatives to this country. People who cannot bear to be separated from their families should not separate themselves from their wife (wives) in Pakistan. That these individuals are allegedly in search of a better life is an irrelevance, an emotional red herring, and imposes no obligation, moral or legal, on England to end this self-induced separation. When you say - ‘immigration is not just about people coming to live here for a while. Some will want to settle and then join us as fellow British citizens…’- you ignore one very important consideration. Do I, as a white Englishman, want these people to join me? What happens when I emphatically do not want these people to join me? How can millions of non-white immigrants just ‘join me’? The answer is they cannot and they must not be encouraged to believe that they are welcome to ‘join us’. I do not want to have to endure the psychologically distressing sight of English cities overrun with immigrants. And it is not just the cities that face invasion. The next attack wave to hit white England, currently being planned by your government, is the calculated destruction and concreting of the countryside, including the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and National Parks. The aim here is to impose thousands of non-white immigrants on areas which have so far escaped them. And when your party has managed to tear up the planning laws – not a perfect legal instrument by any means – and given the red light to rapacious developers, what will be the result? The result will be hundreds of thousands of shoddy, high-density, anti-social housing units in the countryside. For the first time there is now the real risk that mosques, hitherto confined to cities, will appear in the countryside. It is a truly dreadful thought. The long term problems will be racial tension, soaring council taxes, more crime, certainly more violent crime and Third-World squalor in England’s ancient shires. And when hordes of blacks imported to Ludlow, Ripon, and why not Witney, as part of government policy, start to engage in a bit of looting and violence, because that is what they do in the hood, the liberals will explain this degenerate behaviour as arising from a lack of opportunities for ‘young black people’ in a market town: the rioters were alienated and misunderstood; it’s not the fault of the ‘young black people’. The final result of permitting the developers to run riot and to build these shanty towns will be the destruction of a priceless asset. So Mr Cameron: it really is time to stop the talking, posing, the endless consulting and act. Yours sincerely Frank Ellis

Tescos, Hoodies, And Cultural Sensitivity

Posted at BNP Ideas on Oct 2011

By Southwest Nationalist. “My main gripe is that after removing my hood a woman I believe to be of Somalian descent, although I cannot confirm the nationality, entered the store with a garment wrapped entirely around her face, disabling clear visibility of any features or likeness” – Dominic Folwell after being asked to remove his hood at Tescos Express on Cathedral Walk, Bristol.

Of course, it’s one rule for one group, another rule for everyone else.

Tesco’s response to Mr Folwells complaint confirms it, with Customer Service Executive Fiona Black saying that “Although I do appreciate it may be infrequently, hoodies can act as a disguise in crime which is why we ask that they are removed so as to avoid the potential cause for alarm. It may appear to be inconsistent that we do not ask someone wearing a veil to take it off, but we wish to show sensitivity to the faith and culture of the individual concerned”.

That old chestnut sensitivity, how often is that one trotted out to excuse what is, in reality, discrimination given a positive sounding spin?

For the benefit of Tescos, we should also point out that numerous armed robberies and other crimes across the UK and the world by people wearing a burka/veil – the first to spring to mind is the robbery of Capri Jewellers in Bury, where one of a gang gained access by wearing a full veil which showed only his eyes.

Another is the knife wielding robber who was dubbed the ‘Burka Bandit’ after robbing several travel agents in Dunstable whilst wearing a burka as a disguise.

Or the case of Mustaf Jama, killer of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, who seemingly donned a burka as a disguise to evade security at Heathrow airport and flee to Somalia.

We speculated on South West Nationalists a few months ago that the burka could well become the new hoody for criminals everywhere – good old sensitivity gives a better than average chance of getting away with any crime, it’s not like the police will ask you to reveal your face unless they are already 100% certain and have you bang to rights anyway.

It’s a minefield for police, they’ll tread softly, officers on the beat know exactly what will happen if they get it wrong and force some innocent Muslim woman to yank off her veil in public/detain her so they can do it in private.

Hoodies can be a disguise, one has to agree with Tescos there. But, so can burkas. And, both can be intimidating, either for security reasons or simply because facial expressions are a fundamental part of social interaction in the West.

Sensitivity is that hideous word which hides hidden depths of meaning. We’ll not apply rules equally because we have to be sensitive to one group, we know if we tried applying the rules to that group there’d be an outcry, we are scared to go near in case accused of racism or intolerance or some other heinous crime.

In the Bristol case above, apparently the security guard who asked Dominic Folwell to take off the hoody has been removed from his job, seemingly over Mr Folwells claim of discrimination.

Am I the only one to feel sorry for the security guard, who was in a lose/lose situation? The outcome would have been the same if he’d asked the ‘Somalian’ woman to remove her facial coverings also, or refused her entry to the shop, you know store bosses would have hung him out to dry the moment that complaint about his ‘lack of sensitivity’ landed on their desk.

All could have been avoided if shops just had a clear policy – if we can’t see your face you don’t come in, or anything goes and it’s up to you. Anything else just panders to minority, and creates situations where discrimination is endorsed.

Dressing things up in the clothes – full faced veil? – called sensitivity doesn’t change the fact that what it really means is that some groups are exempt from rules which will apply to the rest of us, they receive a different and preferential treatment. How is that not discrimination?

Biased BBC Fantasy and the Balkanisation of Britain.

BBC Fantasy and the Balkanisation of Britain.

Written by Tim Heydon

We told them so One of the wonders of our present age is the mysterious manner in which Lefists / Liberals manage to cling on to their belief that mass immigration and multiracialism is working out just fine in our country. The races, they think, or wish us to think, are getting along swimmingly. Thus, as the captive audience of the BBC will be aware, this repository of the pure flame of Cultural Marxism has been running a ‘mixed race’ season presented by their tame Tamil frontsperson, George Alagaiah. Blacks and Asians were, it was indicated by a smiling George, interbreeding with whites in line with the apparent plan to extinguish the evil, hated white race from the face of the earth. ‘Race’ no longer matters much when it comes to picking a partner, indicated our George. Three Children from Three Racially Different Fathers As he said this, the cameras moved immediately to a woman who, we were told, had children by three different fathers, all of them of different races. This female, whose undiscriminating behaviour (in more ways than one) we were invited to approve of, was the very type of the post modern individual favoured by the BBC. ‘I teach my children different religions’ she said, as if the truth or otherwise of them was of no greater importance than who she copulated with. As none of the assorted fathers of these children was in evidence, we may hazard a well-educated guess that it is we the taxpayers who are funding this ‘single mother’s’ ‘lifestyle choice’, about which we are not allowed to be ‘judgemental’ and that it is because her priority is to keep the benefit money flowing that she is so careless as to who she allows herself to be impregnated by on such a regular basis. Phil Mitchell – Racist? Meanwhile back at that source of endless lies about the true nature of race relations and other PC matters in London, ’East Enders’, we were expected to believe that an individual like Phil Mitchell would be distressed by being called a ’racist’. Having lived with and around what might loosely be called East Enders for most of long life, your writer can vouch for the fact that most of them would be indifferent to such an appellation and many would consider it a badge of honour. The greater lie of course is that in the real world most of the Phil Mitchells and their families are living in places like Romford, Dagenham, Barking, Basildon, Southend, Waltham Cross and Enfield, having been ethnically cleansed from the East End by Labour’s housing policy which favoured immigrants. The truth though is that they would have left heavily immigrant areas anyway. There can be few real East Enders who would willingly want to live (for example) along the Mile End Road Aldgate or parts of the A12 into London, which might just as well be Karachi or some other sub-continental city. In the real World, London becomes Johannesburg The truth of race relations in London and elsewhere is to be found in the remarks of David Levin, the apparently Jewish Head Master of the prestigious City of London School. Levin said in a speech at the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference that Britain was becoming a ‘silo society’ as many young people never leave their own housing estate or mix with children from different racial or religious backgrounds. A recent report found that schools in Manchester were largely split on racial lines. More than 8 in 10 Pakistani or Bangladeshi pupils attend school where fewer than 20 per cent of children are white. Levin went on that he grew up in South Africa ‘where apartheid was imposed and people had to live in different areas. Increasingly I am alarmed at the way London is divided into ghettos….I think London is sleepwalking towards Johannesburg, the ghettoisation of the community’. The Balkanisation of London shows the Truth. London the Racial and Cultural Melting Pot is a Lie This Balkanisation of London and other cities shows quite clearly that the Left – Liberal dream of our country as a ‘melting pot’ churning out ‘coffee – coloured people by the score’ is a myth, notwithstanding some undoubted miscegenation, mainly among the white underclass. People prefer their own sort as they always have done and will do their best to live and work amongst them if they can manage it. No amount of leftist propaganda to the contrary from the BBC and other cultural Marxist organisations is going to change that, at least, not easily and not for a long, long time. In fact It is probable, if the model of other multiracial societies across the world is anything to go by that eventually Britain will arrange itself socially in the form of a racial hierarchy, split also geographically by race. Brazil: The Racial Social Hierarchy of the ‘Model Multiracial Society’ For example, Brazil is often held up by multiculti enthusiasts as the perfect example of a multiracial society, The Brazilian sociologist Gilberto Freyre said BBC fashion in 1945 (p9) that ‘race relations in Brazil are probably the nearest approach to paradise to be found anywhere in the world’. Other sociologists asserted that Brazil had ‘a non-racist national culture in which ‘racial democracy’ flourished (Winant 1990 p174). However subsequent UNESCO research ‘documented as never before the prevalence of racial discrimination’ (Winant 190 p175) and found that Afro-Brazilians remained overwhelmingly concentrated at the lowest economic level and that negative attitudes to a dark skin were widespread.’ A number of others have noted a socio-economic status hierarchy related to skin colour in Brazil, eg ‘lighter skin colour carries prestige’ (Banton 1967 p265) ‘the higher the job rank, the lighter the skin is likely to be ;’ (Sansone 2000 p152, ) etc etc. The Racial Nature of the Brazilian Socio- Economic is Reflected World- Wide. So why should Britain be different? The socio-economic racial gradation in Brazil reflects the gradation apparent just about everywhere and follows the average IQ gradient of the respective races (Lynn, The Global Bell Curve 2008 pp 63-81). East Orientals (In this case the Japanese) are at the top followed by Europeans, then Mulattos (including mestizos and Amerindians) with Blacks (as always) at the bottom. This is despite the fact that the Japanese arrived in Brazil as indentured farm labourers. ‘Within a generation most of them became owner farmers. They prospered because they were more than eight times as productive as their Brazilian counterparts…. In the second half of the twentieth century ‘Japanese vertical mobility was rapid and most were… able to rise into the middle class in both rural and urban areas,’ (Dwyer and Lovell 1990, p188) Whole cities in Brazil – where much of the increasing wealth of that country is produced – are now largely Japanese. The Moral Case for a Racially, Culturally and Religiously Homogenous State. The great damage done to our society by the influx of immigrants and the multiculturalisation that has followed it in terms of social disintegration and dislocation and the addition of a toxic racial dimension to the socio-economic hierarchies is a surely overwhelmingly powerful argument against these policies. The demonstrable fact that allowed freely to choose and having the financial ability, people will naturally sort themselves racially culturally and religiously in the way that they are doing in London and elsewhere and have done throughout history so far as can be determined, provides a most powerful and positive moral case for a racially, culturally and religiously homogenous state. The case for the division of Britain into ethnic states like the former Yugoslavia is a very strong one which may well be the eventual upshot of the stupid policies pursued by our representatives some time down the line. (The argument that ethnic states cause major wars died with nuclear weapons. In any case we have seen plenty of wars with no racial elements, have we not? ) For who is it who dares tell the population: You must live with these other people, whom you consider aliens, like it or not, because we think it's good for you? Who but an oppressor and a dictator?

Britain First - A personal invitation

Britain First - A personal invitation

Written by Paul Golding - Britain First

October 2011

Fellow Patriot, Are you, like me, heartbroken at the rapid decline of the British patriotic movement from a major political force to a disorganised, disintegrating wreck, plagued with scandals and corruption? Every single day there are more reasons to be heartbroken and worried for our children's future. Just recently, David Cameron signalled his support for the EU to become a 'United States of Europe'. This will bring an effective end to British sovereignty, freedom and independence...Britain would literally cease to exist! I have two great-grandfathers who fought in the Second World War, one was fighting at Dunkirk and the other fought in the Far East. Most British patriots have relatives who fought for Britain in the war. It was OUR families that defended this country! Think right now, about your own family members who braved bullets, bombs, tanks and planes for OUR country. Maybe it was your father, grandfather or great-grandfather? Did they fight for a 'United States of Europe'? No, they fought AGAINST a European super-state where Britain would be gobbled up and made into a subjugated province. When I look around my country today, I am terrified for my child's future, and I am sure you are too . This is why I decided to help launch the Britain First movement, and why I believe YOU, should join our organisation, before it is too late! If our own parents, grandparents and so on, some still with us, some not, were prepared to risk their lives for us, their children and descendents, then we also have a DUTY to future generations of our children and grandchildren. We cannot allow our country to become a multicultural province of an EU empire without fighting back against the traitor politicians. But what can we do ? Most patriotic organisations in Britain are either too small or so discredited and toxic with the public that they are effectively irrelevant. But there is a new, fresh and well-organised patriotic movement in Britain, one which is growing in strength every single day: it is called 'Britain First'. In the several months since we launched, Britain First has come from nothing to being a major organisation, with branches established around the country, a rapidly growing membership, and local meetings being held nationwide. A new movement for a new era...we CAN regain the initiative and begin the march to further successes! If you care about your country , you should join Britain First and as part of such a credible, honest and modern patriotic movement you can join the crusade to win our country back! Britain First intends to AVOID all the mistakes of the past that have traditionally held back our movement from mainstream success. Our future is in our hands, it is as simple as that. Britain First is a dynamic new movement of volunteers - we have no paid staff , all funds go straight into campaigns and activities. We ARE the only line of resistance remaining for our people - we cannot afford to turn our backs on our children's future! Why not join the growing legions of patriotic Britons taking a stand against the betrayal of our country by becoming a Britain First member? Standard membership is only £5 per month (standing order) or a £30 one-off payment. There are rates for unwaged, overseas and also a special Platinum membership. Britain First membership is open to everyone, both in the UK and abroad. By joining Britain First, you will engage with other patriots who care deeply about our country and take part in exciting, well organised and effective campaigns. Upon joining Britain First, you will receive a special Britain First membership card, an annual badge, regular campaign updates, a bi-monthly magazine, and discount entry to Britain First conferences and seminars. But most of all , by joining Britain First you are taking your rightful place in the 'shield wall' to defend this nation and our people. Yours sincerely Paul Golding Campaigns Coordinator PS: If you are unable to join Britain First because of a specific reason , please email me at info@britainfirst.org and let me know why. I look forward to hearing from you

British Taxpayers Will Have to Bail Out Banks Again

British Taxpayers Will Have to Bail Out Banks Again “Before End of the Year”

Posted bat BNP Ideas Oct 2011

British taxpayers will be called upon to bail out at least one High Street bank before the end of this year, a leading banking analyst has warned in the wake of the credit rating downgrade of 12 major banks and building societies.

Ralph Silva, of the Silva Research Network (SRN), famous for his analytical work on the BBC, CNN and financial networks, made the prediction after credit rating agency Moody’s lowered the ratings of Lloyds TSB Bank, Santander UK and Co-Operative Bank by one notch. The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and Nationwide Building Society had their ratings lowered by two notches while seven smaller building societies had downgrades of between one and five notches.

The lowering of the credit rating means that Moody’s (a respected financial institution which analyses the ability of borrowers to repay their debts)believes it less likely that the government will bail out the banks should their financial situations worsen.

Mr Silva, however, was quoted in the media as saying that the downgrades were “an over-reaction,” and that the Government “will probably have to provide further support for RBS by the end of the year.”

The Royal Bank of Scotland and the Lloyds Banking Group are already 82 and 40 per cent owned by the UK government, which makes it even less likely that they will be bailed out once again should the need arise.

The Financial Times quoted an anonymous Treasury source as saying that the Government had already taken steps to inject more cash in to RBS to keep it afloat.

Earlier, Bank of England Governor Mervyn King announced that the current financial crisis was the worst the world had ever seen and was even more dangerous than the Great Depression. Simultaneously, the Bank of England announced that £75 billion more cash is to be pumped into the economy by means of Quantitative Easing (the modern equivalent of printing money).

It is likely that an impending default by the Greek government on its debt will further shake the international financial institutions. Even though Britain is not part of the eurozone, its crisis will affect this country, particularly through exposure to the euro via Ireland.

* The term “credit rating” as used by Moody’s is an assessment of an institution’s financial stability based on creditworthiness and its ability to repay debt. Ratings range from AAA, the safest, down to D. Ratings of BBB- or higher are considered safe.

Immigration Plays Havoc with NHS

Posted by BNP Ideas Oct 2011

The mass Third World invasion of Britain is playing havoc with the National Health Service’s General Practitioner records, with hundreds of thousands of vanished “patients” clogging up the system.

In London, which continues to be the epicentre of the invasion, figures produced by the BBC’s The Politics Show, revealed that there are at least one million “more” people registered with GPs than what the official population is estimated at.

The BBC incorrectly ascribes this to duplication, whereas in realty the extra numbers are more likely to be the result of faulty population estimates.

According to the BBC report, there are around nine million people registered with GPs in London. In July 2010, Greater London had an official population of 7,825,200. In 2009, it was estimated by the London School of Economics that there were at least one million illegal immigrants in Britain, most of them in the capital.

In addition, names are continually pruned off GP lists if they do not respond to two written requests by the practice. Poor English skills are often blamed for a failure to communicate with a surgery, but this only tells a part of the story.

In January 2010, the Tory-Lib-Dem government announced that NHS treatment would be available for failed asylum seekers “to ensure their human rights are honoured” even if they have not left the country.

Meanwhile, tuberculosis rates –caused directly by immigrants from the Third World have increased by 30 per cent last year, and the cost of translation services is proving crippling to many NHS trusts.

Would-be patients must wait seven weeks on average for a hospital bed and at any one time, up to half of all the NHS trusts are in the red.

The problem is exacerbated by government (Labour, Tory and Lib-Dems alike) policy which continually spends money on projects other than its own nation’s interests.

In Germany, by way of comparison, there are 20 intensive care beds for every 100,000 citizens. In Britain, it is three—the lowest ratio in Western Europe.

Yet still the ruling elite seek to invite ever-greater number of Third World immigrants into Britain. The unfolding disaster will only end when the scoundrels and crooks in Westminster are removed from office—by a nationalist government that puts the interests of the British people first.

The Death of Religious Freedom in Britian

The Death of Religious Freedom

from BNP Ideas

British governments have ensured all religions in Britain can be politically controlled, writes Peter Mills, MA PhD.

The excellent article on this site written by Southwest Nationalist “The Sad Tale of the Gay Witches” brings to the surface a major piece of totalitarian control that has already been surreptitiously foisted upon the people of Britain by a succession of Labour and Tory governments.

Quite simply, our freedom of religion is being deliberately and systematically eradicated through various pieces of legislative “sleight-of-hand.” This can be conclusively proven – but, believe me, it has been so invisibly accomplished that it takes a great deal of investigation and research to expose as thoroughly as it needs to be.

Let us start over 60 years ago on 10th December 1948 when the newly-formed United Nations Organisation adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Although this declaration was not a legal Act of any Parliament, it was intended as a kind-of “official guideline” for all governments, and especially for all countries who were members of the UN (such as Great Britain, who was one of its founders).

Article 18 of this Declaration of Human Rights reads: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” This seems to be perfectly clear and straightforward. However, the clear water has been muddied by British politicians over the decades since 1948.

We are now governed by the Human Rights Act of 1998, which should more accurately be called the “Human Wrongs Act”.

This Act incorporates into British law a version of the cynically-named European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, part of the 1950 Treaty of Rome which was the original legal instrument establishing the European Union.

Although the British Human Rights Act dates from 1998, Britain was actually the very first country to ratify the Human Rights Convention, in 1951. In the opening lines of the 1950 European Convention, acknowledgement is made of the inspiration provided by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 9 of the European Convention is drafted in two paragraphs, of which the first is a twin of the United Nations Declaration and states:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

However – unlike the UN version – the European Convention is immediately followed by an additional and rather sneaky restrictive proviso in paragraph 2:

“2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the rights and freedoms of others.”

The astute reader will notice that the fine principles of religious freedom enshrined into European law in section 1 of this paragraph have been provided with useful loopholes in section 2 for governments to take advantage of if they wish, and which just about completely negates the safeguarding principles of the first part!

As a consequence of paragraph 2, the spin-off British Human Rights Act of 1998 was able to be carefully and deliberately phrased in order to safeguard the government from shooting itself in the foot by having to legally observe any religious freedom that contradicts what politicians may deem necessary for the “greater good”, the politicians alone being the definer of whatever constitutes “the greater good” – in other words, “political correctness.”

For instance, Paragraph 2 means that the provisions of the umbrella European Convention on Human Rights and all national Acts devolving from it (like our Human Rights Act) can be manipulated if an individual government decides a religious practice threatens “public morals”, “public order” or “public health”.

This immediately prompts the rather worrying question: who is the official arbiter of what constitutes “public morals”, “public order” and “public health”? Is the government the home of the land’s treasury of definitive moral rectitude? The behavioural record of even high office-holders says otherwise. Likewise, how is “public order” to be deemed as “threatened”? Particularly, on what criteria is a political decision regarding what constitutes “public disorder” to be based? And how broad or narrow is a risk to “public health” to be assessed?

Perhaps it is relevant here to look at some religious practices that, if the government so chooses, may be deemed outside the protection offered by paragraph 1 due to the political escape clause in paragraph 2.

First, consider the matter of “public order”. In 2003 the Anti-Social Behavior Act made significant changes to previous legislation. Particularly, in section 57 it changed the provision of the 1984 Public Order Act so that the number of persons defined as constituting a “public assembly” was legally reduced from 20 to just 2. This means that from the date the Act became law (20th January 2004), the police have the power to impose orders on “public assemblies” (including religious meetings whether in churches or elsewhere) of as few as 2 people if they see fit to do so. This same Act also contains a provision for the removal of travellers (“Gypsies”) from illegally occupied land, but this provision conveniently also applies to “environmental protesters”. Many pagan religious groups, such as nature-worshipping Wiccan covens, have only two or three members: very few have as many as 20. Being nature worshippers, such groups sometimes conduct their sacred ceremonies in woodland or other natural environments, most typically at night. Technically – and especially if any biblical fundamentalist in high government office gives the official nod – the police now have the power to move in and prevent this from happening, simply by declaring the religious group to be, or to include, “environmental protesters”.

Churches and religious assembly rooms are classed as “public buildings” in the UK and meetings within them are “public assemblies”, and this includes non-Christian public buildings such as Hindu temples, mosques and synagogues. It may be thought by some that it is unlikely that the police would ever interfere in such a place of worship (although there is precedent – on 25th July 2002 12 British police officers, including two in riot gear, stormed the Ghausia Jamia Mosque in Lye, near Stourbridge just after morning prayers, breaking down the door with a battering-ram in order to arrest an Afghan family who were seeking to stay in Britain on compassionate grounds). However, whatever your views on this particular matter, the point is, the legislation exists; and this past experience proves the fact that though the national authorities may normally be applying it reasonably and with moderation there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. Simply, the safeguards against misuse of power that should be enshrined within such laws seem to have been carefully removed.

“Public Morals” is an equally thorny issue. One person’s moral standards are another person’s repression. It is important to understand that we are not talking here about actual crime of an immoral nature, such as rape; we are referring to public morals – that is, any non-criminal conduct that can be described by the old-fashioned phrase “an outrage to public decency” – and this is such a nebulous matter that any legislation designed to place a ring-fence around any set of “acceptable moral behavioural standards” is itself immoral according to the principles of democratic freedom.

Again it is useful to cite the religion of Wicca (Witchcraft) to begin a brief examination of how this part of the Human Rights Act is open to official misuse. Whereas Christian churches, and especially fundamentalist ones, would be outraged if a group of people, including the priest or pastor, came to a service stark naked, many pagan religions and especially Wicca frequently (although not universally) consider it an important manifestation of their faith to conduct their worship completely naked, in the manner that is poetically referred to as “skyclad”.

Skyclad nature-worshipping ceremonies are, when possible, conducted in natural environments such as woodland or heathland, away from prying eyes. Nevertheless, is a religion that encourages worshippers to be “naked in their rites” a threat to “public morals”? Few fundamentalists would disagree. How, then, could a government with a biblical fundamentalist prime minister (Tony Blair was one such) be entrusted with safeguarding the religious rights of Wiccan worshippers if the legal loophole exists that “skyclad” worship of nature deities could be construed as being “against the interests of public morals”? Any argument that this is “unlikely” or “will never happen” is again beside the point if such legislative loopholes nevertheless exist.

The hypocrisy of the notion of some kind of standardised “public morality” can be highlighted by examples given in the book A Witches’ Bible by Janet and Stewart Farrar (Phoenix Publishing Inc. ISBN 0-919345-92-1), where the authors – both Wiccans – point out that ritual nakedness was also a habit of biblical prophets (I Samuel 19:24: “…And he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night…”) and that Saint Francis of Assisi preached a sermon stark naked to a large congregation of both sexes in the Cathedral of San Ruffino.

The question thus arises of how it can be possible, let alone desirable, for a democratic society to limit “religious freedom” in law as being “…subject … to such limitations as are … in the interests of… public … morals”? It is not sufficient protection of people’s rights for government to simply say: “We are very unlikely to use such powers in this way”: the fact that it is permitted at all by existing legislation means that the possibility of usage cannot be exclusively ruled out and is now unarguably a “Sword of Damocles” metaphorically hanging over the public head.

As for the remaining proviso of the Human Rights Act, public health, one wonders what would be the likely reaction if the Christian Communion was banned, or ordered to change its entire nature? When the chalice of red wine that worshippers believe to be transubstantiated into the blood of Christ is passed on to allow a succession of people to take a sip, the only hygiene involved is for the priest to wipe it with a cloth. As certain television advertisements gleefully point out, there are more bacteria to be found on a dishcloth than on a toilet seat. Could the Communion ever be prevented by law from allowing partakers to communally drink what they consider to be “the blood of Christ”? Yes, this could legally happen under Paragraph 2, for example if there were an epidemic of cholera or outbreak of some other transmittable dangerous disease.

Surely, then, it is entirely fair for me to suggest that by examining the possible connotations implied in the intricate legal definition of “Human Rights” we can perceive at least the hint that there could, just possibly, arise interpretations of existing law that are open to the preferential acceptance by government of some favoured religious practices and the preferential denial of others less favoured?

Or, putting this a different way, we can perceive in the Human Rights Act that legislation has been cunningly inserted which has given political powers the absolute legal right to control all religions, religious practices and assemblies if ever they feel that such a move to clamp down against a particular freedom is necessary or, as they put it, “in the public interest”.

Government is greatly assisted in their ability to manipulate the public freedom of religious practices by the little-known and little-publicised fact that in the case of the two major Western Powers, the UK and the USA, there is no absolute legal definition of “religion” at all.

This is a two-edged sword, for although, on the surface, it means that no person’s spiritual belief can be legally stated not to qualify as a “legal religion”, it also means that any politician, petty bureaucrat or civil servant is free to dismiss any claim that a particular organisation is actually a “genuine” or “proper” religion, without fear of legal correction. In simple terms, British civil servants actually have the power to rule whether or not any religion is a “valid and proper religion”. There is proof of this, although it is so obscure that it needs to be dug out of the archives.

In December 1996 the House of Lords, Britain’s higher legislative body and also the highest court in the land, was considering an appeal made by the Church of Scientology against an earlier ruling by the British Charities Commissioners that they were not entitled to tax-exempt status because they were “not a proper church or religion.” Baroness Sharples asked the House whether the government had any objections to the way in which the Church of Scientology conducts its operations in Britain, to which Baroness Blatch, the Deputy Speaker of the House, replied that: “The Church of Scientology may follow its own doctrines and practices providing that it remains within the law.”

At that point, Lord Avebury (Eric Lubbock, himself a Buddhist) stood up and said: “My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the application was made to the Charity Commission it ruled that, in order to qualify as a religion, an organisation had to be theistic in character (author’s note: i.e. believe in a deity or deities, which mainstream Buddhism does not) but that Buddhists, having existed for 2,500 years, were an exception to that principle? Does she feel that it would be appropriate for Parliament to frame a sensible definition of ‘religion’ and ‘church’, instead of leaving the matter to be determined by the Charity Commission and the courts?” The reply from Baroness Emily Blatch was: “My Lords, wiser counsels than I have tried that one. We have set our face against a definition of religion.” (Oral Questions to the Minister of State for the Home Office, 17th December 1996, Hansard vol. 760 cols. 1392-1394.)

On November 26th 2003 the Guardian newspaper carried an article about the Queen’s Speech in Parliament (in which forthcoming legislation planned by the government for the next parliamentary session is outlined in general terms) in which mention was made of the proposed new Charities Bill which was being prepared in draft form (the Draft Charities Bill). The Guardian article pointed out that “…Britain’s charity laws date back more than 400 years. The draft bill will be based on an overhaul, first announced by the government in July 2003. This will attempt to update the law to meet the needs of the voluntary sector in the 21st century – and to protect its credibility with the public, through a new definition of charity as providing a ‘public benefit.’”

In paragraphs 8 & 9 of a report summing up their concerns and opinions of the Draft Charities Bill, the Charity Law Association commented: “…In explaining their refusal to recognise the Church of Scientology as a religious charity, the Charity Commission… concluded that Scientology was not a religion, because it did not involve the worship of a deity. We consider that defining religion by reference to worship of a deity automatically creates a bias… Perhaps, in light of Human Rights Act considerations, it would be appropriate for the Bill to redefine religion in a less biased way…”

The threat which this absence of any statutary legal definition of “religion” poses is not very obvious during the relaxed times of liberal governments. However, when a western country produces a leader who has dictatorial tendencies, then the danger becomes more apparent, for such leaders are perfectly free to state that such-and-such a religious belief is “not a proper religion”, on no other grounds than preferential prejudice. For example, Tony Blair’s close buddy President George W. Bush is on record as stating (whilst Governor of Texas and when the Pentagon ruled that the many thousands of Wiccans, or witches, serving in the US forces had the right to practice their religion): “I don’t think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision” (George W. Bush to ABC News, June 1999) thereby at the very least tilting the balance of the whole administration towards that general inclination. By so doing, this can, like a single falling stone that starts an avalanche, make all religions that have no “state credentials” (otherwise known as “political correctness”) quite rightly begin to feel uneasy and disadvantaged.

My point here is certainly not to advocate any particular religious belief, but to demonstrate how effectively the British government has already quietly provided itself with the necessary legislative powers and options to completely control religious practice in this country in whatever way it may decide best suits its own political needs. How many readers of this article, I wonder, were actually already aware of this fact?

In respect of Southwest Nationalist’s article relating how early learning consultant Anne O’Connor claims witches wearing black could lead to racism, perhaps someone should point out to Ms. O’Connor that in the Hindu faith, the traditional colour of mourning is white.

If this ridiculous woman is taken seriously in her idiotic bleating, then Hindu people in the UK should also be banned from wearing white at funerals, as this might also encourage racism. What utter rubbish she is spouting! She obviously has not heard the old saying: “Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!”

Like human beings, all religions are equal and should be treated as equal, even by those who are spiritually committed to a particular single faith. This is the very basis of Democracy. Surely, the only fair way to deal with the issue of all the different religions in Britain is to adopt Voltaire’s famous statement to a rival politician: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The important point being, if we all stand by idly doing nothing while the Human Rights Act gives politicians the legal right to declare what religions are “valid beliefs” and what religions are “invalid beliefs,” what will YOU do when YOUR OWN religious belief is ruled as “illegal because it is not a proper religion”, or because it “promotes racism”, or because it is a “risk to public health”, or a “risk to public morals”, or to “public order” or “public safety”, or because the “rights and freedoms” of other people are considered more important than your own rights and freedoms, or because the Charities Commissioners are eager to define it as “not a proper religion” because they want the tax revenue – or because your religion is suddenly no longer “politically correct”?

If you think this cannot happen, I have bad news for you – we have already let it happen, by voting Labour, Tory or Lib-Dem! It is worth repeating the beginning of paragraph 2 of the British legal writ now governing – and threatening – all religions in the country:

“2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the rights and freedoms of others.”

Britain desperately needs a new and sane government that will repeal the disgusting and actually fascist Human Rights Act. As all the other political parties have more than adequately proven, this can only be a Nationalist government. Otherwise, our country is indeed doomed to become the land described in Orwell’s “1984″ where The State controls every single aspect of human life and destroys everything not deemed as “politically correct”.

The British Constitution Group - Statement ,oct 2011

The British Constitution Group - Statement

Written by Roger Hayes - BCG

Oct 2011

The British Constitution Group’s constitutional conventions on the 22nd October and 5th November 2011 are of the utmost importance. In fact, they are probably the most important gatherings of ordinary people for at least the last century... because they represent the only realistic prospect of igniting opposition against the juggernaut of one-world government that is being imposed upon us – by stealth, without our consent and against our will. What we are currently witnessing, without exaggeration - is our own enslavement. Our constitution has been destroyed and without its protection a totalitarian regime has being constructed at every level of government and in every institution in the land to control every aspect of our lives. These conventions are about how we go about defending our freedoms, reasserting our constitution and holding to account those who have betrayed us. These conventions are about justification of our actions and the implementation of a strategy to take back control of our country. It does not matter how long the betrayal of our nation by the duplicitous political establishment has been going on... what matters now is how close we are to the conclusion of their planned total destruction of our constitution, the subjugation of our sovereign rights and the destruction of our freedoms... and we are getting close. Economic turmoil would be justification enough to introduce military style curfews – once imposed, they will be in place for a long time... and during this time the finishing touches to the totalitarian regime will be applied. As Greece defaults on its debts in the weeks ahead and with a plethora of European Banks on the brink of collapse... it does not take an Einstein to see the gathering storm. We need to rally our troops now. We need to up our game... to explain our objectives, outline our tactics and co-ordinate our efforts. Without sense of exaggeration... I can tell you that ‘Your country needs you - and it needs you now.’ Everybody can do something and we urge you to attend so that you can play a part in the next phase of reclaiming our country. For the past two years we have pondered our fate and explored the myriad of ideas as to how we might construct an effective opposition to the global elite, whose ambition it is to strip us of every freedom so that we can be better controlled to serve their interests. The global corporate elite have been diligent in the extreme to ensure the removal of every vestige of our constitution... to the extent that judges are able to flippantly disregard any mention of it, so even our courts have been silenced by collusion. There is no question about our constitution right to self-governance... but its chief defender – Her Majesty the Queen, with the armed forces at her disposal, remains silent. Why? The politicians and the judiciary have colluded in treason against their own people and the police remain intellectually dormant – with almost zero understanding that they are being used as a tool of oppression. This depressing picture can be countered by one positive element only, but a vital one and one which we must grasp and that is that at last an ever-increasing number of people are waking up... and quickly - but time is not on our side... the race is on to wake up a sufficient minority and get them active, before the doors of totalitarianism are slammed shut. We urge everybody who reads this letter to attend either convention and to distribute this letter as far and as wide as you are able. Sincerely Roger Hayes Chairman – The British Constitution group.

France , The Republic Of Islam

The Republic Of Islam

By Southwest Nationalist.

Another day, another portent of Islam’s impending conquest of the West, with a report from France showing that areas of France are becoming separate Islamic states.

According to the report, “Suburbs of the Republic”, found that Muslim religious practices were increasing displacing those of the French Republic.

Handing us a vision of states within states and Sharia enclaves, the report tells us of Muslim children boycotting school canteens which are not halal, and whole areas where French culture is all but gone.

Interestingly, when it comes to marriage, most people in France did not object to mixed race marriages – other than Muslim/Arab respondents among whom there was strong opposition to marriages to non Muslims/whites.

Maybe we need to invent another -obia or -ism for those prejudiced adherents to the religion of peace? Caucism or Whiteophobia perhaps, fair is fair, we’d be labelled as such if we exhibited such blatant prejudice.

“One of the reasons for the strong role of Islam is that the Republic has withdrawn” said mayor of Clichy, Claude Dilain.

Not quite Claude, the Republic has been driven out by a conquering Islam. Islam seeks to make a society Islamic, not to adapt Islam to the established standards of an existing society.

Islam – to its credit in honesty, we in the West could learn much from its unyielding approach – will remain Islam, it is society which will be transformed around it and by it.

The West says by its actions that we will change and compromise, Islam says that it will remain the same and refuse to compromise.

In any such situation the outcome is inevitable, the unyielding conquers, the appeaser appeases themselves into oblivion.

Regarding the 2005 riots, called into question is the myth in “the implicit shared belief that the nation was always able to integrate people”.

A myth it is, integration is insanity, whilst the West yells integrate Islam yells dominate.

In a vacuum where the West will surrender anything for which it stood, abandon all principles to which it adhered, in the name of a newfound obsession with a multicultural, multiracial, society founded on some dream of harmonious integration, the unyielding voice, the voice which will not compromise, which will retain its own identity, which will always take and never give, will rise in power.

That voice is Islam, conquering with little in the way of battles. The West has surrendered at nearly every sign of confrontation, and the West has become propaganda master for Islam itself, passing off everything as a mere minority, not true Islam, the religion of peace, and so on ad nauseum.

The report’s author, Gilles Kepel, warns that “France’s future depends on its ability to re-integrate the suburbs into the national project”.

They won’t be re-integrated. They have no wish to be, as we have already said Islam wishes to remain Islam, it has no desire to become some tame and integrated Westernised ersatz Islam.

It is the fatally flawed idea of integration that has much to answer for in getting our nations in this mess to begin with. We will not fix things by walking further along that road and introducing yet more fool’s gold such as re-integration.

Integration has failed, as it was inevitable it would. Re-integration is just wordplay to hide the fact, and to sell people on the same flawed concept.

Islam will not integrate, it is as simple as that. It has no desire to do so, and it has learned that the West is impotent to do a thing about it other than appease in the forlorn hope that the current appeasement will be Islam’s final demand.

No integration is possible, the sooner the West wakes up to that fact, and stops deluding itself and making excuses, the better.

The truth, contrary to the lies we have been fed, is that the West will not integrate Islam, rather Islam will make the West over in Islam’s image.

One has to pity the French with their 5-6 million Muslims, and we’re not far behind them.

The whole of the West’s march towards an Islamic future is well advanced. With every day we continue to delude ourselves we take another step towards that day.

BBC Speechless As Trader Tells Truth: "The Collapse Is Coming...And Goldman Rules The World"

JUST WATCH THIS VIDEO TO SEE THE TRUTH ON WHO RULES THE ROOST AND WHO DIRECTS OUR TRAITOR POLITICIANS!!!!!!!!!!

Exposing the Blatantly Biased Communists (BBC)

October 2011

by Liverpool BNP

Question Time came to Liverpool on the 29th of September as such a Demo was arranged outside the venue, which should have been at St George’s Hall or another of Liverpool’s many magnificent historic buildings. However, in a stroke typical of this liberal leftish establishment the event was actually held in a refurbished warehouse 41-51 Greenland Street, off Jamaica Street NOVAS CONTEMPORARY URBAN CENTRE a Marxist recruiting ground run by a charity called Novas thus pandering to the Zionists and their ‘multicult’ agenda.

Naturally this ‘charity’ is a well oiled, government backed organization that suckles finances from the Zionist Ideology so long as it keeps to the state sanctioned criteria of advancing other cultures above its host cities culture. This area is home to another Labour left wing organization called The Picket’ which also suckles funds from the Ideology using the same method, but uses the Music industries as a recruiting ground. It ensnares vulnerable followers using apparently ‘morally’ sounding shouts like ‘Love Music Hate Racism’. Organizations such as these are the complete opposite to what they are supposed to be encouraging from people- ‘Love’!! What they truly are is hate groups against those who dare to disagree with them. ‘Curiously’ the Picket and Novas are safe havens for Billy Bragg, the Labour Party’s Vera Lyn, who visits them both when in Liverpool.

The nature of the demo was to expose the absolute un-impartiality and left wing bias of the BBC. As such initially British National Party Activist from around the country descended on Liverpool to leaflet the Town Centre.

Meanwhile, back at the southern RV point several state sponsored militias (Merseyside Constabulary) had occupied the small car park in which the Truth Truck was stationed. A short time later the demo’s organiser was approached by this Militias ‘liaison’ officer 8070 who was rather miffed because our party had not entered into dialogue with the Stasi with regard to the forthcoming demo. Of course Liverpool Nationalists have learned from bitter experience that ‘liaising’ with the Stasi does the BNP a lot more harm than good! http://liverpoolbnp.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/the-price-of-patriotism/ Following this our team complete with Truth Truck headed off to the venue.

Once at the venue the Truth Truck, which had been following Liverpool Organiser Mike Whitby, parked up for drivers of both vehicles to consider the next move. Before Ian Kitchen could descend from the Truth Truck he was accosted by a particularly mean Stasi member, Officer 7910 who screamed “you can’t park that there if you do I’ll have it impounded!” He then came over to Mike telling him all the time to move on while wedging himself inside the open car door so Mike was unable to close it! At this time he threatened Mike with the loss of his liberty for not moving his car yet he could hardly do so with a member of the Stasi jamming the door open! Finally Mike was able to close the car door and move on but this was not the last encounter with this fowl excuse for ‘law’ enforcement.

Finally the Truth Truck began its tour around the venue and its environs and our activists joined others in front of the venue Video. Initially, but for a few, the brainwashed minions of the Labour front and its various ‘ethnic’ followers were collected at the far end of the street. From approximately 5pm the British National Party activists were stationed between the venue and a skate park directly across the street. In fact when I first arrived I went directly to Andrew who was leaning against the skate park wall. He had arrived about 10 minutes earlier and had not moved from this spot. As we spoke Andrew became concerned about Peter and an incident that was taking place inside the actual skate park itself. At this point Andrew sped over to Peter’s aid.

As for the incident in the skate Park, this began because Peter had asked the Stasi to move 3 Labour radicals who were standing just behind the Police line at the BNP allocated end. Talking to the Stasi achieved absolutely nothing so the idea was for Peter to make an active point. This was to do exactly the same as the Labour radicals at the BNP end, and so Peter intended to go and stand just behind the police line at their end. It looked as though the Police were setting a precedent and this was the perfect the opportunity to address it.

However as Peter tried this manoeuvre he was stopped so he demanded that the Labour supporters be removed. The Liaison Stasi reluctantly accepted this and he ushered the Labour members into the skate park. Yet the Stasi still let the Labour radicals linger in the BNP area. Peter stood side by side with the Labour infiltrators in the skate park and it was at this point that Peter saw a stockpile of bottles, bricks and other missiles stacked against the skate park wall just behind the Labour radicals. The Stasis eventually intervened with Officer 7910 informing Peter to “take that fucking flag out my face or you will be dealt with’”. The Officers language was certainly choice. Notice the phrase ‘dealt with’ not arrested. The term dealt with could mean anything! At this point Andrew, having dashed over, was grabbed by Stasi Officer 7910. This officer then proceeded to threaten Andrew with the whispered words ‘I know you’re tagged’ then flung Andrew across the street away from the state park shouting “get BACK over there”. Liverpool BNP saw clearly then that this was another Merseyside Constabulary set up. Since 5pm the area allocated to the BNP was gradually getting smaller with more radical Labour gradually appearing. Officer 7910 showed his hand when he manhandled Andrew-for Andrew had never moved away from the skate park. Once again a choreographed pincer movement was being constructed to surround the BNP activists and hem us in.

The whole event was obvious as the two opposing groups were eventually allowed to gather within yards of each other as the night drew closer. The darker it got the more ‘coloured’ the crowd got. The same tactics have been used before. http://liverpoolbnp.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/meditations-on-a-lefty-mob-%E2%80%9Cdemo%E2%80%9D/ http://liverpoolbnp.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/the-price-of-patriotism/ Once the night draws in the bricks and other missiles start flying and the Stasi see nothing. The Liverpool BNP activists beliefs were vindicated as typically one of our Activists-Gary was threatened by a Black with a knife but as expected the police saw nothing. Bricks were also thrown at the Truth Truck. As for the so called innocent skate boarders amongst them! We know they are ardent Labour radicals as they attended one of our Table top campaigns in the city centre. Phil Hayes who runs the Picket was excited to see us in attendance and took advantage of the opportunity to get noticed, making sure to lift any news footage for his next funding application. Hayes was also involved in the ruckus and opposed our visit with the word fascist, this being a code word for anti-White. This weasel Hayes is a personal friend of the virus Bragg and feeds his family off the government funded set up, and is known to dine with the likes of one time Paedophile suspect Pete Townsend. I wonder how many labour25 are on his wine list… In his ‘spare’ time it would seem that Hayes also likes attempting to run down pensioners. He spotted Hazel and Mary, 60 and early 70’s respectively, as they passed by the car park in which Hayes had parked his car. After abusing both ladies, Hayes got in his car and sped out of the car park almost knocking down Hazel and Mary. Hayes also helps recruit for the Labour Union man McFadden who is another friend of Novas and the Picket. McFadden will have had a hand in the plethora of Labour Union sponsored anti-BNP posters plastered around Liverpool.

The Stasi Police are obviously trying to manipulate and encourage a very serious incident leading to the possible loss of life. Any one of those bricks stockpiled in the skate park was a skull crushing weapon. It is obvious that the object was to have one of us killed. This would be a result for the anti-English puppet Government.