The British Nationalist

It has been revealed that the Conservatives and Labour had planned to cooperate to keep BNP leader Nick Griffin out of parliament. Tory strategists had agreed to not stand a candidate against Nick, only changing their mind when ‘anti-fascists’ warned them what a stupid idea it was.

“Under the proposal, the Tories would have agreed not to put up a candidate against Mrs Hodge in the hope of giving her a better chance of defeating the far-right party leader at the next general election.

But the plan was killed off after anti-fascist group Searchlight said that the pact could backfire by fuelling Mr Griffin’s victim status.”

Yet more proof of the close-knit relations between the tweedle-dee, tweedle dum parties, and the sham democratic system in the UK. Standing against Nick in a straight forward, democratic battle is apparently out of the question. Just in case they don’t agree with the results of the electorate exercising their democratic rights – and Nick Griffin wins.

This probably would have backfired, and unfortunately, Gerry Gable has been in this game a long time.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/713/davidcameronspactwithgo.jpg

We know that trade unions are often mobilised to interfere in our democracy, particularly when the BNP is standing. So it comes as no surprise that a local Unison member in Barking and Dagenham is going to be fighting the BNP there.

You will no doubt have some idea of what the virulently anti-BNP Unison gets up to. Supposedly, allowing hope not hate, searchlies et al, free use of their call-centre facilities. One member allegedly traced nuisance phone calls back to a Unison facility.

Louise Couling is a lollypop woman, or crossing officer (as I imagine she likes to be called), she is also a member of the London branch of Unison and has a position on the National Executive Council (NEC).

According to Labourlist:

Louise describes herself as an ordinary working class trade unionist who fiercely represents her predominantly low-paid women members. She is also a super-proud true Brit who hates fascism.

This is normally translated as lower class, uneducated, very left-wing and thinks Fascism is anything right of themselves; which just happens to be everything when you’re that far left. Having spent some time around the Labour scene, I know what these lot are like. Usually stinking filthy, with yellow teeth, cat hair on their clothes and rather fond of the booze. That’s your average Liebore bag lady. Not to menti0n that most of them were young communists, before they learned to conceal their beliefs.

Richard is running for election to Barking & Dagenham council, instead of parliament, and should be successful, having been one of the most well-known and liked politicians in the area. If the party captures the council Richard is expected to be installed as the first BNP council leader.

This mouldy ragamuffin should offer no stiff challenge to the seasoned BNP activists of B & D, despite the plotting between Liebore and (E)UKIP.

There are few times  in high level politics when the people involved show that they are really incompetent to hold the positions they have. In America we have been treated  to eight years of a stooge so inept he kept muffing his lines until finally his handlers had him saying nothing that was not completely scripted. But that was a first in the history of the Presidency

Then we had the governor of Illinois who was so indiscreet, such a loose cannon that  the establishment dumped him with a publicly leaked bribe soliciting tape  recording, as an anchor around his neck.

Now the British, in the run up  to one of the most critical Elections in their 2500 year history have the leader of the major spoiler Party, UKIP, the party that took the second highest number of seats in the recent EU election, the party that was poised to become the one that would force the Tories into a coalition government,  Lord Pearson, reveal   publicly that not only are he and Farage  completely inept,  but that Farage and a few stooges have been making the decisions all alone, with no infrastructure involved.

It is no wonder the parties strongest region, the southeast, has issue a quick ultimatum, disguised as an invitation, for Pearson to appear and explain himself. It is not often that in a few sentences  the leader of  a political party that is on the verge of becoming part of the power structure reveals himself as a fool and the central hierarchy of that party as a shell .

Just in case you have not realized what has happened here, it is essential to understand that a political party that seriously intends to run a government of a modern nation has to have a cadre , in fact a small army  of specialists ready to support the political hierarchy of that party run all the myriad functions of modern government,   You cannot just march in to office and appoint ministers to oversee permanent undersecretaries unless they are extremely familiar with how the departments are run, and you need a  slew of political appointees to fill  the various slots in the executive.  Lord Pearson revealed that the inside of his organization was such an empty shell that not only could he and Farage  make this preposterous offer, cold turkey, to David Cameron, without having a clue as to how he would respond, But they did not have to consult their cadre  beforehand,  because essentially, they did not have one.

Incidentally this is why Labour is trying to demonize BNP supporters, to make all those inside the government who are in the know about Labour’s terribly inept management afraid to contact the British National Party for fear they will lose positions. Fortunately for the People of the UK Thousands of civil servants support the BNP and when Labour is out of power and they Tories are forced into a coalition, be pouring out of the woodwork to join a BNP government. These include senior and retired Police officials who have had to sit by silently and watch Labour try and in many cases succeed in turning the best police service in the world into something resembling the East German Stasi.  There are also hundred s of military officers in all the services  thousands of school teachers and administrators, Barristers,  judges,  financial workers who have lost their jobs due to the greed of the top Banksters, health service workers , and many other honest British civil servants thoroughly fed up with the intimidation of the leftist system, that has forced them to keep totally silent if they wanted to preserve their livelihoods.   Anyone doubting this statement only needs to follow the pathetic tale of the dismissal of two outstanding  members of the Yeoman Warders at the Tower of London.

What is significant is that these people could have flocked to become the UKIP cadre, without much risk,  if the Parties executive council had opened the party up and tried to build a real party where decisions are made by the activist membership. That they, system insiders did not do so, is more indicative of what they actually thought of, or conversely what they were allowed to do  in a closed shop party run by old Tories, with but a single real issue, keeping the UKs bankers out of control by Brussels and Strasbourg, while retaining this financial system that has brought the great depression once again to the western world.

It would be wonderful if the large group of UKIP activists in the southeast as well as the south west would succeed in  getting Pearson to step down in favor of the number two candidate or conversely running the election for Party Chair once again, but if the history of UKIP is any indicator, Pearson, Farage and the rest of the hierarchy will close ranks and force the outraged membership to swallow what they have done in silence, or leave the Party. Either way this should be a massive boon to the BNP as soon as the membership approves the  new membership criteria which allows ethnic minorities to join.  That is because with a new chair the UKIP party will most likely withdraw candidates in BNP strongholds or if their is no new administration, with the UKIP membership once again forced to tow the line, there will be massive defections to the BNP.

Because so many of the UKIP rank and file activists and candidates are honest patriotic Brits,  I hope for the first circumstance, because as a practical matter, to force the Tories into coalition government this coming may the UKIP must win strongly in the South , and the BNP significantly in the North. But what will be, will be, and whatever the result, the Nationalist movement will be stronger in the coming year.

By American Nationalist

UKIP’s London Chairman Paul Wiffen took great delight in telling me that I was lying about everything in the last article, I must have just made it all up off the top of my head.

They have actually dumped poor Winston Mckenzie and gone for the rabid gay-hater, failed footballer, failed jockey, one-time chef and boxing manager Frank Maloney. Nobody knew about this development, apart from very few of the mugs in (E)UKIP.

Maloney stood in the 2004 London mayoralty election, securing 6.19% of the vote and fourth place. During this very campaign, he refused to canvass Camden because there were ‘too many gays’.

The ponces of the UKIP London hierarchy probably think Maloney’s non-PC outbursts will endear him to the indigenous folks of Barking – the ones that haven’t been ethnically cleansed, yet. We’ll see, maybe Wiffen can make a documentary about it.

We hope he is ready to take on the BNP-Machine, after all, it was only two months ago that he suffered a heart attack. No Mercy, prepare to be crushed, Maloney.

(Gay BNP supporters are urged to participate in the Barking Campaign)

UKIP insiders are claiming that political chameleon Winston Mckenzie is putting himself forward as the candidate to take on Nick Griffin for the Barking parliamentary seat.

The former boxer, landlord and hairdresser who has been a member of Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, Veritas, Conservatives and founder of the now defunct Unity Party is up against Paul Wiffen for the nomination, UKIP’s London Chairman.

UKIP members have asked why the party is standing against another EU withdrawalist in a seat they have little chance of winning. However, it was revealed that UKIP has a history of working with the local Labour party to split the BNP’s vote. Labour activists were even used to deliver UKIP literature, and the party put up 12 candidates specifically in the Barking and Dagenham wards contested by the BNP in 2006.

The plot thickens, de-facto leader of UKIP’s Barking and Dagenham branch is Kenny Smith, whose brother just happens to to be Liam Smith, the boss of the local Labour group and River Ward councillor.

Given the nature of UKIP’s duplicity it would not be surprising if the BNP stood a candidate against Nigel Farage, who plans to oust the speaker of the house of commons John Bercow in Buckingham. This would seriously lengthen the odds of the contest returning UKIP’s first MP.

Mckenzie is a prize fool, but he is also Black. UKIP will trade on his ethnicity, playing up the contest as some sort of battle between the lovely ethnic minority vs the evil BNP leader whom wants to send him home to Jamaica. The press will love it.

Credit where it is due, Mckenzie was one of the very few London Mayoralty candidates that didn’t walk off the stage when Richard Barnbrook made his victory speech.

The chart is from Political Betting.com a good source of mostly unbiased material, money where the mouth is tends make people’s opinions more honest.

They used the chart to show the difference between vote share when spread across the whole of the country against only those seats fought between Labour and the Tories. But my interest went down the chart to the BNP see how the percentage rose from 0.7% nationally – which the opponents of the BNP love to bang on about – against the figure of 4.3% average across all 119 seats which the BNP fought, this average is 1.5% higher than that of UKIP.

You will also see if we could harness the nearly a million voters which we got out in the euro election. We would have a clear 4th place and I am sure be winning seats in the next election. The challenge is to get those voters out, the tools is reports like this, it is all in how you decipher and promote the figures, you can say the BNP only got less than one percent or you can promote that we were 6 times better than that.

By Election Correspondent

There is confusion spread throughout the party. Some are asking why we have to amend our constitution, some are questioning their ideology and some are taking a long hard look at their political allegiance. They are right to be unsure.  We are walking a tightrope. If we falter now, the BNP will never secure parliamentary representation for the indigenous peoples of these isles.

A cocksure Tory once said that Labour would never be elected again. A few years previously James Callaghan’s Old Labour  government had fallen. It was widely believed that the party then in its present incarnation would never capture the support of middle England again. The signs were there in 1974 (and arguably decades earlier), when they had been forced to form a minority government, short of a majority by 33 seats. The belief that the public had lost faith – and many were suspicious of anything remotely resembling communism – in a socialist party was borne out over the course of the next three general elections, they failed in 83, 87, and 92.

Labour bigwigs needed to make the party more attractive to the middle-class, it was vital that they try to move away from its socialist stance to free-market policies. There was considerable opposition from the elder members and the hardcore ‘reds’. Like the BNP, Labour had constitutional issues, the infamous clause four, which detailed Labour’s commitment to Nationalisation and wealth redistribution, but it was also a stick for their own back, often attacked by their opponents.

In 1992, Labour were expected to defeat the Tories. Labour lost, and this was a wake up call for the party, it gave impetus to the architects of the New Labour project. Labour ratified Blair’s clause four constitutional amendments in 1995. This represented the final step from Old Labour to New Labour, and two years later, they won, massively.

2004 was our wake up call, it was supposed to be the year that the BNP finally broke into the big time, we were going to win several seats at the European election. Perhaps we should have realised that the media weren’t attacking us because we we didn’t pose a threat, and they were right, we were agonisingly close in Nick’s North-West region, but ultimately we failed. The party had overextended itself financially, morale was very low, and then, Nick announced the unthinkable, we were going to have to amend our membership criteria. There was big opposition from the membership, and the plan was abandoned, but not forgotten.

Five years later, high on victory, the amendments first suggested in 2004 were now being forced onto us by the establishment. The first hurdle has been navigated – the voting membership has selected a proposal from the Chairman to go to the party membership to ratify our constitutional amendments. The membership now holds in their hands the one chance we have to break away from the remnants of the old party that hold us back. For some, this may be a very bitter pill to swallow, but tell me: Is it as bitter as all the years of failure you have endured?

Remember;

We are still Ethno-Nationalists,

We still oppose mass immigration,

We are still committed to dismantling Multiculturalism,

We will leave the European Union.

The major difference between ethno-nationalism and racial-nationalism, is that the former recognises loyalty to your ethnic group before that of your race. Think of your country, culture and heritage before that of the kindred ethnicities. This may come as a surprise, but the British have been betrayed, bullied and in some cases slaughtered by those whom racial-nationalists would consider their brethren. It’s just a reconsideration, a repositioning of your world view and priorities.

From 1982 to 1999, the BNP was like a small child, uncouth, politically unpalatable, electorally toxic, too influenced by the movements that gave birth to it. We are now at the adolescence stage of our development, and it is painful. We are at the brink of passing into adulthood, political maturity, and like a youngster that has outgrown his peers, we most move on. Move on to electoral success and become a parliamentary party.

However, we must not cast aside those whom were there in the beginning, but they must accept that the tyranny we face now was allowed to manifest itself on their watch, their brand of nationalism was unacceptable to the electorate, it was a complete failure, they must accept and correct those failings, and they must adapt. Those that have done so, now lead the party.

This is our ‘clause four moment’.

This polling research below was backed by, and produced for, political betting. As I have said before, within reason, those who have money to put where their mouths are have less of an axe to grind and are closer to what is really happening.

Nationally the BNP are on 5% but this includes weak areas. But for the North the BNP has grown to 8%! Maybe this should be an area in which the BNP concentrate.

At present all sorts of rumours are abound, and the main focus of the BNP is towards Barking, and with good reason because as stated HERE You will see the move upwards in support for the BNP and steep decline for Labour making winning the seat a real possibility.

But what of other seats? We have our two MEP’s from the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside regions. I don’t think it is beyond the realms of possibility that we have Nick Griffin elected for Barking and at least another candidate elected from another seat, we do need to not just focus on Barking though but look at the whole of the UK. The euro elections are good for one purpose they give every voter in the UK a chance to vote BNP. At this election I think we should give as many voters as possible a chance to vote BNP, by having as many candidates as possible. Lets see what happens.

By Election Correspondent

Lady Margaret Hodge will attempt to hold on to her Barking seat at the next general election, she will be up against one of the most well-known politicians of this century. Love or hate Nick Griffin, he is instantly recognisable to the public. Hodge has repeatedly reduced her winning majority at each general election since 1997.

• 1944 - Born in Cairo, Egypt. Her father was an extremely wealthy German steel magnate.
• 1966 – She had a privileged education, attending two public schools. Obtained a 3rd class Batchelor’s degree in economics from the prestigious London School of Economics (LSE).
• 1973 - Becomes a Labour councillor in Islington, London. Established Labour councillors view her as one of a raft of middle-class activists taking over their party. She was quickly raised to Chair of the housing committee.
• 1982 – Elected as Council Leader, a position she would hold for ten years.
• 1983-1992 Her leadership is compared to Albanian communist despot Enver Hoxha. Her council was criticised for taking 5 years to respond to a letter which contained allegations of child abuse whilst the writer was in council care.
• 1992 – Resigns after The Evening Standard investigates claims of child abuse occurring in Islington’s child care facilities. Pursues a career as a consultant for Price Waterhouse.

At this point, a healthy democratic society would have ensured that this woman was never allowed to obtain any public office again. Having demonstrated a lack of ability as council leader.

• 1994 - Elected as the MP for Barking with 13,704 votes (72.1%) and a 11,414 majority.
• 1997 – Re-elected to parliament with 21,698 votes (65.82%) and a 15,896 majority.
• 1998 – Becomes a Junior Minister as Parliamentary under-secretary of state for education and employment.
• 2001 – Re-elected to parliament with 15,302 votes (60.9%) on a reduced majority of 9,534.  Becomes Minister for Universities in the Department for Education and Skills.
• 2003 – Becomes member of the Privy Council and Minister for Children.
• 2004 Privacy International award her the ‘Big Brother Award’, in recognition of her backing of the intrusive Universal Child Database.
• 2005 – Re-elected to parliament with 13,826 votes (47.8%) with a further reduced majority of 8,883. Appointed Minister for State.
• 2006 – Criticised for supposedly saying that sacked MG Rover technicians could get jobs at Tesco. Appointed to the Department for Trade and Industry.
• 2007 – Appointed Minister for Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism.
• 2008 - Resigned Ministerial position.
• 2009 – Thoroughly beaten in a TV debate with Andrew Brons, the newly elected BNP MEP for Yorkshire and Humberside. Appointed Minister for Culture and Tourism.

Voting Record Since 2001

• Has never voted on a transparent Parliament.
• Voted for introducing a smoking ban.
• Voted for introducing ID cards.
• Voted for introducing foundation hospitals.
• Voted for introducing student top-up fees.
• Voted for Labour’s anti-terrorism laws.
• Voted for the Iraq war.
• Voted against investigating the Iraq war.
• Voted for replacing Trident.
• Voted for the hunting ban.
• Voted for equal gay rights.

The channel 4 debate which featured Andrew Brons MEP, and Hodge, showed her up for a pinhead. She’s not a very bright woman, and I suspect she will avoid a confrontation with Nick Griffin, lest he embarrass her in exactly the manner that communist Labour traitor politicians deserve.

If you look at the linked pie chart of UK expenditure, you will see that by far the largest slice of overall spending is devoted to “Social Protection”, at 169 billion pounds or 27% of total spending. This is on top of “Personal Social Services” spending of 27 billion pounds.

So, what is this vague cover-all term “Social Protection”? What does it mean?

A little research reveals that the main focus of this expensive targeting is “maternity”, “childbirth”, “early years” and “young adulthood”. All very well and good and beneficial. But just who are the main recipients of all this money?

When you factor in the statistics from the Office for National Statistics which reveal that Britain’s highest birth rates are in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, that the birth rate among women born in Pakistan but living in the UK is three times higher than that among British-born women – and that Mohammed has overtaken Jack as Britain’s most popular name for baby boys -you will begin to realise where most of this sizeable tranche of expenditure ends up.

Yes, all that money is for the vastly increasing immigrant baby boomers, more than for health, education, transport or housing (of which they get their share as well).

And look at the disproportionately tiny amount spent on defence. If Labour had not inflicted this situation on us, we would have had all that money available to spend on our aging infrastructure for use by us British Brits. Instead of which, it’s all being wasted on people who shouldn’t be here anyway.

Vote BNP and redress the balance in our favour.

File: UK Expenditure - http://tinyurl.com/58d9rh

By Sheriff of Nottingham

In reality, the term ‘Social Protection’ means voter base protection. Labour are merely utilising and encouraging the benefits culture to keep themselves in power. As revealed last week, the areas with the highest percentages of benefits claimants are Labour territory. It goes some way to explaining the ties to the ‘benevolent’ state that the Labour party has cast upon the most disadvantaged, for their own electoral gain. For example, Glasgow North East. -Ed