The British Nationalist

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.

Since David Cameron reneged on his promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution, there have been many members of the public calling for the British National Party (BNP) & the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) to merge.

Typical reactions to Cameron’s treachery included; a message of intent to vote for either UKIP or the BNP, voting for one of the two, with several commentators suggesting that the two parties should merge.

The Benefits

• Two members of the House of Lords
• 15 MEPs combined
• 200+ (?) Councillors
• 5,000 Activists
• The ability to raise more than a million pounds in campaign funds for the general election

Drawbacks

• It is easy for a voter to ask why two of their preferred parties cannot merge because they’re generally not ideologues, they’re interested in policy. UKIP are civic nationalists and the BNP are ethno-nationalists, what is interesting is that the form of British Nationalism espoused by Lee Barnes would be the amalgamation of the two ideologies. Whether this would be acceptable to both parties is unclear.
• UKIP is heavily indebted, figures of £700,000 + are being touted.
• The two parties internal structures are polar opposites. UKIP use an elected board -The National Executive Committee (NEC). Long-term nationalists will never approve of this system because of the potential for splitting and the development of factions. (This has occurred with UKIP)
• Let’s face it, the BNP has an image problem. You’re not going to get the average UKIP member to transfer their allegiance to a super-party if all the media are going to do is label it the BNP rebranded. Which it would be, as despite UKIP’s greater electoral success ,the BNP has a higher profile, thanks to the smears.

Before you all go off on a rant – UKIP wasn’t set up to counter the BNP, that is nonsense, the BNP was politically insignificant in 1993, the year UKIP were founded. Although recently, the media has promoted them to that end.

I recognise that this is a waste of pixels, let’s have some fun. How about a name for this hypothetical Eurosceptic super-party?

The Difference Between Left and Right Wing and Where British Parties Stand – An Introduction

For too long there has been confusion between Left and Right wing in British politics.

In economic terms, those on the Right hand of the political spectrum tend to favour low taxation, privitisation and a free market to encourage competition in business so to become more efficient and provide a better service.

Conversely, those on the Left tend to prefer a strong hold over the economy and suggest nationlisation and a tightly controlled market is the way forward.
Those on the far Left favour income redistribution, high taxation and a welfare state to eliminate the social economic class system and promote “equality”.

The British National Party (much like the Green Party), by some of these definition, are economically Left wing.
Their policies regarding health, transport, housing, protectionism and globalisation fall strongly on the Left side of the political spectrum and may explain why they receive so much support in traditional Labour strongholds.

Parties such as UKIP on the other hand profess their support for a freer market and the scrapping of Inheritance Tax, though both UKIP and the BNP stress the importance of reforming the current welfare system so that it acts as a safety net as opposed to the hammock it has become.

The Labour Party after Blair and Brown’s reform (although still economically Socialist in the vaguest of terms) do not hold the same views towards privitisation as Old Labour did.
Tony Blair, though forced to re-nationalise Railtrack, was intent on privitising the London Underground and Royal Mail. This is a far cry from Old Labour policy and has undoubtedly lost the Party a crucial following.

Socially, those on the Right hold conservative values such as an authoritarian attitude to crime, often supporting corporal and capital punishment, are against immigration, asylum seeking and multiculturalism and emphasise the value of National identity and tradition, insisting that social change should be organic rather than manufactured.

Contrarily, the Left argue for tolerance towards (read ‘preferance towards’) minorities, hold liberal attitudes on law and order emphasising the importance of reform as opposed to punishment and imply the state is justified in intervening to create social change.

By this definition the BNP is certainly on the Right hand of the political spectrum when it comes down to their policies on immigration, asylum, law and order, the military and school discipline.
In this sense it is easy to see the parallels between todays British National Party and yesterdays Conservative Party with the likes of Enoch Powell possibly springing to mind.

Today’s Tories under David Cameron could be said to be more ‘Blue Labour’ than Conservative.
Cameron has made massive reforms within the Conservative Party, defeating the New Right and traditional Conservatives in order to implement policies worthy of battling the Labour Party for the Centre ground.

Cameronites supported the idea that significant minorities within Britain were excluded from mainstream society due to economic deprivation and social discrimination.
The advocacy of grammar schools was abandoned, instead taking on board the Labour policy of creating different types of secondary schools that would be available to all irrespective of background.
The traditional Conservative hardline stance on law and order was softened, for example by proposing measures to combat youth crime by lessening the amount of custodial sentences given.

It can safely be said that Labour and Conservatives to lean firmly more towards the centre in comparison to their original standpoints.

It is difficult to accutely differentiate between Left and Right especially when it comes down to Party alignment where it is almost impossible to find one that lands squarely on one side with all its policies.
As earlier exemplified, the British National Party harbours policies that fall both on the Left and Right side of the political spectrum and is thus wrongly described as “far-Right” by the media.

It is therefore better to avoid using these terms to describe a party altogether, rather only to label significant policies as either Left or Right.

Mark Croucher

We were asked by a reader for more information on the vetting of UKIP members by communist criminal Gerry Gable. Former UKIP member Anthony Scholefield alleged that Mark Croucher – UKIP’s communications director between 2001-2007 – passed members’ details to anti-democratic  far-left organisations.

Anthony Scholefield, UKIP Secretary for three years stated: “A disturbing feature is that Mark Croucher, UKIP Press Officer, shows UKIP members’ details to Communists and Socialist Workers via Searchlight and Unite Against Fascism. Croucher reports to Farage.”

Gable as Searchlight boss has a history of investigating right-wing political parties, he once provided information to the BBC’s Panorama programme, the episode featured around two Conservative MPs who Gable claimed had links to far-right European parties. The resulting libel case cost the taxpayer £1million.  £2.5m in today’s money.

Croucher, the American born former merchant navy radio officer is answerable to Farage, although it is unclear whether he was acting on his own initiative,  he has been known to make unauthorised statements. In his latest outburst he claimed that the BNP had infiltrated UKIP, which sparked rows when members of UKIP’s National Executive Council refused to rubber stamp his statement without concrete evidence. Farage and Croucher are now so close that the former allows the latter to post on forums on his behalf.

Apparently the vetting involved cross referencing new UKIP members’ names to discover if there is any connection to the BNP. It is intriguing that Searchlight seem to have a greater knowledge of UKIP’s finances and membership than their own officials. Searchlight’s latest fund raising effort stated: “UKIP is a mere shadow of its former self”.

So why the association with Searchlight? Croucher claims that it is to prevent infiltration by the BNP or ex-BNP members, this is despite the membership traffic flowing the other way – towards the BNP. Searchlight will happily use UKIP to limit the BNP’s progress, but one has to question why an anti-communist and patriotic party would associate itself with the likes of Gable.