Friday, 30 July 2010
Thursday, 29 July 2010
How interesting that the usual rent-an-opinion lefties were scattered across the media yesterday to condemn Britain's proposed "racist" cap on immigration at a time when 'Call me Dave' Cameron is in India trying to whip up trade between India and Britain.
'How can we trade with India as partners and equals when we won't let them into the UK?' was the clarion cry of the Guardianistas from the verandas of their town-houses in suspiciously white suburbs dotted around the country.
As usual, dear reader, they are way off.
India positively dissuades Brits from going to India (justly so after 200 years of colonial rule you might say) putting up all manner of visa barriers.
It is obvious that India does not want thousands (let alone millions!) of Whites travelling there to settle: and that is their right! They should not feel like racists, protectionists or little Hitlers for protecting their borders.
Neither should we for protecting ours: and a damn sight more Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis etc. will flood into Britain next year than English, Scots etc. will move to India!
As usual the Guardianistas have an axe to grind. Anything short of open borders to them is "racist" because, you see, they employ immigrants as nannies and au pairs, and they go to foreign restaurants and they even say hello to Mr. Gupta in the corner shop once a month and smile to the little ethnic man through the glass at the petrol station.
Let's not mention the fact that they jump through hoops, pretend to be Christians (even Catholics!) and even pay through the nose to get their children (Marmaduke and Olivia) out of the local Comprehensive school that is primarily Third World.
If they are so "inclusive" why don't they send their own children to a school full of Asians, Somalians, Kurds, Albanians etc.?
For that brand of people you see dear reader, they like to sit in their large properties in their suspiciously white area (are you reading this Billy Bragg?) busily telling the rest of us how great immigration is and how it "benefits" us all to have hundreds of thousands flooding in to go straight on housing benefit, working tax credit, free education and free healthcare.
There is nothing wrong per se in Slick Dave going to India to improve trade (leaving aside that most of the trade will be big business and even arms, and the lack of social policy in India that means the poor being used on terrible wages and conditions), but why do the Champagne Socialists line up to condemn the UK's apology for immigration controls and/or policy when India no more wants Brits flooding into their country than we want Indians flooding in here.
What the Guardianistas fail to understand is that nationalism and seeking to protect your land, communities and identity is as natural for the average man in London as it is for the average man in Delhi.
Colonialism is looked back with bad feeling for the Indians. Why don't the Guardianistas understand that we are being colonised by Third Worlders and this is just as wrong.
When I was in school (just before the Industrial Revolution) I remember having an argument with a lefty teacher who had a poster with Third World faces proclaiming "we are here because you were there."
I told her: 1. I had never been there; 2. Two wrongs don't make a right.
The Indians have the right to run their own country, to be free from alien control, and to set their own immigration controls - however strictly.
So should we.
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Oliver Stone is the latest 'celebrity' forced to his knees to apologise to the Golden Calf that is the Israeli Lobby.
- To state that more Russians died in WW2 than Jews.
- To state that the Zionist Lobby runs American foreign policy.
And he was forced to apologise?
Is it a "crime" (a hate crime no less!) to state the truth, no matter how unpalatable?
Some Zionist mouth piece claimed that Stone had now been exposed as an Anti-Semite.
Welcome to the club Oliver!
Rich or Poor, White or Black, Left or Right, Christian or Muslim, (even) Jew or Gentile: if you dare to state the truth about history, geo-politics, banking, government policy, media control etc. etc. you too could well be an "Anti-Semite."
It's an ever growing club!
Sunday, 25 July 2010
There is an interesting article in today's Sunday Telegraph - a paper known for its Secret State connections, and often used to put out stories with a 'spook' spin.
Right: Sadly the word repatriation today has far more to do with the bodies of hundreds of British servicemen coming home from needless Neo Con wars in coffins. By opposing Neo Con wars and looking to resettle non-Europeans we can actively seek friendship with Non-European nationalists and regimes for the betterment of all concerned.
Andrew Gilligan (of Dr David Kelly-leak fame) has reported that "extremist" Islamic groups could be used by Westminster as a safety valve for those 'radicalised' by political events.
Part of the government intelligence he refers to says that activists "do not progress" to terrorism through such groups.
The group Hizb ut Tahrir (HuT) - Gilligan tells us - condemns terrorism and regards integration as "dangerous." Perhaps it is for the latter reason that David Cameron called for a ban on HuT when he was in opposition?
The government paper 'Government strategy towards extremism' said that "individuals do not progress through non-violent extremist groups to violent groups" and that the former "may also provide a legal 'safety valve' for extreme views."
Perhaps if these groups educated people that Al Qaeda, '911' and the 'War on Terror' are all Neo Con-organised myths and smokescreens instead of acting up to their bogeyman image, they wouldn't give as much ammunition to the Neo Cons and their plastic patriot hangers on waving their little Israeli flags.
Certainly opposition to integration is a far more advanced and honest approach than the various Marxist and Zionist groups who want all native Britons to accept Third World immigrants into our communities, schools, work and even our families!
White, Christian nationalists could support Asians who wish to keep Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine for their own peoples, if the Asians in turn would return home and let us keep England for the English, Wales for the Welsh, Scotland for the Scottish and so on.
In a move that would see us break free of needless Zionist wars and the thralldom of banksters, we could agree to trade and more, whilst acknowledging the freedom of any Britons who wish to be Muslims in return for the many Palestinians, Iraqis etc. who are Christians.
Seeking such friendly terms of trade, information exchanges, diplomacy etc. with the entire Asian, Arab and other countries could help bring about an era of peace and prosperity for their continent(s) and for ours.
The financed, phased and humane resettlement of millions of non-Europeans would also help Asia and Africa with a wealth of compatriots returning who are well-educated, industrious, financially well-off, tradesmen etc.
Our countries would in turn be rewarded with social cohesion, indigenous communities, and a return to a collection of nations self-confident in their identities, with additional cultures and cosmopolitanism available via small, controlled settlement of Europeans as has always happened in our history (French, Irish, Italian etc.).
It is often said that to end a war (short of oblivion and one side being wiped out, innocents and all) one must sit and talk with one's enemies. Certainly in this day and age we have been dragged down the road of fighting other peoples' wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and I'm sure they would like Iran next on the list) and it has done nothing to help us. On the contrary it has cost us in huge volumes of money, human lives lost, mutilated bodies, less safety at home and abroad.
Might world peace and the mass resettlement of Third World immigrants, for the betterment of all concerned, begin with men of goodwill from all sides agreeing to oppose integration, and to discuss in a mature manner the logistics and advancements available to all via resettlement, trade and peace?
Otherwise we continue being backed into corners, shouting slogans and achieving precious little as our enemies destroy all European cultures, every last vestige of Christianity, our history, our heritage, our very communities.
Has the time come when serious nationalists throw off the slogans of a dying system and put the future of our peoples first? Or will we take the crumbs and shekels from the top table and stay content in our corner as everything we hold dear slowly dies in a quagmire of multi-culti, big business-sponsored anti-culture?
I'd like to think nationalists could see beyond the sloganeering, beyond the Neo Con war headlines and take a stance that might deliver racial, national and cultural freedom.
Recent history, sadly, makes me doubt that they will.
The Truth Behind the "BNP Death Threats" and much else is discussed in this video.
If the allegation of a six-figure fraud is serious, let alone true - and it is only an allegation - then anyone who has mailed in more than a penny to the BNP fundraising appeals or sent money via a BNP website appeal, deserves a straight answer.
Tuesday, 20 July 2010
It's always annoying when anyone says "I told you so..." so I won't.
Dame Manningham-Buller the former head of MI5 said the Iraq war was a big mistake because the ("sexed-up dossier") intelligence was wrong, Iraq had no link to '911,' the war "radicalised" Muslims here, and the war allowed "Al Qaeda" to enter Iraq - something they hadn't done previously.
Now, without appearing like a beaming know-all in a CND shirt in a post-nuclear apocalypse scenario, whilst the "civic nationalists" and plastic "Blame the Muslims" quasi-Neo-Cons in groups like the BNP were itching for war to bash 'the Muzzies', Third Positionists were crystal clear that the war was wrong.
We said this BEFORE the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Let's not forget all the dead on both sides too - all for meaningless Neo Con sabre rattling buffoons to assert their authority, knock Israel's enemies, and make a lot of money.
It's long been the case, but even more so now: The pro-Israeli idiots in the 'nationalist' parties (at whatever level) should be expelled.
Those who back Israel have cost us a lot in tax pounds, and cost the lives of many a dead soldier.
They were and are idiots and traitors and no nationalist should have any truck with them.
Friday, 16 July 2010
Nice to see ex-Sun editor on last night's 'This Week' (on BBC1) saying that there are a lot of idiots out there, on the back of internet fan forums for the killer Raoul Moat.
Right: Mackenzie's The Sun said "The Truth". In fact it was all lies. The Sun is a notorious rag that lies to suit its own ends. It is overtly Zionist.
Yes Kelvin. And they have been moulded by the likes of The Sun with its "tits n bums" and braindead Zionist politics.
If there is a generation of the braindead, it has been created by the likes of The Sun and Eastenders, for only the braindead could really treat either of these anti-cultural edifices with their hidden agendas as anything but a sick bloody joke.
Even worse Mackenzie waxed lyrical about a policeman who has lost his sight, peeling an onion in his pocket to get those kind of Yad Vashem tears so beloved of the political, journalist and bankster class.
How many Iraqis and Afghans have been blinded by 'ordinance' dropped on their countries by war-mongering bastards backed up the kind of braindead politics of the 'Page 3 lovely' Sun?
He feigns distress over one blinded copper - which was a terrible event - but put that against all the Palestinian children tortured, shot and kidnapped for their organs by the illegal Zionist entity that The Sun always supports, no matter what!
Cry tears for them Mackenzie you low life piece of human trash!
Peel an onion for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians, Lebanese - men, women and children who have died, been mutilated, been driven out etc. etc. by Israel, America and Britain: the Zionist triumvirate given all but unconditional support by The Sun.
If the words last night had come from someone who hadn't edited the Zionist rag The Sun from 1981 to 1994 (and who has continued to write for it from 2006) we might be inclined to agree, but for anyone who joined in the Zionist jingoistic BS and the 45 minutes outright lies which led to so much death and destruction (all war crimes) then we have to treat them as highly suspicious window dressing for an apologist for war criminals.
Julius Streicher was hanged at Nuremberg for publishing a paper that supported Adolf Hitler.
Were there war crimes trials today for the many illegal Zionist wars and the war criminals behind them, might not Mackenzie by strung up?
Or is an apologist for Zionist war criminals somehow different (history being written by the victor and all that).
I for one will take no lessons on Raoul Moat from the likes of Kelvin Mackenzie.
Nor will the relatives of the dead of the Hillsborough tragedy after which The Sun told barefaced and outright lies about the event to the absolute outrage of everyone who was there.
Go on Kelvin. Cry for them!
This is one of my favourite 'Rock Against Communism' tracks and, I think, embodies much of what English Nationalism is or should be about.
It envisions an England that appeals to the heart and the soul, and against the injustice of the mass immigration which no-one asked for.
We are to get a referendum next year on tweaking the voting system, yet not a single one of us ever voted to allow in millions upon millions of non-Europeans in the greatest environmental, racial, cultural, communal and societal upheaval, destruction and devastation ever seen in the British Isles.
Euthanasia and Murder
There is no law against a man biting off his own nose, unless it be a law of nature; nor even any police regulation against his hanging himself up by the hair or whiskers to talk to his friends and family in greater discomfort. There are penalties for suicide but, though I have no suicidal habits myself, I fancy they must be rather hard to apply; since they could only be sharpened into the legal and logical paradox of hanging a man to cure him of wanting to be hanged.
The majestic legislative mind of man does not commonly concentrate specially on forbidding things that nobody would normally want to do. Most probably, there never would have been any laws at all, except against things that men do quite naturally and even passionately want to do. Men punished murder precisely because there are such a large number of persons whom it would seem quite natural, and almost necessary, to murder. Men forbade theft because it is so utterly obvious that any fool could see it, that some property is in the wrong hands, and that anybody might think it would be better applied in his own hands; any fool could see it, any fool could say it, and the law was made because any fool might do it. There was a third commandment, against stealing not only our neighbor's ass, but our neighbor's wife, on which it would now be indelicate to dwell, because all the fools have done it.
Now about this, the Modern Mind has passed through two stages, and I do not know which is worse; for the Modern Mind is rather a weak mind. In the nineteenth century, roughly speaking, all respectable people seemed to suppose that nobody could be tempted to murder or theft or adultery, if he was really respectable. They thought these temptations only came to a curious remote tribe of monsters, called the Criminal Class. We were solemnly told that every criminal must be a lunatic; when in fact there is hardly a healthy or sane man who gets through forty-eight hours without some temptation to commit some such crime.
Then suddenly the Modern Mind discovered this and (not being a very strong mind) instantly slumped into the opposite extreme. Like most moderately intelligent people, I read detective stories in preference to modern novels; but even in detective stories I find this queer rudimentary reason creeping up. Even in crime stories there is now some comprehension of crime; that is, of the fact that we are all criminals. And now the whole weakness is working the other way; many recent murder stories are actually justifications of murder. The moment a refined respectable gentleman realizes that he might want to kill somebody, he jumps to the conclusion that this person ought to be killed. The fact that Aunt Jane is obviously a nuisance, that Uncle William is becoming a terrible bore, that Cousin Hildebrand stands between us and the really sensible family solution, is beginning to look more and more like a real reason for doing them in. That is why, in my own country, some are proposing what is called Euthanasia; at present only a proposal for killing those who are a nuisance to themselves; but soon to be applied progressively to those who are a nuisance to other people. As it applies by hypothesis to an almost moribund or partially paralyzed person, the decision will presumably rest with the other people.
It all began, of course, with stealing our neighbor's wife as well as his ass; because she was more of an ass than the ass. If we want to know how this allowance for exception ruins or replaces the rule, the best example is divorce. Those who first urged it, urged it quite honestly as an extreme exception. They did really mean to apply it only to somebody married to a homicidal maniac. It has come to mean that a leading literary man told me on a platform in New York that no man could remain married to a woman who said, "Right-O." I thought he might have avoided being married to a woman who said, "Right-O." It has come to the point when a man advertises his desire to be divorced from a woman, only because he has forgotten her name. How jolly it will be when the sanctity of human life has reached the same stage as the sanctity of marriage! When men do not even remember whom they have murdered, as this gentleman could not remember whom he had married. Is it not time we reasserted the principle, known to primitive men, that the things we desire to do are the things we may be restrained in doing; and it is because we are all criminals that we had better be discouraged from crime?
(From The American Review, Feb. 1937)
The BNP is in a mess.
Right: The BNP's new logo.
Richard Barnbrook has been sacked as Barking organiser. That's from the horses mouth via his blog.
Activists in Liverpool have been expelled for supporting a legitimate leadership challenger.
The leadership is trying to (illegally) change its own rules on election nominations to make the process as free and fair as North Korea.
The BNP settled out of court with Unilever (Marmitegate) for an undisclosed sum which some say is £70,000 and others say is £170,000.
The BNP also settled a case with Michael MacKenzie for an undisclosed sum, but to date has not honoured its courtroom agreement, which could see it dragged into court again.
The shocking details of this case show how badly the BNP is run, like a third world banana republic:
Michaela MacKenzie court case details
Whoever is trying to bring the BNP down (each side blames the other), the dictatorial behaviour and lack of financial transparency (despite the promises of 1999) of the current BNP leadership are creating this situation.
This is rapidly becoming very interesting and the more people speak out against the leadership and/or are unceremoniously sacked, the more ammunition the challenger has against the incumbent.
The more I have heard the Tories talk about Afghanistan and the recent murder of men of the Gurkha regiment by an Afghan soldier, the more they sound like NuLab II.
They reel out the old clichés about winning the war, about national security, etc. etc. ad nauseum.
We shouldn't even be in this pointless American adventure. Never mind accepting the simple fact that to withdraw we will have to negotiate with the Taliban.
Dr .Liam Fox on the Radio 4 Today programme this week sounded as monotonous as a Orwellesque government spokesman.
Yes, the war against Eurasia is going well!
Outside of multi-culturalism, the Balkanisation of our cities and the fact that 'White Britons' will, this century, we will be a minority in the UK - the biggest threat to our future comes from being the poodle of America.
Time to end the multi-culti nightmare and regain our independence (to be celebrated on July 5th!), whatever "homegrown terror" plots Mossad and/or the CIA plan as reprisals.
Thursday, 15 July 2010
In my travels I tend to bump into a wide variety of people with past histories and experiences far beyond my sheltered, mono-cultural, comprehensive school, working class upbringing.
If I get the chance I always try and engage these people in conversation to to try learn something else about their job, background, culture etc.
Some lookers-in will cry "hypocrite" because I take an interest in such things whilst publishing "white power" material.
Not so, dear reader. If we want to defend the rights of European peoples, cultures, traditions etc. do we not also want to preserve those of other peoples?
What we are opposed to is the multi-culti anti-culture that comes mostly from 'American' big business giants, and the multi-racial miscegenation, both of which destroy all peoples and cultures via a Chinese water torture style of erosion of peoples, races, cultures, traditions etc.
I am not ignorant, nor am I hateful. I want to know more about different peoples and cultures, because then I learn to appreciated the differences and the idiosyncrasies of my own culture, people, tradition and race.
It is the multiculturalists who want to destroy our differences and make us all coffee coloured automatons wearing Man Utd tops, swilling X-Brand Cola and eating Americanised junk food.
To them we are all just walking wallets who, as long as we can buy the latest Nike top, it is irrelevant what we are, who we are, what blood runs in our veins, etc. etc.
And the truly ignorant are those who always talk of the "benefits" of mass immigration when they do not live amongst the immigrants, have not had their community destroyed, and ignore the destruction of our traditions, cultures and more.
At work the other day I put iplayer on in the background and listened to John Sergeant explaining about the railways built by the British Empire in India, and it made quite a few chance meetings and shared stories come flooding back.
One lady I met ran an English school in India and it was fascinating to learn from her all about the India languages and the central role of English as the 'lingua franca' of the subcontinent. She also impressed on me how the children there, although superficially poorer than those of Europe, were far happier in themselves. As any parent knows, this can quickly become a cliché when used against one's own children and most of us can probably remember our own parents saying too whenever we demanded a certain item for a birthday or for Christmas.
The unifying nature of the English language is a strange product of the British Empire. This is something I took up with another gent I spoke to as we hurtled along Britain's railway system. I also asked him if, in his opinion as someone who came from the very south of India, the British had united the various Indian kingdoms. He was quite shocked and answered that far from it, Britain had actually split India.
It was his view that India comprised of all the lands that currently include Bangladesh, Pakistan and India, and that by partitioning India the British had forever damaged India. He likened it to Ireland where historically the chieftains and tribes were always warring, even to the extent of inviting in the English to win their rival wars. Yet, he insisted, like the Indians they remained intrinsically Irish despite their regional differences, until partition.
I must admit this made me think as I had always thought the British had unified India, albeit for profit under the East India Company.
Of course, when it comes to history (and in this respect I suppose India again is like Ireland) the definition of what happened will very much depend on who you listen to, just as when you put two economists in a room you are bound to get three different versions of what will happen next!
Another interesting aspect of Indian and British history I learnt from an ex-British consulate worker, of all people. He had been based in India for some years and during a general talk about the Raj and its impact on all aspects of Indian life I mentioned the fact that India was particularly known for being Hindu (and Pakistan, Muslim) and how I was surprised India wasn't Anglican in the way many African ex-colonies were, and he told me that the East Indian Company actually banned missionaries, because they got in the way of trade too much!
This seemed to contradict much of what we are taught about British Imperialism in our schools, and seems to point to money and control being more important to the powers-that-be than Christianity.
The ex-bureaucrat said that bar a small 'crescent' in the north (he did name the areas, but I know so little of India I didn't even try to memorise them) which was penetrated by Protestant missionaries such as Methodists, the Christian religion of India was in reality Catholicism. We then talked about the Portuguese and other European settlements in India and the long impact they had. he said that some Catholic areas in India pre-date the European arrival and many Indians claim their religion back to the arrival of the Apostle, Thomas.
In one of his letters, dealing with the European 'trading posts' in India, for example St Francis Xavier said that more Indians would be Christian if the behaviour of the Portuguese traders, sailors and settlers gave a better example of Christian life! I guess nothing changes, as Gandhi said much the same, several hundred years later.
Did their search for wealth mean the British Imperial forces missed a chance to create a Christian country in the East which would act as a buffer to Islam, in the way that Spanish Conquistadors created solidly Catholic countries throughout South and Central America? Might India's Christianity even have spread to modern Pakistan and other states?
I told the bureaucrat of the example of Japan which was on the verge of becoming a Catholic country, with the regent about to convert, when British and Dutch traders persuaded the royal family that there was a "plot" afoot to betray Japan to 'foreign powers.'
The "Christian" traders had the Japanese put Crosses outside entrances to towns and anyone who refused to spit on them was condemned. Many Christians (Japanese and European) were brutally tortured and many had their feet cut off. All this because of the lies of some jealous merchants, Christian in name only. A Catholic Japan might have meant a world of difference, which the men tortured in WW2 prisoner camps might only wonder about.
This was another example of when our own kith and kin - in search of the 'almighty dollar' stopped the spread of Christianity, for shallow short term benefit.
World history may have been very different.
Perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised.
The flag of the East India Company became the early flag of the British American Colonies, only to transmogrify into the USA's Star and Stripes.
The policy of the East India Company stopped Indians becoming Christian. The policies of American big business and military make many other peoples around the world hate us (because they see them as Christians).
So whether today or hundreds of years ago, the international merchants are shafting us all, and putting money before actions that could make others think more kindly of us and our creed; which in turn might enable the Indians to be at ease in India, the Afghans in Afghanistan, Pakistanis in Pakistan and, in turn the Europeans peoples at ease in their own nations.
Dr. Saunders Lewis said that true nationalism was not about barbed wire borders, but about identity. He said that nations felt truly free under the common soil of Christendom. This is a message that other nationalists (such as G.K. Chesterton and Belloc) have spread.
These and many other nationalists promoted an anti-chauvinist, anti-parochial form of genuine nationalism that saw each people as equally valid.
Chesterton said that nationalists respected their neighbours whereas Imperialists wanted to conquer them.
In the Imperial age when the 'imperial dream' seemed the norm (despite the misgivings of some of the means if not the ends) some opportunities were woefully missed because of the greed of the international big businessmen.
In an age when the new Imperialists are fighting their illegal wars and the new international big businessmen are egging the military machine on so they can make more money, we nationalists must be seen to put forward the best for our own people, but also respect the nationhood and rights of other peoples.
If we start to act like Christian people -- as both St Francis Xavier and Gandhi attested! -- others may well learn to respect us as they haven't before.
If we continue to bully others (on the coat-tails of America) because their education policy, foreign policy or trading partners are not ours, then we will continue to be the enemy of many, which does us no favours at all.
If we behave in a civilised manner (at home and abroad) then we can build alliances, trade, understanding with peoples and nations across the globe, and seek to influence others, whilst insisting on our own rights. At the moment we just look like cowards and charlatans who do whatever America and Israel ask.
Monday, 12 July 2010
The BNP are claiming the glory in getting the Met Police to investigate George Galloway over "hateful" comments made to a Muslim crowd against the quasi-Zionist English Defence League (EDF).
The BNP official, (ex-) candidate, activist and ex-CID officer responsible?
Sunday, 11 July 2010
"The Holocaust, as such, is a Jewish invention. We could just as well establish a day of remembrance to the numerous victims of communism, when Catholics and Christians were persecuted."
Bishop Tadeusz Pieronek
I am determined to save the BNP a lot of trouble!
You see the BNP is on the verge of a leadership election and this seems to be causing not a little upset to some. Blogs have appeared with character assassinations of the contender. Members have been threatened not to sign his nominations (with expulsions as far as I can tell - despite his attempt to stand being within the rules). Election campaigners have been warned against involving the contender (despite him being the election agent for the council election candidate!).
There is an air of incrimination, claim and counter claim in the air, with a "secret video" of the contender "drunk in a brothel" which he disputes. Conversely the contender claims he has exposed corruption and maladministration in the BNP leadership including misuse or misappropriation of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
It is all very grubby and must be very disheartening for the average BNP activist (who I believe the Commies disparagingly call "grunts").
So what to do?
Well, in Germany they have a Wunderwaffen that would make Der Fuhrer spill his morning tea.
Let's get Paul the Octopus in on the job!
He has correctly predicted the German games up until now, and has predicted that Spain will win the final.
If Spain do indeed win might I suggest that the BNP leadership, or the contender, send pictures of the two candidates for the chairmanship of the BNP to Paul's owners at Oberhausen Sea Life Aquarium and the cognitive cephalopod can come to a conclusion that both candidates can adhere to.
Just imagine, just two little pics of two would be BNP leaders and all the nastiness, all the threats, all the smear blogs, all the abuse of "Neo-Nazi" forums, all the kerfuffle and the cost of the election could be overcome.
And for any would-be Churchill xenophobes, fearful that association with Le Boche might have Nazi overtones, fear not Colonel Blinks, Paul the Octopus was born in the UK and was moved to the German aquarium. So Paul the Octopus is... er.... a Brit!
And as we all know, Britannia rules the waves (you may salute the queen at this stage) so whatever sea bed he was lifted from, we may presume he is British anyway.
Unless he was bred in captivity in a Muslim country! Oh dear.
But let's assume he is a Brit and so is perfectly suited to the contest.
Over to you Messrs. Griffin and Butler.
Come on! You know it makes sense.
Saturday, 10 July 2010
There I was this morning settling down to enjoy my Marmite on toast with a patriotic British cuppa.
Right: How hatred begins. Look at the idealistic Aryan faces. The traditional clothing. Where are the coloureds? Why no trousers sinking down to reveal boxer shorts? This picture of an Aryan Liverpool is surely how the long trail of hate began, culminating in talk of dirty "dustbun lids."
Imagine my shock and horror when after a brief introduction, a Cilla Black song (Liverpool Lullaby) came on the radio with the words:
Oh you are a mucky kid
Dirty as a dustbin lid
When he hears the things that you did
You'll get a belt from yer dad
Now I don't know about Jewish involvement in the belt industry -- but they were allegedly known for being furriers (I had an historic anti-furrier poster in the 80s, I think produced by the BUAV though someone will confirm/deny I hope, with a very hook nosed evil furrier holding a blood drenched fur coat).
Furrier to leather belt producer? Hmmm.
Anyway, I digress. Back to the song.
Everyone knows that in East End parlance a "dustbin lid" was a derogatory term used against Jewish people. Dustbin lid = Yid.
So was Cilla Black (real name Precilla White!) sending out a hidden message in her song (pre-Led Zep and all that) against dustbin lids?
Or have I been watching too many conspiracy DVDs?
Next week: How Freddie Mercury's Moustache started the AIDS epidemic in Africa aided by the reptilian royal family.
P.S. You think I'm mad? Theodore Dalrymple writing in the loss-making leftist New Statesman complained when the Blairite government published its anti-drug dealer "Rat on a Rat" poster because he said the implication of comparing a human being with a rat was basically National Socialist (=evil nazis). Yes, shock horror, Mr. Theodore Dalrymple thinks that drug dealers are indeed 'human beings' and no doubt they have 'ooman rights' too (starting with not being compared to Jews, er, I mean rats). Officer: that last statement, as per the entire article, is meant to be humourous. I know Jews are not rats. They don't have four legs or tails. And some of my best friends are rats. If anyone else is upset by this article, please find a sense of humour immediately.
Friday, 9 July 2010
I am glad that John "Two Jags" Prescott is now seated in the House of Lords.
Well, not too glad, but quietly pleased.
Baron Prescott of Kingston-upon-Hull was resplendent in his ermine robes as he finally put the nail in the coffin of his being a socialist, never mind a 'working class hero.'
Isn't it funny how the money factor always wins through?
How many politicians enter parliament full of zeal only to be bought by the party system, the expenses, the placements, the pensions?
And if you think Westminster is bad - Brussels is even worse!
The SISO (sign in and sod off) system is not only open to abuse: it positively invites it!
All these politicians are busy filling their pockets whilst playing a party political game which keeps the Masonic system in power, which in turn means that the corruption, servitude and hideous levels of taxation continue.
Let's not be overly obsequious here either. Most (but not all) of the political class come from the private schools and lawyer class.
They are not stupid.
They know that they are buying into a corrupt system which ensures the politicians continue to dance to the banksters tune.
And, as Belloc detailed back in 1912 (if I recall right) even those who enter parliament with the best of intentions (and let us give Prescott the benefit of the doubt) soon realise that they will either have to play the game, or they will be squeezed out.
So yes I am glad that his Honourific Lordfulness Prescott can now park both his jags in the Lords' car park.
It shows how open to bribery (position and wage) all politicians are.
Patronage and corruption are the order of the day.
Let's pretend we are all American donut eaters, or zombiefied Eastenders watchers. Attention span 2 minutes.
OK? Are you "in the zone?"
Right let me ask some very simple questions that we, perhaps in an 'Oprah' advert break, can easily digest (one per TV break perhaps):
- Why when the Labour government was in an economic boom did it still borrow money?
- Why when the Labour government had raised so many stealth taxes did it still borrow money?
- Why when hundreds of billions were spent bailing out the banks aren't the banks paying it all back (with interest) to bail us out?
- Why does the ConDem government still borrow money whilst raising yet more taxes?
- Why does no government stop borrowing money and just create its own government bank that can issue its own money debt-free?
- Why doesn't a government bank offer secured reasonable loans (eg 75% mortgages) at fixed-fee amounts?
- Why does no nationalist elected representative present a usury-free answer to local debts, local services cuts etc. to present a real third positionist (neither Capitalist nor Communist) stance?
Food for thought.
Right. Can I take my track-suit off now?
Thursday, 8 July 2010
Just had this email:
If it has cost £70K - and we have yet to know if this is the total settlement - who will take the flak for this? £70K is not a trifle in anyone's language, let alone the money donated by OAPs, the unemployed and low waged.
Just heard on the British Democracy forum that the Marmite case has just cost the BNP £70.000 in costs is this true ? if not what are the facts?
if it's true, someone should really be on the chopping block for that cock up!
Still, as the swearie weirdies who waste their time attacking those who don't toe certain party lines would have it, what right have I to comment on the BNP -- just as they don't comment on NuLab or the ConDems or any other party involved in the 'democratic' process. Sheesh.
Wednesday, 7 July 2010
Top judges have said asylum seekers can stay here if their homosexuality makes them a target for harassment and suchlike 'back home.'
This is, of course, a green light now for degenerates from around the world to target the UK, knowing that they will have to be accepted, just as we accept gypsies from Eastern Europe (as if they were being killed by the lorry load out there).
Even worse, their justiceful lordships have now allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry, to turn up at a UK port and say "I'm a poof" and be allowed into the country!
Do their worshipfulnesses not have a clue? Does their obsequious nature in the face of the Gay Mafia and political correctness not allow them to smell the coffee?
Why is it in this world, the homosexual label on anything seems to make it OK?
It makes asylum seekers OK. It makes lewd behaviour in public OK. It makes council funding of loss-making parades OK.
In short the establishment seems hell bent (so many puns!) on promoting the "rights" of homosexuals in every sphere, in every facet of modern life.
As Enid Blyton might intone: It's all so very queer.
As one of the FC sprogs might quip: That is soooooo gay.
And as a grumbling builder might sneer between gulps of hot tea: Bugger that!
Oh. As a P.S. may I ask the perennial question - why does an alleged pooftah in Iran or Central Africa have to travel all the way to the UK to find safety? is there really no other safe place betwixt hither and thither? To ask this question gives the lie to the idea that a load of fudge packers from the four corners of the world need to land in the UK to find safety. But then senior judges never did have any common sense.
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
So July the 4th came and went. Americans at home and abroad celebrated the fact they threw off the shackles of the (loathed) British Empire to gain their freedom.
How ironic that these days most of the world, even amongst their 'allies,' wish to be free of the American imperial 'dream.'
Don't Americans get it? Can't they see the wonderful irony of the situation?
I have written before about the absurd situation of the USA demanding everyone adhere to their Monroe Doctrine, which at the time saw their imperial pretensions extending to the Americas (how do you think Venezuela, Brazil and others feel about this self-proclaimed overlordship of their nations?), whilst they seem more than happy to stick their pudgy fingers into every continent of the world.
Why can't the Syrians, Lebanese and other Arab states have a Monroe Doctrine of their own demanding that America keep its malevolent oar out of the Middle East?
Why can't the Germans, Italians and British have a Monroe Doctrine of their own demanding that America close its outdated Cold War/WW2 military bases?
Did you know that American patriots - in-between exposing plots by their own government to erode what they see as their liberties won circa 1776, - wax lyrical about the threat coming from America's involvement with groups like the UN, primarily the idea that foreign armies could open bases on US soil.
Foreign armies on your soil? Don't they understand? Huge US bases are dotted across the world. Guantanamo Bay anyone?
July the 4th has become a bitter joke, for the people fighting American invaders, for those opposed to American military bases on their soil, for those opposed to American (anti-)cultural hegemony in the Western hemisphere, for those sickened by America's blocking of UN resolutions against Israel.
While Americans celebrate a 'fight for freedom' over 200 years old, they celebrate American military interventions, American diplomatic bullying and bribery, and American (anti-)cultural imperialism across the globe.
Many years ago the National Front proclaimed July the 5th as British Independence Day, with demonstrations outside US Military Bases on English soil.
Whilst the BNP has latterly turned against the American wars we've been dragged into, their erstwhile Neo-Con stance of blaming everything on Islam coupled with their early support of the invasion of Afghanistan for that very reason has made them ineffective on defending English, UK or European rights against American encroachment in so many spheres.
After all, those who follow the (Neo Con) idea of the "Clash of Civilisations" who thereby stand on the side of (oxymoronic) Judeo-Christianity --in other words Israeli/Zionist/American policy-- can hardly take a genuinely Nationalist stance against American Imperialism without looking like people who are trying to have their cake and eat it (or as the Italians say, to be drunk with a full barrel).
Let us look at the two situations for they mirror each other:
- In the mid 1980s the reactionaries of the day believed that the Cold War made the Americans our natural allies. Thus the National Front were painted as "cranks" (and absurdly even Communists!) to oppose American military bases and proclaim British neutrality.
- Today the reactionaries believe the 'War on Terror/Clash of Civilisations' makes Israel (and the Americans) our natural allies. Thus those of us who oppose the Neo Con agenda are painted as "cranks" (and absurdly even Islamists!) to proclaim British neutrality.
As with yesterday's, so today's reactionaries have much to fear and are working to an agenda (primarily a Masonic one).
Might today's nationalists have the courage to proclaim July 5th as British Independence Day as we fight to get the UK out of the sphere of influence of America and its Neo Con allies over here?
Or will many of them continue to act out their Neo Con fantasies and blame the world economic crash, countless wars, increased taxes, unsafe streets, the collapse of the family, falling standards in schools, the 'gay' agenda, dead end 'Mcjobs,' gun crime, the collapse of morality, MPs fiddling expenses, the Europhile agenda, binge drinking and anti-social behaviour all on the Muslims?
We once proclaimed Neither Capitalism Nor Communism as we raised high the banner of a genuine independent nationalist voice.
May we now have the courage, honour and honesty to proclaim Neither Israel Nor Islam as we fight to raise the banner of a new independent nationalist voice for the 21st Century.
Then those who stand on the coat tails of the Zionists, Neo Cons and their American apologists will be seen as the traitors to genuine nationalism that they are.