The British Nationalist

Once again Unite Against Fascism (UAF) have scuppered interactive democracy. Reminding us of one of their infamous lines: ‘ We believe in freedom of speech but not for fascists’ . Obviously oblivious to the fact that the opposite is declared as soon as their representative uttered ‘but’.

As much as these fools like to claim that they’re ‘concerned local residents’, for the most part they are parachuted in from all over the UK. At Durham University, the decision to allow or not to allow active democracy should have been a decision taken by the student union, as elected officials. Not by failed students of the 60’s and the young social-retards of the UAF.

These extreme leftists peddled the usual lies in order to shut the debate down; the violent BNP thugs will turn up. THIS IS A LIE. The BNP does not engage in street protests, save in exceptional circumstances, such as the ‘free speech’ trial of Nick Griffin. Why would BNP supporters turn up to a University debate, it’s a function for the students alone.

This is an outdated tactic by the UAF, it’s designed to goad us into rolling in the streets with them, there can only be ‘violence’ if the UAF turn out to attack us. This would provide local and/or national rags with the pictures to accompany articles describing us as violent fascists. They’re frustrated because we don’t do street marches or violence. In fact, it is the UAF that engages in fascistic tactics. Clawhammer attacks, spitting in the face of disabled children and surrounding lone BNP supporters.

It is this simple.

Q – If, as claimed, our arguments are so ’stupid’, surely these students will see through them? Where is the need to stop us putting them forth?

A – It is precisely because our arguments are growing in popularity and acceptance that they want us silenced. The UAF and the broader leftist movement cannot counter us via argument. They have nothing left to offer but fists and boots, and they know it. Sadly, our supporters have experienced the power of the leftist’s argument – normally resulting in a visit to A and E.

Furthermore, this wasn’t just an attack on the BNP, this was an attack on every student that wanted to challenge our stance. It is up to ‘mainstream’ party supporters – and students – to stop these extremists. Do not be intimidated by these people. They’re communists at heart, and that translates as an inherent cowardice, they fear the freedom to fail.

The BNP has its hands tied. I will give my warning though, any UAF that gets up in my face will be picking his teeth up off the floor – I will stick the head on you, in self-defence of course.

The newspapers call us ‘fascists’, ‘extremists’, ‘racists’ etc but they never call us liars.

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.

It has finally been confirmed that the BNP’s two MEPs have joined the new pan-European nationalist party.

If the new party meets stringent EU regulations it could receive up to £11 million of funding.

The political declaration of the alliance of national movements:

• Recognizing our common responsibility towards the peoples of Europe and the diversity of cultures and languages they represent,

• Mindful of inalienable values of Christian civilization, natural law, peace and freedom in Europe,

• Bearing in mind the many threats that the powerful forces of globalization pose to this legacy,

Representatives of movement and national parties in Europe, we demand:

1. The creation of a Europe of free nations, equal and independent in the framework of a confederation of sovereign states, which refrains from taking action on issues addressed appropriately by the states themselves;

2. The rejection of any attempt to create super-European state;

3. The promotion of freedom, dignity and equal rights of all citizens and opposition to all forms of totalitarianism;

4. The primacy of the direct vote of the people or their elected representatives on the decisions of any administrative agency or bureaucracy;

5. Effective protection of Europe against the new threats posed by terrorism as well as political imperialism, economic, financial or religious.

6. Regulation in a humane and peaceful problem of immigration in particular through international cooperation for development and self-sufficiency of Third World countries;

7. Strong policies for families, to reduce the deficit population of Europe and to promote traditional values in society;

8. The preservation of diversity in Europe as result of the variety of identities, traditions, languages and cultures of origin;

9. A common struggle of the peoples of Europe against social dumping and the destructive effects of globalization.

Signed in Budapest October 23, 2009, including the Front National (FR), the British National Party (GB), the Hungarian movement Jobbik (H), Fiamma Tricolore (IT), the Front National Belge (B), & National Demokraterna (SWEDEN)

UKIP have also received an invitation to join a European party, but there is said to be such fierce opposition to the move that it could result in yet more infighting between the Farage sycophants and those campaigning to remove his influence.

It seems The Times journalists have been trawling the Stormfront forum – with no official BNP forum – they are reduced to delving into that garbage purveyor to gauge BNP members and supporters reactions to Question Time. The Times refers to a poll which asks ‘Should Griffin step down as BNP Chairman?‘, with 32 saying yes against 79 saying no.

“Yesterday supporters expressed their anger on Stormfront, a nationalist forum with the logo “White Pride Worldwide”. In a poll of more than 100 members, 30 per cent said that Mr Griffin should be replaced. Scores more have used the website to criticise his appearance on the programme, labelling it “disastrous”.

One, writing as “Smith”, said: “The facts are thus: we aren’t winning, QT didn’t help, it just made us look stupid and the intelligent amongst us want Griffin replaced.”

Another, Doriot, said: “To me is seems pretty obvious that the party has gone as far as it can under his leadership.”

It is far from being a good indicator of opinion, but as we know, journalists will attempt to infer from the most tenuous of sources.

1.) Stormfront is an unofficially proscribed forum, no decent BNP member uses it.

2.) It is known to be infested with communist troublemakers. Any polls are influenced by these elements.

3.) Several Stormfront users are disgruntled ex-BNP members, hardcore Nazis and good candidates for mental health confinement, hardly the best group of people to poll.

4.) Virulent anti-Griffin people moderate the forum, in particular, the elderly Tyndall lover ‘Old Knight’.

The Times offers up Andrew Brons MEP, Martin Wingfield and Simon Darby as alternatives. It’s nothing more than an ill-judged attempt to create the internal division that the Times claims already exists. If somebody wants to replace Nick Griffin they can come forward and explain how they would have handled Question Time differently, yes Nick has baggage, and he has acknowledged that this will represent a glass ceiling limiting how far he can take us, but would you sacrifice Nick’s qualities for a ‘clean’ leader with no ability?