Share |

Friday, 30 April 2010

Sweaty Balls contests Morley and Outwood

It’s interesting to see that Ed Balls is getting a little sweaty about his prospects of taking the constituency of Morley and Outwood. Apparently, owing to boundary changes, this encompasses only one quarter of his previous parliamentary seat. It seems that the seat is now up for grabs by the Tories.

Newsnight’s roving reporter visited Morley today to canvass voters, and the responses broadcast were most interesting. What he found was that Labour’s traditional supporters had largely deserted the party and were upfront about the fact that one of the main reasons was Labour’s policy on immigration. Two of those interviewed indicated that they would be voting for “one of the smaller parties” rather than any of the big three. Given the coyness about naming the new party of choice, I strongly suspect that it will be the British National Party. So, when the result comes in late next week, I shall be watching with interest to see how many votes Chris Beverley of the BNP manages to harvest. I don’t think that he’ll take the seat, but be prepared for a positive surprise for the BNP.

Thursday, 29 April 2010

Kerry McCarthy: a Tweet too Far

Labour parliamentary candidate for Bristol East - Kerry McCarthy - is quite rightly under police investigation following her tweeting to supporters about the preliminary results revealed in counting 300 postal votes. This episode demonstrates once again that the postal voting system is wide open to abuse. By leaking this information today, McCarthy can be seen as trying to influence the outcome of the election in the constituency that she is contesting. She should be disqualified from her candidature having revealed that she is willing to abuse the democratic process.

As with Brown's comment yesterday, McCarthy's abuse of the voting system shows that many Labour politicians hold the general public in contempt. Metro reports that
Ms McCarthy, who is defending Bristol East and is the party’s media czar, said she was ‘kicking herself’ after sending the outcome of 300 votes to her 5,700 followers on the site.

It is illegal to reveal votes cast before the end of polling day because this may influence the outcome of the election.

The post has since been removed from Twitter.

An Electoral Commission spokeswoman said candidates who see the front of a ballot paper ‘must maintain the secrecy of voting’.

Releasing the information early can lead to a fine of up to £5,000 or six months in prison in England and Wales. In Scotland, the offence carries a maximum jail term of 12 months.

Ms McCarthy, who won the Bristol East seat at the 2005 general election, said she had been to a ‘training exercise’ in which staff verified personal identifiers on the postal votes.

On publishing the results, she added: ‘I was pretty silly. It was thoughtless. I was being overexuberant.’

In her blog, she later described herself as ‘another penitent sinner’ – the phrase by Gordon Brown on Wednesday after he apologised to a grandmother for calling her ‘bigoted’.
A 'penitent sinner'? What rot. What we have here is an embarrassed unprincipled candidate who is now rattled by the fact that she has been found out. If you are a voter in Bristol East, show your displeasure at McCarthy's attempt to undermine democracy by voting for Brian Jenkins, your local BNP candidate. Whatever you do, don't vote for McCarthy!

'British Muslim Initiative' List of Parliamentary Candidates

The British Muslim Initiative (BMI – not to be confused with the Body Mass Index) has done us a favour by publishing a list of candidates whom you should not consider voting for under any circumstances. All are either Muslim or über-dhimmis. Other than the usual suspects such as George Galloway, Shahid Malik and Sadiq Khan, you’ll find such ‘luminaries’ as Glenda Jackson, Gerald Kaufman, Dominic Grieve and Green Party Leader Caroline Lucas (representing the most multiculturalist, anti-nationalist and pro-Islamist party of the lot excepting Respect).

Caroline Lucas and the Greens have, owing to their small share of the popular vote, avoided serious scrutiny, but it must be said that she is a dangerous authoritarian; a dhimmi dung beetle who would criminalise criticism of Islam and provide followers of this totalitarian death-cult with privileges vis-à-vis the rest of the population. She was a signatory to a letter that appeared in the Guardian on 25 March 2010 entitled ‘Islamophobia is a threat to democracy’. No Lucas, you are mistaken: Islam is a threat to democracy, you hemp-addled hippie.

Take a look at this list, and if you spot anyone that you’d ever hitherto considered voting for (unsurprisingly, I didn’t), take note and cast your ballot for another candidate, preferably one standing for the BNP. Failing that, vote UKIP or English Democrat.

Nick Clegg's Call to Prayer

Not only does Nick Clegg want the whole of the UK to be deluged by immigrants, but he is also vigorously courting the vote of the denizens of their most hostile and entrenched bridgeheads: the Muslim colonies that have sprung up like poisonous fungi in so many of our cities and towns. According to the Sunday Express, he thinks that the Muslim call to prayer (muezzin) is "a joyful thing" that should be broadcast over loudspeakers wherever those not-so-magnificent 'badges of our subjection' - mosques - happen to be.

Clegg, despite his professed atheism, thus demonstrates his alpha dhimmi status with this craven piece of politicking. An atheist actively promoting Islamisation? He's really not very bright, is he? Are you readying yourself for the scimitar's edge Nick?

Wednesday, 28 April 2010

Gordon Brown's Rochdale Gaffe

Gordon Brown says that he’s “mortified”. Of course he’s “mortified”, as the stupid cyclopean git has just realised that he has effectively nailed the coffin shut on Labour’s electoral chances in the forthcoming election. He is “mortified” not because of the things he said about Rochdale pensioner Gillian Duffy, but because these things were caught on air and broadcast for all to hear. What he said is what he and his party believe about ordinary English women and men such as Mrs Duffy: Brown et al think that we’re all ‘bigots’. Anyone who questions the political elite's deliberate policy of swamping the UK with immigrants is branded a 'bigot', at best. The usual epithets cast at us are 'fascist', 'Nazi', 'far-right', etc. The BBC reports that

As he went to get into his car, Mr Brown told her: "Very nice to meet you, very nice to meet you." But off camera, and not realising he still had a Sky News microphone pinned to his shirt, he was heard to tell an aide: "That was a disaster - they should never have put me with that woman. Whose idea was that? It's just ridiculous..."

Asked what she had said, he is heard to reply: "Ugh everything! She's just a sort of bigoted woman that said she used to be Labour. I mean it's just ridiculous. I don't know why Sue brought her up towards me."
When she was quizzed as to what she thought of Brown’s Comments she stated:

"I'm very upset. He's an educated person. Why has he come out with words like that? "He's supposed to be leading the country and he's calling an ordinary woman who's come up and asked questions that most people would ask him... It's going to be tax, tax, tax for another 20 years to get out of this national debt, and he's calling me a bigot."
Having returned home late this evening, I caught Channel 4 News. One of the insulted woman's relatives was interviewed, and she too said that she was once a Labour voter, but as of today, was so no longer. "Will you vote Conservative?" she was asked. "No" came the reply. "Will you vote Liberal Democrat?" She was evasive and wouldn’t say yes or no, but the expression on her face told me that the penny had finally dropped for her and other former Labour-voting members of her family. She realised what our establishment politicians think of ordinary English people. In her eyes I glimpsed an angry, knowing and mischievous look which suggested "We know where we are now. We know whose looking out for us, and it's not you." A harvest of votes for the BNP is there for the gathering. How many, no-one can know, but at the minimum it will be in the tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands.

It may be too late in the campaign for the party to overcome the continuous barrage of assaults, court cases and negative spin from its opponents, but the sons and daughters of Albion are beginning to stir, and I feel more hopeful today then ever hitherto, that we will not have to wait long to see the BNP make its much-needed Westminster breakthrough. Only the BNP will speak out for the native people of Britain. The other parties, particularly Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives, actively hate us. On Friday 7 May, what surprises await us?

Tuesday, 27 April 2010

Why you ‘should’ vote for Nick Clegg

‘Cleggstasy’ is a freshly-minted neologism, and as the word suggests, indicates a collective public mood that is euphoric, frenzied and hallucinatory, for how otherwise would a party with policies which directly contradict the will of the majority of the people in the UK be riding so high in the polls? Let me elucidate. Apparently, Clegg is popular because he looks better on TV than Gordon Brown. Well, who wouldn’t? He is popular because he speaks with conviction, unlike marketing man and plastic Tory David Cameron. Once again, who wouldn’t (well OK, Gordon Brown perhaps)? He is popular because of that borrowed meaningless phrase ‘it’s time for change’ and the Liberal Democrats are ‘outsiders’. No they’re not, they’re in Westminster and are part of the tripartite party consensus on the EU, immigration, multiculturalism, political correctness, globalism and Islamisation. He has an attractive wife. True, but what’s that got to do with anything?

The majority of the electorate wishes for immigration to be drastically reduced if not choked off altogether, whereas the Liberal Democrats see nothing wrong with the population skyrocketing beyond 70 million and care not from where the immigrants come. The majority of the electorate wished for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, whereas the Liberal Democrats wish to see the UK completely submerged within the nascent EU superstate and for the pound to be replaced by the Euro.

So, if you’d like to see Islam in Ilfracombe, minarets in Minehead, Afghans in Ayreshire, yashmaks in Yeovil, Pakistanis in Penrith and Somalis in Stroud, vote Liberal Democrat. If you’d like to lose your sovereignty to an EU that the Liberal Democrats and Labour wish to see include Turkey and then the Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East, then vote for the party of Clegg and wait for your country to fall to Islam. If you think that your quiet shire town needs ‘enriching’ with an admixture of Nigerian knife-crime, yardie turf wars or Muslim misogyny, then vote Liberal Democrat. If you are indigenous British, hate yourself, your family, your culture, your nation, your ethnic group, your race and your civilisation, then vote Liberal Democrat. To paraphrase David Steel in a bygone age, Clegg’s message to Liberal Democrats might be: ‘Go back to your constituencies, and prepare for shariah!’

If you want to stop the above nightmare from unfolding, then do not vote Labour or Conservative, for they will both tread the same path as the Liberal Democrats although not quite as quickly (yet admittedly, Labour are trying their damnedest). The only way that you can stop this nullification of nationhood, this removal of our rights and our culture is to vote BNP. Granted, if there’s no BNP candidate in your area then vote UKIP, or failing that, English Democrat; but on no account vote for the three main parties or the suicidal policies of the Greens, for the latter are akin to those of the Liberal Democrats but on steroids, except with respect to freedom of speech (they would outlaw criticism of Islam) which they wish to see removed. Vote for the Green Party if you’d like to embark on a bad acid trip from which you’ll never come down.

Sunday, 25 April 2010

Pat Condell's Voting Guide 2010

Pat Condell is in the mood for a rant again, but this time it's the EU in the firing line rather than Islam. I agree with just about every word of what he says, other than the fact that I'd recommend voting BNP rather than UKIP. Naturally, if there's no BNP candidate standing where you live and you care about the future of our democracy, vote UKIP.

Saturday, 24 April 2010

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!

If you're a 'devout' Muslim read no further and don't look at the images below lest you lapse into a homicidal tantrum. Irritated by Revolution Muslim's recent veiled death threats against South Park supremos Trey Parker and Matt Stone for including a 'depiction' of the World's 'favourite' bearded paedophile, the Prophet Mohammed (damnation be upon him) in a bear costume, Dan Savage thought it was time to teach these barbarians a lesson. His solution to this latest outburst of Mohammedan rage: 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!' 

Given that even featuring a fictionalised version of the bearded mass-murdering paedo in a bear costume was perceived to be in some way a representation of the holy humourless one, Dan has already tried his hand at some possible portraits of the Prophet (damnation be upon him) as seen below:

Inspired? Why not have a crack at it yourself on 20 May. Personally, I think that Mo would really appreciate being drawn as a doggie handbag. What do you reckon? If that doesn't prove sufficient to upset the holy paedo worshippers, this wonderful new Lego kit from every devout Muslim's favourite country - Denmark - should make the ideal Eid gift for enrichers in your local neighbourhood.  

Friday, 23 April 2010

Keighley: BNP Target Seat Number Three

Andrew Brons was recently selected as the BNP candidate for Keighley. Having acquited himself well since he became the party's MEP for Yorkshire last June, Brons is fighting for the seat contested by Nick Griffin himself in 2005. This time around, veteran Labour MP Anne Cryer is standing down, with the Labour candidature falling instead to Jane Thomas. To be fair to Cryer, she did at least acknowledge that there were problems specific to some elements of the Muslim population in Keighley, but unfortunately, she and the local Labour Party at first claimed that the BNP were lying when the latter drew attention to the serious issue of Muslim males grooming local native schoolgirls; plying them with drugs (heroin in particular), and sexually abusing them amongst their family networks. It took the BNP's honesty to force the issue of this Islamic paedophile pimping into the open, but sadly, as more recent cases in Rotherham and other northern towns attest, this is a problem which has yet to be eradicated.

Keighley is a demographically diverse constituency which includes not only working-class Keighley and its outlying Pennine villages, but also the wealthy town of Ilkley in neighbouring Wharfedale which is natural Conservative territory. Keighley itself contains a significant Muslim population comprised of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (officially circa 15% in 2001 but now higher, yielding an estimated total of 7,000 voters in 2005 according to Muslim News). The seat has thus swung from Conservative to Labour and back again.

Anne Cryer took the seat for Labour in the 1997 General Election with 50.6% of the vote. However, in the subsequent elections of 2001 and 2005 her share shrank first to 48.2% then 44.7%. With Cryer's departure and Labour's general malaise in the polls, it is likely that Jane Thomas, a career politician very much in the New Labour mould (studied Politics at Swansea University, worked briefly for Sheffield Newspapers then spent 16 years as a university lecturer teaching Politics and Public Policy Management) will secure no more than 35% of the vote at best. The seat is likely to turn Tory and fall to Kris Hopkins.

Although Andrew Brons is an excellent candidate, like other BNP members he has a hard task on his hands trying to make significant inroads in the constituency in the face of bitter opposition. When Nick Griffin stood there in 2005 the national media were up in arms and Searchlight and Hope Not Hate ran an intensive operation in Keighley barraging its voters with anti-BNP propaganda. This is probably being repeated today. The other Nick ('Saint' Clegg) recently chose to vent his morally indignant spleen upon the BNP whilst pandering to the Muslim bloc vote on the BBC Asian Network stating "I feel really strongly about this. The BNP is an evil, vile, fascist organisation." Strangely, this generic rant agains the BNP was reported by Keighley News. The Liberal Democrats are once again standing Nader Fekri as their candidate, and it is my guess that he could lure a goodly proportion of the Muslim bloc vote away from Labour. Although Fekri secured only 11.8% in 2005, I would anticipate something in the region of 16% next month.

Nick Griffin managed to poll 4240 votes, some 9.2% of the total. He did this in competition with only the three main parties, but this time around both UKIP and, bizarrely, the National Front (an historical throwback) are also fielding Paul Latham and Steven Smith respectively. If anything, UKIP will take as many if not more votes from Eurosceptic Tories as from the BNP, whereas the National Front is more or less an irrelevance which is unlikely to secure more than 1% of the vote. Given that Brons will be subject to a significant black propaganda effort and will not receive favourable coverage in the local print and electronic media, I would be surprised if he was able to better Griffin's share of the vote. Although I think Brons deserves to win, and has been given odds of 20/1 by to take the seat, my guess is that the final result will look something akin to the following: Conservative 36%; Labour 33%; Liberal Democrat 16%; BNP 9%; UKIP 5%; National Front 1%.  If Andrew Brons is able to secure more than 15% of the votes cast he will have done extremely well.

Watch the following clip of Andrew delivering a recent speech in the EU Parliament. This man speaks sense, and gives the lie to the false media claim that the BNP is comprised of illiterate knuckle draggers.

Brons is one of the most eloquent members of the BNP and can be seen in the following interview providing his perspective on the June 2009 EU elections.

Monday, 19 April 2010

Panorama on Population Growth in the UK

A General Election is approaching so the BBC decides to run a Panorama episode entitled "Is Britain Full?" Given that we have a severe housing shortage that grows worse by the day, continuous mass unemployment and underemployment, a virtually gridlocked road network and overloaded public transport system, schools where English is the minority language and areas of many of our towns and cities where you could quite readily believe yourself to be in Pakistan, Somalia or Nigeria, it is astonishing that the BBC has to arrange these three words in that particular order. My preference would be "Britain is full."

Granted, at least this immigration-driven issue was given an airing, but what was unspoken in the report was as telling as that which was said. It did touch upon the additional strains upon housing, the NHS, schools, transport and water supply, but not once did it mention the social problems caused by the de facto colonisation of a significant part of our urban landscape, and the resultant Islamisation and violent gang culture introduced by different immigrant groups. It did not mention the negative impact on the schooling of native British children caused by these factors and the influx of large numbers of non-English speakers. It did not mention the settlement of asylum claimaints (officially referred to as "seekers" irrespective of whether or not they are genuinely seeking asylum) or illegal immigration and people trafficking.

Even if net immigration were to be reduced to zero, if significant numbers of native Britons were to be replaced by Pakistanis, Somalis and Nigerians etc, this would still have a very negative impact upon the composition of our society and the quality of life of indigenous Britons.

What this Panorama episode did was afford spokesmen from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties the opportunity to talk about their policies on immigration three weeks in advance of a General Election whilst not interviewing representatives of the BNP or UKIP. Thus the Tories were afforded the chance to proffer their bogus 'tough' stance on immigration which allegedly involves an annual "cap" on numbers although they will provide no figures; Phil Woolas was able to lie again and claim that immigration was falling, and Chris Huhne of the Liberal Democrats was able to talk about his party's hare-brained scheme of settling immigrants in areas of the UK that they consider to be relatively underpopulated ('unenriched' in their dreadfully euphemistic parlance). Surely the electorate, who cite immigration as the second most pressing problem, will not be stupid enough to vote for Clegg's bunch will they? Well, alas, this is what the controlled media would like to see happen, and what looks increasingly likely.

As with all BBC documentaries on immigration it contained an obligatory swipe at the BNP and a trip to Barking to speak to a token white working-class mother whose family have to live in housing blighted by mould and damp because social housing is being taken by immigrants. Her children were all suffering from asthma as a consequence. That any of our people have to live in such conditions is a scandal, and whilst any of our own have to live in squalor no immigrant should have any entitlement whatsoever to social housing. What is for certain is that none of our mainstream political parties (the Greens are even worse incidentally) are willing to tackle the immigration issue.

If you desire a peaceful future with a good quality of life for your children, there is no alternative but to shut the door to further immigration. We do not owe the world a living, and those from other parts of the globe should possess no right to settle here. Anyone who is admitted to our country should be given the right to residence only in exceptional circumstances. It should not be the norm as it is now. Think nationalist, vote nationalist. Vote BNP on 6 May.

Sunday, 18 April 2010

United Defence Leagues Spokesman outlines WDL, EDL, SDL & IDL Position

Hat tip to Lionheart for posting the following on his blog, in which a spokesman from the Welsh Defence League also speaks on behalf of the EDL, SDL and IDL. He makes clear precisely what they stand for and reiterates that they are a peaceful group for all who oppose the Islamification of the UK. He does a good demolition job on the UAF, the trade-union funded communist rabble who attempt to instigate violence whilst 'counter-demonstrating' against the EDL and BNP.

Stoke-on-Trent Central: BNP Target Seat Number Two

With odds of 12/1 at Stoke-on-Trent Central represents, at least from the perspective of the prospective punter, the BNP’s second best prospect of winning a parliamentary seat. The candidate is Simon Darby, the fry-up loving Deputy Leader of the BNP. In recent weeks he has spent much time canvassing in Stoke and has produced a series of video messages on his blog. Unsurprisingly, the Labour Party, mainstream media and various anti-BNP groups have been fulminating against the BNP in an attempt to bolster Labour’s flagging appeal to the electorate.

Stoke-on-Trent, like many of our large towns and cities was once a hive of industry, jobs and prosperity, now reduced to a state of post-industrial marginality in which it is hard for people to find employment. It has long been a Labour Party stronghold, but at the local level Stoke Council which was once dominated by Labour has experienced a radical change in recent years with the BNP making a strong showing. At its peak, the BNP possessed 9 local councillors, but earlier this year Alby Walker and his wife left the party to become independents. Mr Walker himself is standing as an independent, and his reasons for leaving the BNP have been widely publicised by the media and anti-BNP communist campaign outfits such as Searchlight and its sister campaign Hope Not Hate.

In 2001 the census data for this seat indicated that it possessed a population of 80,996, with 4.7% of this total having been born outside of the UK. In all, it was recorded as being 93.7% white and 3.4% Muslim. Many people lived in rented accommodation, with only 59.75 of the population recorded as living in owner-occupied housing. As elsewhere, Stoke has witnessed a growth both in the Muslim population and in its vociferousness. This prompted the town to be chosen as the location of a 1500-strong EDL demonstration on 23 January 2010 which on this occasion was confronted by a little under 300 UAF-organised counter-demonstrators. The problem of Islamisation is one of those great unmentionables that the mainstream political parties will not even countenance to acknowledge exists. The BNP however is certainly not shy of highlighting this issue, and Simon Darby has drawn attention to the pittance paid to the local council by Stoke Muslims for a site on which they have been constructing a new mosque.

Simon Darby detects a degree of “panic” in the Labour camp owing to their recent appeal to Muslim voters to all vote Labour in Stoke irrespective of their party affiliation so as to “stop the BNP”. He comments that judging by the number of Liberal Democrat posters displayed in Muslim homes in the constituency, Labour are worried about much of their support deserting them and joining Nick Clegg's bandwagon. The usual anti-BNP message has been driven home by extensive leafleting in the town carried out by Searchlight, which the Guardian reports has having produced “80,000 Hope Not Hate newspapers to be distributed across the city.” Similar operations are being conducted by Searchlight elsewhere and were also characteristic of campaigning against Nick Griffin’s bid to take Keighley in 2005.

Stoke-on-Trent has its own political dynamics which stand outside of the national mainstream, not only in terms of the BNP’s relative local strength and issues connected to the recent departure of its most prominent local councillor, but also in terms of Labour Party politics. Lord Mandelson recently managed to parachute into the borough his favoured candidate – television historian Tristram Hunt, upsetting the local party and precipitating the decision of Gary Elsby, former Chairman of the Constituency Labour Party, to stand as an independent candidate. Thus, although the BNP might have its own issues with a degree of recent disunity in Stoke, Labour has been confronted with something far more serious. The question is: will Labour’s woes allow the BNP to mount a significant challenge? Could Simon Darby take the seat?

Although the BNP has a strong base in Stoke, its percentage vote share at the 2005 General Election was a modest 7.8% (2,178 votes) for its then candidate Michael Coleman. This placed it in fourth place, but ahead of UKIP which secured 3.3% of the vote (914 votes). Labour on the other hand, won with a whopping 52.9% of the vote, although this in itself was a decline of 7.7% on 2001. This time around, four independent candidates have been added to the mix as well as a ‘Trade Union and Socialist’ candidate. The other confirmed parties contesting the seat are: Conservative (Norsheen Bhatti); UKIP (Carol Lovatt) and Liberal Democrat (John Redfearn).

This General Election is shaping up to be the most unpredictable in decades following Nick Clegg’s well-received performance in last week’s televised party-leader debate. It is unlikely that this will provide the Liberal Democrats with the opportunity of winning Stoke, but it should give a fillip to their candidate’s prospects and secure additional votes. Where will these votes come from?

The Conservatives are fielding a young Pakistani woman named Norsheen Bhatti who presumably is intended to appeal to Stoke’s Muslim voters, but many ‘orthodox’ Muslims do not find this young woman a very appealing prospect, as she is also renowned for working part-time as a belly dancer and is not averse to a flirtatious flick of the hair and showing a good measure of leg. She is no ‘modest’ burqa-bound or niqab-muffled Muslim, and has been supported in her canvassing by Sayeeda Warsi. She will in all likelihood pick up a few additional votes from ‘moderate’ Muslims (i.e. those individuals who have had the misfortune to have been born into Muslim families but who do not really believe in their religion and its obnoxious teachings), but will not give the Tories an overall boost owing to the national resurgence in the fortunes of the Liberal Democrats. Bhatti may prove to be the most telegenically appealing of the Stoke candidates, but her chance of taking the seat is next to zero. The Conservative vote is likely to shrink slightly.

Norsheen demonstrates her non-political Talents

UKIP’s candidate will be overshadowed by Simon Darby, so its share is likely to fall from 3.3% to circa 2%. Similarly, although well-known locally, Alby Walker cannot be expected to pick up anything more than a percentage point or two, although unfortunately this will be at the direct expense of the BNP. Likewise with the Labour Party, it is unlikely that splinter independent candidate Gary Elsby will attract more than a couple of percentage points from disgruntled local Labour diehards.

Simon Darby will have done well if he is able to pick up 15% of the vote or above. A second place would be an outstanding achievement, but in reality, securing third place seems a more realistic although significant challenge. My finger-in-the-air predictions for the Stoke result are thus: Labour 38-40%; Liberal Democrat 25%; Conservative 16%; BNP 14-15%. Many former Labour voters are likely to shift support to the BNP and the Liberal Democrats, but as the Liberal Democrats are the primary challengers for the seat, some Tories may vote tactically in an attempt to get Labour out. If this were to occur on a significant scale, Simon Darby could take third place. Still, keep up the good work Simon, as the higher the vote you receive, the stronger the message that will be sent to Westminster.

Muhammad comes to South Park

Watch an extract from the latest episode of South Park and see if you can spot Muhammad. Did you see him? 

Saturday, 17 April 2010

Tony Blair: Ravings of a Dark Age Messianic Crackpot

Hat tip to Rugfish over at the Green Arrow blog for drawing attention to the following extract of a Tony Blair lecture. Since he shuffled off his prime ministerial role almost three years ago, Blair has busied himself with a variety of activities, including lecturing at Yale University’s Faith and Globalization Initiative.

Once he had vacated 10 Downing Street, Blair increasingly gave vent to his religious cant, and it is this delusional cant that forms the major ‘substance’ of his course at Yale. In the first of the following extracts, you will hear Blair outline his globalist aspiration to force people of all faiths together, and it is readily apparent, although he does not name it, that Islam forms the focus of his attentions. Blair wishes to force us into embracing the Muslim world, and for all to be absorbed into a globalist new world order and culture in which there is no escape from Islam.

Blair is no theologian. Blair is no philosopher. Blair is no political scientist. Blair is a delusional arch-opportunist; a promoter of globalisation, national and civilisational suicide. He is a man of ‘faith’. He has faith in himself, and it is this sense of ‘faith’, this delusion, that made him so confident that the contents of the Iraq dodgy dossier served as a sufficient pretext for launching our country into war with Iraq. He needs not reason, simply ‘faith’.

Watch his vacuous address, and ask yourself this question: do his expressed sentiments not go a long way to illuminating the years of enforced multiculturalism, mass immigration and subservience to Islam that the UK witnessed following his election in 1997?

In the second extract, he attacks atheism, science and Richard Dawkins, leaving in no doubt that he would prefer to ally himself with the seventh-century Muhammedan mindset than with enlightenment. Blair viciously equates atheistical rationalism with the barbarism of Islamic fundamentalism. Blair may have left office, but his continuing malign influence means that he remains an extremely dangerous man.

Hans Christian Sørensen: Art, Humour and Islam in Grenaa

The Creeping Sharia blog has drawn attention to the decision of the Grenaa Town Hall in Denmark to remove a piece of art from its Easter exhibition. It was stated that this was done after a number of complaints were received from members of the public. No details were provided as to the identity of the complainants, but looking at this rather charming and amusing painting by the Danish artist Hans Christian Sørensen which brings to mind the surrealist style of René Magritte, one can have a good guess as to who these people were.

Before you leap to the conclusion that the detractors must have been the Danish equivalent of the British young (and not-so young) trendies who despise figurative art whilst professing a preferance for the ugly contentless work of Brit artists such as Tracey Emin (unmade beds, garden sheds and tents with the names of transitory boyfriends stitched to the fabric) and Damien Hirst (dead animals in tanks of formaldehyde, etc), think again. True, the complaints arose from others who despise figurative art, but some types of figurative art in particular i.e. any depicting that wretched Muhammed whose name we have to suffer all too frequently. So, why might Muslims be offended by Sørensen’s painting?

Firstly, it is amusing, and orthodox Muslims are not exactly renowned for their sense of humour. Secondly, it features a female figure wearing Muslim-style dress peering at a picture of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. Westergaard is the man who drew the most well-known of the Muhammed cartoons in September 2005 which led to uproar amongst Muslims across the world. Muhammed’s bomb-shaped turban with a fizzling fuse is in this picture transposed from the cartoon and placed upon Westergaard’s head, whilst the female Muslim onlooker’s hijab similarly features a smoking fuse. Thirdly, a pig sits in a box, intently staring upwards at Westergaard’s portrait. None of these pictorial elements is likely to have won the affections of ‘devout’ Muslim onlookers.

It is a great pity that the curators of the Grenaa exhibition should have chosen to remove this painting, for it is an original and amusing piece of art, and we see precious few of these nowadays in our public spaces. As Sørensen says:
Art should be original and not copy anything. We can all paint flowers, but people see so much of it. Art should be debated, that [is] the point of it. That’s the difference between art and decoration.”
Too true. Congratulations Mr Sørensen upon producing this splendid piece, and commiserations on having it removed from public view. It would be wonderful if we could arrange for it to be exhibited somewhere in the UK.

Now Muslims call for KFC Boycott!

In a surprising twist KFC’s attempt to lure Muslim customers into its outlets has backfired, as many Muslims are claiming that KFC’s halal menu is not really halal. Why not? Well, according to a News of the World report, approximately one third of chickens which are pre-stunned during the mechanised slaughter process are dead by the time that they have their throats slit in accordance with Islamic religious stipulations. For orthodox Muslims, this therefore means that the flesh of such birds is unclean and thus haram (forbidden).

A Lancashire-based Imam named Yusuf Shabbir speaking on behalf of the Lancashire Council of Mosques stated: “If KFC confirms to us that it has no intention of changing the mechanical method of slaughter we will advise members of the Muslim community [of] this.” So, here we have an effective call for a Muslim boycott of KFC to join the existing non-Muslim anti-halal boycott. How will KFC respond? I suspect that it will probably do all that it can to appease its Muslim customers by ensuring that all of its slaughtered poultry experience the full unnecessary suffering that observant Muslims require.

To all who oppose Islamisation: keep up the boycott of KFC! If it wants to limit itself to catering to the 2.4 million+ Muslims resident in the UK and to lose the custom of everyone else, let it go ahead. For me, this is a straightforward animal welfare issue, so ultimately we need to ban halal slaughter in the UK and ban the import of all halal food products.

Thursday, 15 April 2010

Barking: BNP Target Seat Number One

Much has changed in recent years, so this seat, which once would have been considered solid Labour territory, now provides the BNP with its best prospect of securing its first MP. Those members of the traditional white working class who remain have been abandoned by a Labour Party that has long since embraced corporate globalism and the cause of ethnic minority special interest groups to the detriment of its own people.

Can Nick Griffin take Barking? That is for the voters to decide. But what proportion of electors in the seat can we now safely describe as English? It is well known that the mass influx of immigrants over the past decade in particular has caused an exodus of those indigenous inhabitants willing and able to find a home elsewhere. Those who remain have felt increasingly alienated and marginalized, but will they vote BNP?

The census figures for 2001 detailed Barking and Dagenham’s ethnic profile as follows: 78.2% white; 10.5% black; 7.2% Asian; 2.4% mixed race and 1.7% Chinese. Almost a decade has since elapsed, so we can anticipate that the white proportion will have diminished by at least 10% owing to native outmigration and the arrival of immigrants. We are also safe to assume that the ethnic minority vote for the BNP will not be significant.

The BNP made an electoral breakthrough on Barking and Dagenham Council in 2006, securing the election of 12 councillors making it the second largest party behind Labour. Subsequently however, one of these seats was lost in a by-election. As for the parliamentary constituency of Barking, its boundaries have changed since the 2005 General Election, but UK Polling Report notes that whilst these changes “appear to reduce the BNP’s support in the seat, the BNP returned councillors in all three of the new wards in 2006 and they are likely to prove fertile territory”.

Looking at the 2005 results, we can see that then BNP parliamentary candidate Richard Barnbrook came close to taking second place to Labour from the Conservatives: he secured 16.9% of the vote, just 27 votes short of the Tories’ 17.1%. Margaret Hodge, the winning candidate, won the seat with 47.8% of the vote and a majority of 8,883. Can Nick Griffin leapfrog his way to the top? It is a daunting task.

Hodge has played up “the BNP threat” considerably during recent years, but this can be seen as a standard Labour tactic employed in an attempt to mobilise erstwhile supporters who cannot be bothered to vote any longer as they feel (correctly) that the Labour Party no longer listens to them or represents their interests. Hodge, a multimillionaire, has little or nothing in common with traditional Labour supporters. Griffin and the BNP on the other hand, offer the prospect of real hope to the beleaguered indigenous inhabitants of Barking.

The mass media have worked themselves up into a lather about the BNP challenge in Barking, much more so than in Keighley where Nick Griffin stood in 2005. Although the BNP has changed its constitution and won a popular mandate in elections to the Greater London Assembly and the EU Parliament, the mass media and other political parties remain inveterately hostile. Still, the reality of rapid demographic change, a chronic housing shortage and economic dislocation will cause many voters to see through the media lies peddled about the BNP. The real reason underpinning the Establishment’s hatred of the BNP is the fact that it is the only political party in the UK to stand up against globalist corporatist interests in favour of ordinary people.

As in 2005, UKIP are fielding a candidate, so we can expect a small percentage of nationalist votes to be siphoned off by Frank Maloney. However, UKIP only managed 2.8% of the vote last time, and it may be the case that on this occasion some nationalists will hopefully switch to the BNP. Margaret Hodge affects concern about the fact that the Christian Party is fielding a candidate in the person of George Hargreaves, for she along with some other commentators believes that Hargreaves could successfully attract many black evangelical Christians away from the Labour Party. Realistically, can he expect to secure more than 2% of the vote?

Ideally, Nick Griffin will win this seat. However, if he does not, he must secure second place with at least 25% of the vote for the BNP to retain its momentum. I am confident that he will be able to push the Conservatives into third place, but taking the seat from Hodge is a tall order. If we assume that Hodge loses 2% of the vote share to the Christian Party and a further 8% to the BNP, that would still leave Labour with a total of 38% and the seat in their hands. However, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the voters of Barking will express their displeasure with the mainstream parties and Labour's promotion of mass immigration by giving them a bloody nose by electing the UK’s first BNP MP on 6 May 2010. is currently offering odds of 7/2 for Nick Griffin to take the seat.

Wednesday, 14 April 2010

BNP 'Top 10' General Election Targets

On 5 April it was announced that the BNP would be fielding a record 326 candidates in the forthcoming General Election. It is likely that this total would have been even higher had it not been for the financial strain placed upon the party by the recent EHRC court case which was quite clearly brought in an attempt to destroy the BNP following its electoral success in the EU elections last June. Thankfully, this attempt has failed, but it means that the BNP will be fighting to secure representation at Westminster on a very tight budget.

In 2005 certain Labour candidates used the alleged BNP ‘threat’ in a cynical attempt to mobilise disillusioned Labour voters, persuading them to vote for a party that they no longer believed in and which long ago had abandoned them. Paradoxically, many who then cast their votes for Labour will have voted against a party – the BNP – whose policies they would have benefited from and approved of had they had been properly informed of the content of the BNP manifesto. Then, as now, the mass media were united in their hostility to the BNP, but unlike in 2005 the dissemination of information this time around has been democratised. Thanks to the growth in public internet access and the burgeoning of political blogs and online social media, the stranglehold of the National Union of Journalists and its explicit guidelines enforcing distorted reporting has to a certain extent been circumvented. Nonetheless, those of us of a nationalist bent who are favourably disposed towards the BNP constitute a very modest force when pitted against the power and wealth of the mass media. It is very much a David versus Goliath scenario.

What then, are the prospects for the BNP in 2010? Can we realistically expect to see the party secure its first Westminster MPs? If so, which constituencies offer the most likely prospects, and which candidates should we be following with the keenest interest? Over the coming week I shall be writing a series of articles dealing with those constituencies in which I think the BNP will perform strongly. Whether or not this translates into elected MPs or a number of second and third places we will not know until 7 May, but if the odds at are anything to go by, some seats should yield some very interesting results indeed.

In the 2005 General Election the BNP fielded 119 candidates and won a total of 192,746 votes. This represented 0.7% of the total with each candidate winning an average of 1620 votes. In last June’s EU elections the BNP won a total of 943,598 votes representing 6.26% of the vote which was a 1.3% increase on their 2004 figure of 808,200. The mass media have often deliberately lied about this most recent result, claiming that the BNP vote had fallen in numerical terms since the 2004 EU elections, but as the figures demonstrate, this was not the case.

Recent opinion polls tend to place the national level of support for the BNP at anywhere between 2 and 4%. This however masks considerable regional variations with the party scoring consistently better in England, for it barely registers in Scotland and Wales. It is probable that the reported level is lower than the actual level of support, for it has been observed that people are often reluctant to state that they are considering voting for the BNP, particularly when questioned over the telephone.

Taking into account the aforementioned figures, what might we expect in terms of a likely overall result for the BNP in May 2010? General elections are not EU elections and thus parties that appeal specifically to nationalism and anti-EU sentiment tend to do better in the latter than in the former. I will therefore start with the most conservative estimate of the BNP vote, projecting a repeat performance of 2005 with an average of 1620 votes per candidate which would yield 528,120 votes. If we assume (simply for the sake of direct comparison, for the situation will not repeat itself) that the total number of votes cast for all parties nationally came to the same sum for 2005, this would give the BNP a 1.9% share of the vote.

As the party would have achieved this result by standing in only circa half of the available Westminster seats, this would equate to a rough national share of 3.8% which would match the party’s position in many polls. Although the sum total would thus be far more impressive than 2005’s tally of 192,746, it would mean that the BNP would have been treading water. It therefore needs to achieve substantially more votes and a correspondingly higher share of the national total to indicate that it has achieved a significant breakthrough. When considering the current combination of toxic factors - mass immigration, economic crisis, Islamisation, the war in Afghanistan, the expenses scandal, multiculturalism and the loss of sovereignty to the EU - which have made large swathes of the electorate either hostile towards the mainstream political parties or apathetic about politics in general, and the lack of willingness on the part of the said parties to discuss any of these issues other than the economy, the threshold of success, I would suggest, needs to be set at a minimum of 970,000 votes. This would equate to roughly 7% of the vote. If the BNP manages to garner in the region of 1.5 million votes or above, it will truly have emerged as a political force with serious prospects.

I have no doubt that the vote received by the BNP in a number of constituencies will be in excess of 15%, but it is likely that its prospective impact in many instances will unfortunately be blunted by the presence of other candidates who are likely to dilute the nationalist vote (i.e. UKIP and the English Democrats). This will be a great pity, for it may deny the prospects of office to a number of BNP candidates. Such a situation, I hope, will not arise at future parliamentary elections, for we cannot afford for the nationalist vote to remain split any longer. Our very survival as a nation depends upon a unified British nationalist party which can fight for office against its globalist dhimmi opponents.

Over the coming week or so I will therefore be writing about my BNP ‘Top 10’ target constituencies. This is simply a personal selection, but I do believe that the best prospects for the party lie amongst their number, and I shall be avidly glued to the screen waiting for these results on election night. These are (in no particular order): Barking (Nick Griffin); Stoke-on-Trent Central (Simon Darby); Thurrock (Emma Colgate); Keighley (Andrew Brons); Salford and Eccles (Tina Wingfield); Stoke-on-Trent South (Mike Coleman); Burnley (Sharon Wilkinson); Dagenham and Rainham (Michael Barnbrook); Dewsbury (Roger Roberts); Dudley North (Ken Griffiths).

Monday, 12 April 2010

Labour Manifesto Pledge: Civil War for Your Children

Today, the Labour Party launched its latest manifesto, and judging this 'book' by its cover you could be forgiven for thinking that it was touting for the blue-, red- and mauve-skinned vote looking at the stylised  family staring into the bright light of Labour's tomorrow. Presumably, this group of alien beings felt at home in their psychedelic-tinged landscape of symbolic fields illumined by a Sun that bears an uncanny resemblance to a detonating hydrogen bomb. If you think that the cover looks bad, delve into the contents and amidst the sloganeering sludge you will be able to divine that their intent is to completely snuff out the last vestiges of our national statehood, social cohesion and identity.

In the section entitled Meeting the challenges of the new global age the Labour Party demonstrates once again that it is intent on nurturing the preconditions for civil war in the UK by importing millions of hostile aliens. As I have written before, these will not be our culturally close cousins from Eastern Europe who generally speaking came with only positive intent, but the Muslim hordes from Turkey and the wider Middle East. Take a look at the following excerpt, and open your eyes:
"We support the enlargement of EU membership to include Croatia, and believe that all Western Balkan states should open negotiations on EU accession by 2014 – one hundred years after the start of the First World War. Turkey’s future membership is a key test of Europe’s potential to become a bridge between religions and regions; there must be continued progress on its application to join the EU. In its foreign policy, Europe should play a key role in conflict resolution and the promotion of security, and work bilaterally to achieve its goals with the leading global powers in each region of the world."
You have been warned: the Labour Party is intent upon implementing policies which unchecked will bring war to its own people. If its plans eventually come to pass, we will be forced into a situation where we either submit to a new Islamic political elite and live a squalid unequal life of persecution, or we take up arms and take our country back. This, I hope, will be a choice with which we are never confronted, for such an eventuality is neither desirable nor inevitable. We can choose to follow the policies necessary to restore social cohesion now (i.e. withdraw from the EU, ban Muslim immigration and encourage resident Muslims to leave), or we can watch our world fall apart and our children and grandchildren be reduced to a state of dhimmitude. If war were to come, the bloodshed would dwarf that which was witnessed in the former Yugoslavia. I am a peaceful individual who abhors war and conflict. I never want to see this happen, but if a Muslim elite were to take control, we would have little option but to fight or be murdered in the manner that millions of Jews and Poles were murdered by the Nazis.

Vote for peace and for hope on 6 May: vote BNP.

Wednesday, 7 April 2010

Barack Obama: First Muslim President of the USA

Don’t believe me? Here are just a couple of pieces of evidence. There are many others, but they’ll have to wait until another day. Now, in the first clip he makes a reference to his faith. Note what he says it is. How often do people make a mistake when stating their faith or lack of it? It’s rather like forgetting your own name. In the second, you will witness his deference to the Saudi Monarch. On the same day, he did not bow to Queen Elizabeth II.

Tuesday, 6 April 2010

Gordon Brown's Empty Battle Cry

What do you think of Gordon Brown’s electoral battle cry?

'We will fight for fairness at all times. We will say to the British people, our cause is your cause. The future is within our grasp, it is a future fair for all. Now, all of us, let's go to it.'
A superficial reading of these words doesn’t reveal much. A deep reading of them reveals even less. They mean nothing. Nothing at all, other than “re-elect me and I’ll carry on just as I please, just as I have done since I became Prime Minister.” Gordon Brown’s notion of ‘fairness’ is one that is selective, and is fairer to some than it is to others i.e. to ethnic minority and aggressive faith (i.e. Islamic) groups to the detriment of the English in particular.

His notion of “the British people” means nothing more than the collective of whoever happens to be accidentally resident or applying for residence in the United Kingdom at a particular given time. It is a contentless conception that neither implies common descent, common values, common history, common aims nor even a common language. All that we share is the necessity of paying an increasing proportion of our incomes in taxes to Gordon. For him, this is the definining essence of “the British people”: we are all taxpayers, little better (possibly worse) than serfs.

With Gordon you get plenty of taxation with next to no representation. As he is so intent upon ruling a third-world country, I would like to suggest to him that he and his party decamp en masse to somewhere such as Pakistan as they obviously find it so much more agreeable than our hideously white olde England. There he’ll be able to use his moral compass to guide him through the desert to the Taliban, where he can engage with all of those lovely moderate people who share his puritanical distaste for anything pleasurable. After all, surely being such a champion of ‘fairness’ he would like to see a greater proportion of the Pakistani or Afghan governments comprised of white Europeans, as for some reason they don’t seem to contain any at the moment. Must be the result of discrimination I guess. I’d love to see him ‘enrich’ their social and political fabric. Go for it Gordon! We’re right behind you in your bid to join the Pakistani administration! After all, your party has repeatedly demonstrated its immense popularity with Pakistani voters.

Monday, 5 April 2010

Fjordman’s "European Declaration of Independence"

A little over three years ago, the Norwegian anti-Islamist blogger Fjordman published his European Declaration of Independence on The Brussels Journal website. I believe its content to be pivotal for all who wish to see the recreation of a Europe of free independent nation-states committed to rolling back the demographic, cultural and legal Islamisation of our societies. Without establishing effective national border controls, the likelihood of us succeeding in this task is greatly diminished. Fjordman’s declaration contains a number of specific policy recommendations essential to its realisation but which will be far from easy to implement. Still, we must strive to make this declaration become a reality.

Many who have become interested in the anti-Islamisation/counterjihad movement in recent years may not have read this piece, so this is why I have taken the liberty of copying and pasting the text from The Brussels Journal. As we approach the General Election on 6 May, consider which of our political parties possess policies which match Fjordman’s demands, and cast your vote accordingly.

A European Declaration of Independence

We, the citizens of the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Hungary, (fill in the blanks) demand that the following steps are taken immediately:

We demand that our national governments should immediately and without delay pull their countries out of the European Union, which should be dismantled entirely. European citizens pay up to half of their salaries in direct or indirect taxes to their nation states. If these nations do not control their own borders nor their policies, and they don't as long as the EU exists, those taxes are a scam. National taxes require national borders. If our national borders are not enforced, we have no obligation whatsoever to pay national taxes.

We demand that all documents regarding the Euro-Arab Dialogue and the creation of the Eurabian networks for "Euro-Mediterranean cooperation" between European countries and Arab countries since the 1970s, as documented by Bat Ye'or's work on Eurabia, are published and explained in their full significance to the general public. Those chiefly responsible for this - one of the greatest betrayals in the history of Western civilization - should stand trial, followed by a period of general de-Eurabification of our laws and regulations.

We demand that all financial support to the Palestinian Authority should cease immediately. It is proven beyond any doubt that this has in the past been used to finance campaigns of Jihad terrorism against Jews in Israel and against Christians in territories under PA control. A public statement in support of Israel against Muslim aggression should be issued, and the money that has previously been awarded to Palestinians should be allocated partly to Israel's defense, partly to establish a Global Infidel Defense Fund with the stated goal of disseminating information about Muslim persecution of non-Muslims worldwide.

We demand that the ideology of Multiculturalism should immediately be removed from all government policies and school curricula, and that the state should adopt a policy of supporting the continuation of the cultural heritage and traditions of the indigenous populations. Multiculturalism has never been about tolerance. It is an anti-Western hate ideology championed as an instrument for unilaterally dismantling European culture. As such, it is an evil ideology bent on an entire culture's eradication, and we, the peoples of Europe, have not just a right, but a duty to resist it and an obligation to pass on our heritage to future generations.

We demand that all Muslim immigration in whatever form should be immediately and completely halted, and that our authorities take a long break from mass immigration in general until such a time when law and order has been reestablished in our major cities. We will not accept any accusations of "racism." Many European nations have for decades accepted more immigration into our countries in a shorter period of time than any other people has done peacefully in human history. We are sick and tired of feeling like strangers in our own lands, of being mugged, raped, stabbed, harassed and even killed by violent gangs of Muslim thugs, yet being accused of "racism and xenophobia" by our media and intimidated by our own authorities to accept even more such immigration.

Europe is being targeted for deliberate colonization by Muslim states, and with coordinated efforts aimed at our Islamization and the elimination of our freedoms. We are being subject to a foreign invasion, and aiding and abetting a foreign invasion in any way constitutes treason. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonization and desire self-determination then Europeans have that right, too. And we intend to exercise it.

If these demands are not fully implemented, if the European Union isn't dismantled, Multiculturalism isn't rejected and Muslim immigration isn't stopped, we, the peoples of Europe, are left with no other choice than to conclude that our authorities have abandoned us, and that the taxes they collect are therefore unjust and that the laws that are passed without our consent are illegitimate. We will stop paying taxes and take the appropriate measures to protect our own security and ensure our national survival.

Russia: Nazran Suicide Bomb Attack

Russia today witnessed its fifth bombing in a little over a week, with a double bomb attack upon a police station in Nazran in the North Caucasian Republic of Ingushetia. This time it was a suicide bomber who struck first followed by a car bomb, the attack closely resembling last week’s bombing of another police station in Kizlyar Dagestan where a car bomb was followed a few minutes later by a suicide attack. Yesterday another blast took place, derailing a freight train in Dagestan but fortunately causing no fatalities. Latest reports suggest that two police officers were killed and another two injured in the Nazran incident.

Dokku Umarov, a Chechen Islamist who wishes to establish an Islamic Emirate in the Northern Caucaus, Krasnodar Krai, Astrakhan and the Volga Region, claimed responsibility for the recent Moscow Metro bombings and warned that there would be many more to come. It is probable that his followers were behind today’s attack. In the immediate period following the fall of the USSR, terrorist attacks upon Russian civilians and infrastructure targets were justified by the perpetrators in the name of Chechen independence, but in recent years this has been supplanted by a drift towards an espousal of Salafist jihadism. Clearly, the Islamists are turning up the heat in Russia, so expect more of the same in the weeks ahead and beyond. Reports on today’s and yesterday’s bombings can be accessed in the videos below.

Speeches from EDL Dudley Demo

Contrary to what Clare Short, Weyman Bennett and other idiots tell you, the EDL are not Nazis. Clare's deranged speech to the UAF anti-free speech brigade in Dudley last Saturday confirmed that this is her position on the EDL, so how then Clare can you explain away the following two videos? In the first, do we not see an articulate young Asian woman who states that she is disabled addressing the EDL crowd accompanied on the platform by a rasta? Do we not see in the second video a young Russian girl a mere 10 years of age address the crowd following the awful bombings in Moscow and Dagestan last week? According to your line of argument Clare, you say that the EDL would be putting these folks onto cattle trucks and sending them to gas chambers. You're an idiot Ms Short. A malicious, ignorant idiot.

What do these speeches say? Do they attack people on the basis of race? No. Do they promote hate? No. Then what are they promoting? An end to Islamisation of course. The EDL want an end to the hatred, violence and enmity promoted by Islamists, and they want our politicians to recognise the fact that we do face a real threat in our country from Islamist ideology and the followers of that ideology. The EDL wants our politicians to act against Islamisation, not placate and promote it as they do today (witness Shahid Malik's bragging about circa £1 billion in public funds being diverted to Islamic states such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Yemen as well as his calling for an ever-increasing numbers of Muslim MPs and an eventual Muslim PM). The Government has not acted to defend the interests of its own people, so the people are organising themselves as a consequence. The Westminster parties are full of hubris, and as a consequence have ignored our concerns and neglected their duty. They will not be able to do so for much longer.

Saturday, 3 April 2010

Australian Defence League Protest – Melbourne 9 April

It would seem that concerned Australians have followed the example of the EDL, WDL and SDL in forming their own organisation (unsurprisingly named the Australian Defence League - ADL) to protest against Islamisation in Australia. Just as here in the UK the EDL has had to suffer from the constant harassment of leftists in the form of UAF and the SWP, their Australian equivalents are organising a counter-demonstration in Melbourne on Friday 9 April at the same time as the ADL. How, I wonder, will the Australian press report this event? Will it deploy the same kind of hostility as has been evident in reports about the EDL here in the UK?

Typically, the leftist opponents of the ADL are branding the latter “racists” and thus the Australia Asia Worker Links Organisation is calling its counter-demonstration a “Rally Against Racism”. Just how stupid are these people? Islam is not a race, it is an ideology.

The ADL is co-ordinating its actions via Facebook, so it’ll be interesting to see how this first attempt at a demonstration goes. Quite what level of support it will attract, I do not profess to know. Good luck mates!

Clare Short’s Ethno-masochism revealed in Dudley UAF Address

Clare Short must have a lot of Muslims in her Birmingham Ladywood constituency (the SWP idiots writing about her couldn’t even get this right – they referred to it as “Ladywell”!), as today she has pitched up in Dudley to address the UAF Islamo-Marxist rabble to blacken the name of the EDL and all across England who support them. Given that she is not contesting the next General Election she is either grossly misinformed about the aims and concerns of the EDL, or she is a malicious ethno-masochist, content to surrender her people to dhimmi status for time in perpetuity. In all likelihood, she falls into the second category and can thus safely and objectively be described as a traitor to the English and to the ideals of liberty and freedom that we hold so dear.

Addressing the Islamo-Marxist crowd and their dupes, she stated:

“In Germany, similar groups to the English Defence League started off spreading hatred against Jews. And then their hatred spread to disabled people, trade unionists, communists, gay people and gypsies. All were sent to concentration camps and millions were systematically eliminated.

Today similar forces are working to spread hatred against Muslims. They are trying to incite hatred, division and war. We must stand together against this evil. There are many problems in Britain and the world. Together, we can work to solve them. Divided we will all suffer.”
Lies pure and simple. How has she the temerity to dehumanise the EDL and all who support them, making direct comparisons with Nazis (see photograph of UAF protesters below) and claiming that they wish to eliminate the disabled, homosexuals, etc? Have you turned up at the wrong meeting love? I think you’ll find that these are the kinds of folk that orthodox Islam wishes to eliminate or, to put it more bluntly – murder. That’s why the EDL and people such as myself are protesting against Islamisation. Why don’t you get it woman?! You are a disgrace! Why have you and so many like you turned on your own people?

Having taken a look at the list of Birmingham Ladywood’s parliamentary candidates, my guess that it may have a rather large Muslim population seems to be borne out by the names of those standing for the three largest parties: Labour – Shabana Mahmood; Conservative – Nusrat Ghani (a lot prettier than Clare Short, it must be said); Liberal Democrat – Ayoub Khan. Even UKIP, it would seem, are forwarding a Muslim candidate - Lynette Nazemi-Afshar, so despite the wise words on the threat of Islamisation delivered by Lord Pearson last autumn, I remain very sceptical of UKIP’s position vis-à-vis Islam.

Frankly, with all this hysterical talk from mainstream politicians and the media (as well as their foot soldiers in the UAF) comparing ordinary English people to Nazis, I am growing increasingly fearful of what they are planning to do to us in the years ahead. We face a hard struggle to preserve our national existence and its attendant political and civil liberties that have been hard won over the centuries. We have only one homeland and have no other place to go, unlike the majority of Muslims amongst us. Have our politicians forgotten their duty? Do they not realise that sovereignty inheres in the people? They purport to be our servants and representatives, not our masters, but their actions would suggest otherwise. Such arrogance and disrespect for the common people brings to mind Charles I, and we all know how that unhappy episode of our history ended.

Islamo-Marxists dehumanise EDL and BNP by comparing them to Nazis

Thursday, 1 April 2010

EDL Dudley Demo

On Saturday 3 April the EDL take to the streets of Dudley to protest against Islamisation, specifically in this case, the construction of a “super mosque” that local people have been campaigning against. Following the success of the recent Bolton demo which saw 2,000 EDL supporters take to the streets, I wish them luck this weekend and hope that this demo proves to be even larger. After the disgusting behaviour of the communist-led UAF in Bolton where they attacked the police and attempted to goad EDL supporters into a confrontation, be on your guard to expect more of the same.

The UAF leadership is comprised of Socialist Workers’ Party members who are in league with the Islamists; they share the aim of provoking violent confrontation and civil war. Be calm, and co-operate with the police. Expose these communist thugs for what they are. Stand together, be of stout heart and you shall win! Islamism shall be driven from these shores!

Below is a picture of Islamo-Marxist supporters in Bolton taken from the SWP website (not a pretty sight!) followed by an EDL promo video for Saturday:

Hate Speech in the Qur'an

Hat tip to Aeneas of the International Civil Liberties Alliance for posting this video on their site. So accustomed are we to hearing that we must not offend Muslims for criticising their religion and their Prophet, it is instructive to look at verses from the Qur'an itself, and substitute the term "Muslims" for "unbelievers" in a number of unambiguously hate-filled qur'anic quotes. The effect is quite striking. Watch for yourself and ask the question: if we were to defend a book saying such things about Muslims, might we not be sitting behind bars?

is koran hate speech? from Vlad Tepes on Vimeo.