Monday, 24 September 2007

The Debate Begins HERE

As many people will know over the last couple of years there have been many malcontents, scum, idiots and lunatics who have been attacking me on every forum and website run by assorted reds, state security services and uniform fetishists.

The amount of lies and bullshit these people have peddled on these sites has staggered me - along with the utter stupidity of the people who believe it.

I was like the Scarlet Pimpernel - anyone who said anything that didnt blame the Jews/zionists for everything from the rainfall in Wales increasing to the plight of the corncrake were called ' Lee Barnes ' on sites such as Stormfront.

I was everywhere, I was Legion, I was the geezer in 'V for Vendetta' who could be anywhere at anytime spreading my hateful message of love and tolerance on the internet.

With all the symptoms of a mass hysteria the muppets saw me everywhere, behind every posting on Stormfront, behind their fridge doors nibbling their cheeses and eyeing up their girlfriends from the smoke alarm in the front room.

For a while it was funny - I used to get people to post up utter nonsense on sites such as Stormfront and then see how many idiotic maggots on the internet would regurgitate it on their websites.

My two favourites were - I dressed up as a QC with a wig and gown and used a false name in order to represent a BNP member in the High Court of London. That one went all round the internet - MUGS !

The other was that I was gay, Jewish and had been molested by at university by a gang of lecherous ethnic immigrant university students and this was my motivation for becoming a nationalist - MUGS !

There were many other smaller examples of disseminating nonsense to the idiots but they were my favourites.

Oh the gullibility and stupidity of these people.

The point of the lesson was that those who believe the crap peddled on the internet are morons. The internet is primarily the worlds biggest toilet, and is literally full of shit.

Examples such as Wikipedia editing posts on its site, or allowing people to edit posts on the site, should have triggered the few brain cells in many of these people - but it didnt.

Instead of the internet being the best tool we nationalists ever had to help the growth of the nationalist movement, it has become a factory for churning out idiots, bullshit conspiracy theories and utter bollocks.

Out from under the rock of the internet came many people like Sharon Ebanks, Britains premiere Half Black Nazi and people like Peter Rushton and Martin Webster.

Until the internet people like Webster were just regarded as deviant freaks known only for their perversions and not their politics. The 'Ernst Rhom' of British Nazism, Webster was one of those gay cult uniform fetishists that liked to see naked young men in nazi erotica. Then the internet gave these people a voice, and then a mechanism to spread their bullshit.

The internet has not been used in any way to constructively critique the crap that many nationalists punt out for profit though.

Take David Duke for example - this a man who admitted he was a thief and liar who used nationalists money donated to him to pay for lapdancers and gambling in casinos.

Yet the dimmest nationalist scum on the planet still queue up to lick the mans boots, even whilst he is removing their wallets from their pockets and ringing Spearmint Rhinos for the times that Mandy wiz ze big boobies is on stage. Theres always a seat for Dave in casinos run by the mafia.

The fact that Daves books are full of utter crap is irrelevant as long as he is attacking ze jews.

Instead or reading Duke, who knows about as much what goes on in the real realms of power as Mickey Mouse knew about the real world, try reading Caroll Quigley.

Quigley became well known among those who believe that there is an international conspiracy to bring about a one-world government. In his 1966 book, Tragedy and Hope, he based his analysis on his extensive research in the closely-held papers of an Anglo-American elite organization,[citation needed] to which he was given access. According to Quigley, the U.S. and UK governments were secretly controlled through a series of Round Table Groups, the group in the U.S. being the Council on Foreign Relations. He contended that both the Republican and Democratic parties were controlled by an "international Anglophile network" that shaped elections.

The Anglo-American Establishment was not published until 1982, five years after Quigley's death, because of its controversial material. several publishers would not publish it when it was written in 1949, but the manuscript was found after his death on the Island of Rhodes.

The Anglo-American Establishment was not published until 1982, five years after Quigley's death, because of its controversial material: several publishers would not publish it when it was written in 1949, but the manuSCRIPT was found after his death on the Island of Rhodes. The book alleged that the Munich Pact of 1938 had secretly been prepared as early as 1937 by politicians in Great Britain to give Germany and the Soviet Union a common border, in order to eventually destroy the latter in a war between the two nations. He further alleged that the crisis before the pact had been staged by British prime minister Neville Chamberlain. He also claimed that Alfred Milner had secretly written the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

The book argues that the real motive of Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler was to instigate a war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union; by deliberately encouraging and assisting in Germany's efforts to expand in the east so that Germany could have a common frontier with the Soviet Union.

This event of March 1936, by which Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, was the most crucial event in the whole history of appeasement. So long as the territory west of the Rhine and a strip fifty kilometers wide on the east bank of the river were demilitarized, as provided in the Treaty of Versailles and the Locarno Pacts, Hitler would never have dared to move against Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. He would not have dared because, with western Germany unfortified and denuded of German soldiers, France could have easily driven into the Ruhr industrial area and crippled Germany so that it would be impossible to go eastward. And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe. In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism.

Note that it was not ze jews who set up Nazi Germany for war but the British government through the Munich Pact.

Critics assailed Quigley for his approval of the goals (though not the tactics) of the Anglo-American elite, while selectively using his information and analysis as evidence for their views. Quigley himself thought that the influence of the Anglo-American elite had slowly waned after World War II, and that, in American society after 1965, the problem was that no elite was in charge and acting responsibly.

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. {p. 1247}

For a full example of the writings of Caroll Quigley read here ;

Heres Quigley on the Media and especially The Times newspaper ;

{p. 113} This influence was not exercised by acting directly on public opinion, since the Milner Group never intended to influence events by acting through any instruments of mass propaganda, but rather hoped to work on the opinions of the small group of "important people," who in turn could influence wider and wider circles of persons. This was the basis on which the Milner Group itself was constructed; it was the theory behind the Rhodes Scholarships; it was the theory behind "The Round Table and the Royal Institute of International Affairs; it was the theory behind the efforts to control All Souls, New College, and Balliol and, through these three, to control Oxford University; and it was the theory behind The Times. No effort was made to win a large circulation for The Times, for, in order to obtain such a circulation, it would have been necessary to make changes in the tone of the paper that would have reduced its influence with the elite, to which it had been so long directed. The theory of "the elite" was accepted by the Milner Group and by The Times, as it was by Rhodes.

{p. 114} The Times was to be a paper for the people who are influential, and not for the masses. The Times was influential, but the degree of its influence would never be realized by anyone who examined only the paper itself. The greater part of its influence arose from its position as one of several branches of a single group, the Milner Group. By the interaction of these various branches on one another, under the pretense that each branch was an autonomous power, the influence of each branch was increased through a process of mutual reinforcement. The unanimity among the various branches was believed by the outside world to be the result of the influence of a single Truth, while really it was the result of the existence of a single group. Thus, a statesman (a member of the Group) announces a policy. About the same time, the Royal Institute of International Affairs publishes a study on the subject, and an Oxford don, a Fellow of All Souls (and a member of the Group) also publishes a volume on the subject (probably through a publishing house, like G. Bell and Sons or Faber and Faber, allied to the Group). The statesman's policy is subjected to critical analysis and final approval in a "leader" in The Times, while the two books are reviewed (in a single review) in The Times Literary Supplement. Both the "leader" and the review are anonymous but are written by members of the Group. And finally, at about the same time, an anonymous article in The Round Table strongly advocates the same policy. The cumulative effect of such tactics as this, even if each tactical move influences only a small number of important people, is bound to be great. If necessary, the strategy can be carried further, by arranging for the secretary to the Rhodes Trustees to go to America for a series of "informal discussions" with former Rhodes Scholars, while a prominent retired statesman (possibly a former Viceroy of India) is persuaded to say a few words at the unveiling of a plaque in All Souls or New College in honor of some deceased Warden. By a curious coincidence, both the "informal discussions" in America and the unveiling speech at Oxford touch on the same topical subject.

{in a "democracy", such "agenda-setting" by an elite is a process of "seeding" public opinion.}

{p. 115} An analogous procedure in reverse could be used for policies or books which the Group did not approve. A cutting editorial or an unfriendly book review, followed by a suffocating blanket of silence and neglect, was the best that such an offering could expect from the instruments of the Milner Group. This is not easy to demonstrate because of the policy of anonymity followed by writers and reviewers in The Times, The Round Table, and The Times Literary Supplement, but enough cases have been found to justify this statement. When J. A. Farrer's book England under Edward VII was published in 1922 and maintained that the British press, especially The Times, was responsible for bad Anglo-German feeling before 1909, The Times Literary Supplement gave it to J. W. Headlam-Morley to review. And when Baron von Eckardstein, who was in the German Embassy in London at the time of the Boer War, published his memoirs in 1920, the same journal gave the book to Chirol to review, even though Chirol was an interested party and was dealt with in a critical fashion in several passages in the book itself. Both of these reviews were anonymous.

There is no effort here to contend that the Milner Group ever falsified or even concealed evidence (although this charge could be made against The Times). Rather it propagated its point of view by interpretation and selection of evidence. In this fashion it directed policy in ways that were sometimes disastrous. The Group as a whole was made up of intelligent men who believed sincerely, and usually intensely, in what they advocated, and who knew that their writings were intended for a small minority as intelligent as themselves. In such conditions there could be no value in distorting or concealing evidence. To do so would discredit the instruments they controlled. By giving the facts as they stood, and as completely as could be done in consistency with the interpretation desired, a picture could be construed that would remain convincing for a long time.

This is what was done by The Times. Even today, the official historian of The Times is unable to see that the policy of that paper was anti-German from 1895 to 1914 and as such contributed to the worsening of Anglo-German relations and thus to the First World War. This charge has been made by German and American students, some of them of the greatest diligence and integrity, such as Professors Sidney B. Fav, William L. Langer, Oron J. Hale, and others. The recent History of The Times devotes considerable space and obviously spent long hours of research in refuting these charges, and fails to see that it has not succeeded. With the usual honesty and industry of the Milner Group, the historian gives the evidence that will convict him, without seeing that his interpretation will not hold water. He confesses that the various correspondents of The Times in Berlin played up all anti-English actions and statements and played down all pro-English ones;

{p. 116} that they quoted obscure and locally discredited papers in order to do this; that all The Times foreign correspondents in Berlin, Paris, Vienna, and elsewhere were anti-German, and that these were the ones who were kept on the staff and promoted to better positions; that the one member of the staff who was recognized as being fair to Germany (and who was unquestionably the most able man in the whole Times organization), Donald Mackenzie Wallace, was removed as head of the Foreign Department and shunted off to be editor of the supplementary volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica (which was controlled by The Times); and that The Times frequently printed untrue or distorted information on Germany. All of this is admitted and excused as the work of honest, if hasty, journalists, and the crowning proof that The Times was not guilty as charged is implied to be the fact that the Germans did ultimately get into a war with Britain, thus proving at one stroke that they were a bad lot and that the attitude of The Times staff toward them was justified by the event.

David Duke and Bullshit on The Balfour Declaration.

In his book My Awakening ( Which I have read ) he states this about the Balfour Declaration

" Onto this stage of crisis, stepped the British Lord Arthur Balfour. He met with the Rothschilds, and made an agreement that in return for pledging Britain’s support in the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the Jews would use their great international power and influence to draw the United States into the war. Lord Balfour drew up a document — the Balfour Declaration — that called for the Jewish homeland. Even our popular encyclopedias admit the reason for the Balfour Declaration: "

Errrr no David - Lord Balfour did not draw up the Balfour Declaration - it was Lord Alfred Milner that drew up the Balfour Declaration not Lord Balfour.

“This declaration, which is always known as the Balfour Declaration, should rather be called 'the Milner Declaration,' since Milner was the actual draftsman and was apparently, its chief supporter in the War Cabinet. This fact was not made public until 21 July 1936. At that time Ormsby-Gore, speaking for the government in Commons, said, 'The draft as originally put up by Lord Balfour was not the final draft approved by the War Cabinet. The particular draft assented to by the War Cabinet and afterwards by the Allied Governments and by the United States...and finally embodied in the Mandate, happens to have been drafted by Lord Milner. The actual final draft had to be issued in the name of the Foreign Secretary, but the actual draftsman was Lord Milner.” (Carroll Quigley) – 538:169

"In World War I the British, with Arab aid, gained control of Palestine. In the Balfour Declaration (1917) they promised Zionist leaders to aid the establishment of a Jewish 'national home' in Palestine, with due regard for the rights of non-Jewish Palestinians. The British had also promised Arab leaders to support the creation of independent Arab states. The Arabs believed Palestine was among these, an intention that the British later denied." - 124:2054

When such basic facts as that are wrong in Dukes book , which is supposed to be a 'research book' then it is obvious the book is not about history, but about peddling anti-semitism for profit. The repugnant Jewish extremists of history, such as the Marxists of the Frankfurt School, derive their power in our society from the repugnant anti-semites in our society - for only by allowing and encouraging anti-semitism to be peddled and propagated can the Jewish extremists and their non-Jewish lackeys then demand that non-Jewish politicians pass laws that clamp down on free speech in our society and that then criminalises debate on issues such as immigration. Without the Hollywood Nazis then their would be no Hate Laws that are used to criminalise any forms of dissent. The systems power is perptuated by those that peddle hate. The thing the system fears mosts in rational debate - it desires hate and anti-semitism. Those that encourage anti-semitism and hate speech are merely doing the systems work for them - which is alienating the masses, putting nationalism into a political and social ghetto and allowing the corrupt politicians to use the law to end free speech. That is why the 'proffesional' anti-semites who peddle anti-semitism for profit are usually working for the government and system.

I will be posting up other articles that debunk some of the most widely spread bullshit in Nationalist circles on this site and also detailing some of the lies and bullshit spread about me over the last few years.

I have so far remained silent when I have been attacked - not any more.

Those that have lied about me will be exposed.

Sunday, 23 September 2007

The Cranks in British Nationalism

I was sent an e mail this morning from someone concerning a posting by the demented harridan and banshee Sharon Ebanks

(daughter of black West Indian immigrant Radwell Ebanks - note the jawline, she looks just like her dad )

which had been posted on the website of the known Marixist and red grass Peter Rushton. In the post on Rushtons website the demented banshee had made accusations that I had drafted up the letter to Mike Easter which had been the basis of his dismissal from the BNP.

As usual this was complete bollocks. I have had ZERO input on the Mike Easter case and as usual this was pure crap disseminated into the sewers of the internet to feed the rats that infest the sites where it was posted. The fact that any Nationalists have any time at all for the insane ramblings of this ethnically 'diverse' lunatic in the grip of an ethno-masochistic psychosis amazes me. Then again the gullibility and stupidity of some British nationalists is amazing to behold.

This is a woman who actually sent the BNP officer responsible for dealing with her disciplinary an e mail that said she was going to be represented in her BNP disciplinary Tribunal by 'a Chief Constable ' !!!! The word 'delusional' comes to mind. Either that or she was going to be represented by the Chief Constable of the West Midlands - which raise some interesting questions in itself.

Over the years I have seen the tide of nationalism ebb and flow and seen what strange creatures have washed up on our shores.

Take Adrian Davis for example, the Barrister who represented David Irving in his libel case a few years ago and helped him lose his home and savings. The only winner was Adrian Davis who got his legal fees. Irving later called Davis 'incompetent' on his website.

This a man who recent escapades include ;

1) Taking on a libel case involving Tess Culnane that lost her £80,000 pounds. Luckily the Liberal Democrats took pity on her and decided not to take her house from her. The ony winner was Adrian Davis who got his legal fees.

2) Taking on a libel case for Jay Lee that resulted in him having to drop his right to claim damages from the ASLEF union for unlawful expulsion ( a case which I won in the Employment Tribunal ) with the net result that the only winner was Adrian Davis who got his legal fees.

3) Taking on a case for John Tyndall to get him back into the BNP after he was expelled that resulted in costs for the BNP and also costs for John Tyndall ( the ony winner again being Adrian Davis who got his legal fees )

4) Taking on the Chris and Barry Roberts case against Searchlight which resulted in them having to pay £150,000 in costs and having to sell their houses. The only winner was Adrian davis who got his legal fees.

5) He is presently taking on the Simon Shepherd and Luke Farrell case. Though Simon Shepherd and Luke Farrell are obviously people with significant mental health issues ( Simon Shepherd is particularly fond of Cannibalism stories on his insane website and is well known as one of the world leading misogynists )the fact that Adrian Davis has been hired to represent them perhaps should be entered in their please for mitigation as proof of the extent of their illness.In the first pre-trial hearing on the important issue of the courts jurisdiction as regards posting on an internet server and website located in the US, the judge held that the comments posted by Shepherd and Farrell were within the jurisdiction of the Uk and therefore within the jurisdiction of the court to hear.

What amazes me is that so far no-one has realised the implications of this decision by the Judge to allow the case to go ahead. It means that whatever you post on the internet in the UK, regardless of where the server or website is physically hosted in the world, then you are liable under the Public Order Act 1986 in Britain for those comments.

Though the POA 1986 was never designed to cover the whole planet, and was enacted before most people had even heard of the Internet, the judge has held that the whole world now comes under the remit of the POA 1986. Talk about judicial activism and legal creativity. Thanks to the work of Adrian Davis this means the Internet has now come under the remit of the UK law. The last refugse of free speech in the so called Free World which was the internet ( " If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky )has now been lost to the enemy of all those that cherish and value free speech.

This means, in the event of them being found guilty, that the Internet is no longer a place where free speech reigns. Thanks Adrian - great work ( NOT ! )

The Chris and Barry Roberts case was also a particularly interesting case to examine. The case against the BNP activists Chris and Barry Roberts was heard before Judge Sir Stephen Sedley, a long time member of the British Communist Party and President of the British Institute of Human Rights with links to Liberty and Amnesty International.

Under the dicta enshrined in the Pinochet Principle in Re Pinochet (1998) the Judge should have withdrawn from the case as a long time member of the Communist Party can scarcely be said to be ambivalent to nationalism and nationalist activists in their court.

This is what the case dicta says ;

" 2. Apparent bias

As I have said, Senator Pinochet does not allege that Lord Hoffmann was in fact biased. The contention is that there was a real danger or reasonable apprehension or suspicion that Lord Hoffmann might have been biased, that is to say, it is alleged that there is an appearance of bias not actual bias.

The fundamental principle is that a man may not be a judge in his own cause. This principle, as developed by the courts, has two very similar but not identical implications. First it may be applied literally: if a judge is in fact a party to the litigation or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome then he is indeed sitting as a judge in his own cause. In that case, the mere fact that he is a party to the action or has a financial or proprietary interest in its outcome is sufficient to cause his automatic disqualification. The second application of the principle is where a judge is not a party to the suit and does not have a financial interest in its outcome, but in some other way his conduct or behaviour may give rise to a suspicion that he is not impartial, for example because of his friendship with a party. This second type of case is not strictly speaking an application of the principle that a man must not be judge in his own cause, since the judge will not normally be himself benefiting, but providing a benefit for another by failing to be impartial.

In my judgment, this case falls within the first category of case, viz where the judge is disqualified because he is a judge in his own cause. In such a case, once it is shown that the judge is himself a party to the cause, or has a relevant interest in its subject matter, he is disqualified without any investigation into whether there was a likelihood or suspicion of bias. The mere fact of his interest is sufficient to disqualify him unless he has made sufficient disclosure: see Shetreet, Judges on Trial, (1976), p. 303; De Smith, Woolf & Jowel, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 5th ed. (1995), p. 525. I will call this "automatic disqualification."

" The rationale of the whole rule is that a man cannot be a judge in his own cause. In civil litigation the matters in issue will normally have an economic impact; therefore a judge is automatically disqualified if he stands to make a financial gain as a consequence of his own decision of the case. But if, as in the present case, the matter at issue does not relate to money or economic advantage but is concerned with the promotion of the cause, the rationale disqualifying a judge applies just as much if the judge's decision will lead to the promotion of a cause in which the judge is involved together with one of the parties. Thus in my opinion if Lord Hoffmann had been a member of AI he would have been automatically disqualified because of his non-pecuniary interest in establishing that Senator Pinochet was not entitled to immunity. Indeed, so much I understood to have been conceded by Mr. Duffy. "

This rule for Judges is in place in order to ensure that there is no chance of any judicial bias in legal cases. The law requires that Judges ‘ Must not appear biased or impartial ‘ .

The Judges past adherence to the Communist cause in the Barry and Chris Roberts case meant the Judge was not fit to hear a case involving well known Nationalist activists for the BNP involved in a libel case against a well known Communist election candidate and Communist supporter - this being the convicted liar and thief Gerry Gable of the Searchlight magazine. The fact that the Judge is president of a legal group that supports left wing legal proffesionals who use the law for political purposes should also have meant he should have withdrawn. But instead of withdrawing from the case Judge Sir Stephen Sedley , and the other two judges on the bench hearing the appeal, found against the BNP members and at the same time ‘clarified‘ the position of the libel laws in the UK to ensure that the Roberts brothers and other British Nationalists in the future did not come under its protection. In effect the judgement said ' Searchlight can now print any old load of lies and bollocks it gets off the internet and publish it with impunity '.

If one employee of Searchlight is sitting in one room of Searchlies office in London posting lies on Stormfront under the psuedonym 'Hitlers Left Bollock ' such as saying that a BNP member is hiding the body of Heinrich Himmler in their fridge and that said body of dead nazi defrosted and was present at the RWB and signing copies of Mein Kampf, then Searchlies can now print that in their rag and not face being sued by the person they name as storing the body in the freezer. The good judge has give the media and searchlight a license to peddle as much bullshit about the BNP as they wish and now they need never fear being sued.
What a farce.

The Roberts Brothers were not told of the Judges political affiliations. The law required that Judge Sir Stephen Sedley do one of two things ;

1) Either withdraw from the case

2) Disclose his past affiliations to the Communist Party and give the claimants the right to decide whether he should withdraw.

Neither was done. But at the same time neither was the judge challenged by adrian Davis as per his suitability to hear the case.

Judge Sir Stephen Sedley was the senior Judge on the appeal hearing the Roberts case, this meant his comments and opinions would have borne great weight with the other less senior judges hearing the case. The fact he neither withdrew from the case , nor was he challenged by Adrian Davis as per his suitability to hear the case, is a disgrace.

The British Institute of Human Rights on its website even hosts articles attacking the BNP !

Also one of the current trustees of the Institute of Human Rights is Geoffrey Bindman of Bindman and Co, the same legal firm that represented Shahid Malik ( now a Labour MP ) in his libel case against former BNP activist Steve Smith.

In 2005 the CRE Deputy Chair Sarah Smith gave a speech at the Institute of Human Rights - and this was after the CRE had said it was going to target the BNP.

Now the question is - why didnt Davis challenge the Judges right to hear the case ?

What is very interesting is that Adrian Davis and Lord Justice Sedley had met before - it was Judge Sedley that refused David Irving permission to appeal his libel case.

Now isnt that an interesting coincidence - Lord Justice Sedley refused Irving permission to appeal his case and Adrian Davis was Irvings barrister in the libel case.

For those that are interested Adrian Davis posts on Stormfront under the name Insurgent -

Diversity Equals Crime

For those Turtles and Sheeple that still vomit up the rhetoric of the media and the politicians that immigration and diversity are good things for the country contemplate the above statistics.

The word for the British people that still vote for the Labour Party, the Tory Party, Liberals, Greens and UKIP is mugs - they are the biggest mugs this country has ever spawned. Whilst the well off live in their comfy little ivory towers in their middle class enclaves or the poor hide in their council flats and watch TV 24/7 to escape reality - it is the rest of us who bear the burden for their shame, stupidity, apathy and selfishness.

The tragedy of the 20th Century was that because of two world wars the best amongst us, the brightest, the fittest and the strongest were killed and as a result only very few amongst our people now are worthy of the name Britons.

Instead all we are left with are the millions of gutless, cringing, servile, brainless morons that vote for idiots like Gordon Brown, Campbell and Cameron into power. The millions of our glorious dead must be turning in their graves at what this country has become.

If we could take a time machine back to 1914 and then take some of the lads in their khaki uniforms to todays Britain and ask them ' Is this what you are fighting for' then they would have laid down their rifles and refused to fight.

This country has betrayed them and their sacrifice. Whilst they were bombed, shot, gassed and slaughtered in their millions in two world wars to defend this nation from threats to its survival - their grandchildren opened the gates of the nation and allowed this country to be ruined from within.

Geroge Orwell realised that the Middle Class English people of his time that supported Stalin and Communism and who sneered at their own country , were the traitors that called themselves progressives.

The Working Class in this country who still vote for Labour disgust me. They are Class Traitors, the arse licking lickspittles of the Fabian ponces in suits who get rich whilst greasing the wheels of capitalism.

The Unions are run by scum for their own benefit and self enrichment or by political thugs for the benefit of the Labour Party and the myriad leftist sects they are affiliated too.

The Liberals are nothing more than the self hating conditioned puppets of the media, told who to feel sorry for and told what to think. Most liberals are barely human, they are nothing more then ciphers into which the media decant their views and then off they go vomiting them into our society.

One day a reckoning will happen. One day the wheel will turn and those who today are despised for their ideals and values will one day be the great despisers.

The only positive side to immigration is that it accelerates the downfall of the present ruling elites. Immigration will destroy our society and the moment that process becomes obious even to the most deluded and ignorant amongst us then the wheel will turn for us. When we get into power we wont listen to the whining of the media, the bleating of the liberals, the weeping of the brainwashed and the conditioned - we will plough ahead with our agenda and plans regardless of anything those that oppose us say.

Just as those in power have ignored what the people have wanted for years we will ingore them when they try and stop us enacting our political manifesto.

And just as those in power have attacked us in the BNP for years and have abused us, lied about us, beaten us and attacked us and have used their power to undermine us - we are just as determined as them to create a Counter Revolution, to get the pendulum to swing back towards the people. If that means we have to employ the same methods used against us then so be it. If it was socially and politically acceptable for those in power to do what they did to us, then it will be socially and politically acceptable for us to give them back a taste of their own medicine when the time comes. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The hate poured at us over the years from the liberals, the left, the tories, the media and the labour party have made us hardened and determined. Their intolerance towards us will be reflected back at them. In a strange way we have to thank them for their hatred towards us, for without it we would still care what they think.

Nationalists are compassionate , ethical and principled people. We are motivated not by self interests but by love of our people, our country, our culture and our history. Our compassion could have made us weak, but the hatred the left,liberals and media have poured at us has instead made us as hard as them.

Now we are ready for power.

The boats, trains and planes that today bring the immigrants in will one day be the boats,trains and planes that we will use to send the anti-social immigrants back.

All it takes is the will to make this happen.

And we have that will.

More than one crime in five in London is now committed by a foreign national, raising fresh fears over the impact of immigration.

Around a third of all sex offences and a half of all frauds in the capital are carried out by non-British citizens.

Poles, who have entered Britain in record numbers since they joined the European Union in 2004, committed 2,310 crimes in the first six months of this year to become the most prolific offenders.

Romanians, whose country became part of the EU in January, committed more than 1,000 offences — an eightfold rise on the same period in 2006, according to Metropolitan Police figures for solved crimes.

Saturday, 22 September 2007

Stealing Foreign Doctors is a Crime Against Humanity

There are those in the media, on the Conservative right and the liberal left that regard the site of a Black African doctor or an Indian consultant working for the NHS as a sign of how wonderful Multi-Culturalism is and how 'progressive' Britain as a society is, but for me and for the indigenous people of their home nations , such a sight represents an ongoing tragedy of unimaginable proportions.

Stealing doctors from the Third World and Developing nations is a crime against humanity. It is complicity in mass murder and the politicians of those nations that allow foreign doctors to enter their countries should be tried for crimes against humanity. To take the oxygen mask from the face of a sick person would be regarded as murder, to remove doctors from a nation with an AID's epidemic, famine or where women die in childbirth or children from preventable disease is also murder.

At the same time as we have been stealing the doctors of developing nations such as From Zimbabwe, we are throwing British doctors into unemployment.

One fifth of Zimbabwe's trained nurses were recruited to work in Britain last year - despite rules supposedly banning hospitals from poaching staff from the world's poorest countries.

More than 5,200 doctors and nurses were hired from African nations which appear on the Government's list of states "that should not be recruited from".

The World Health Organisation estimates Zimbabwe to have fewer than 9,000 nurses left - just one for every 1,400 people, compared with one for every 156 in the UK.

The threat of unemployment among UK graduates is being blamed on the computerised recruitment system. But the real problem is government policy on medical immigration, argues Graham Winyard.

Hundreds of medical graduates are unemployed because too many posts go to doctors from overseas, it is claimed today.

Professor Graham Winyard blames the Government's "muddled approach to managing medical immigration".

Writing in the British Medical Journal, Professor Winyard said: "This has created a large surplus of applicants over available training places, making disappointment for thousands inevitable."

The drive to bring in overseas doctors began because medical schools were failing to provide enough graduates for the NHS. In 1997, a Government committee advocated a policy aim of being able to rely largely on UK doctors, and called for an expansion of medical school places.

This means the number of graduate doctors is expected to rise by 40 per cent to 7,000 in 2010.
Professor Winyard said the aims of the committee could not be realised because it is illegal to discriminate against doctors on the basis of the country in which they graduated.

Doctors from across Europe also meet the criteria for seeking a job in Britain through the highly skilled migrant programme, he said.

"Investing heavily in expanding our medical schools makes little sense if we cannot enable the extra graduates to pursue a career in medicine," he added.

Professor Winyard proposed a system where overseas graduates were considered for jobs only after UK and European graduates.

The Health Department said NHS patients should have access to the best doctors possible "no matter where they trained". Even if that means they are trained in developing nations and then enter the Uk and leave their own people in crisis.

Dr PN Govender is president of the South African Medical Association and has said " While I endorse a doctor's right of free movement, I cannot endorse mass migration for personal reasons alone. South Africa loses almost 50% of its qualified doctors annually to Canada, the UK and Australia. "

The 2 Muslim brothers (NHS doctors) arrested for the recent terrorist attacks in the UK, had been turned down by Australian hospitals because they weren't happy with their experience or references.The NHS then gave them jobs in preference to the many out of work doctors who have been trained over here at the expense of the tax payer. This is just the tip of an iceberg of potential terrorism problems regarding foreign doctors.

The General Medical Council is also facing accusations that it discriminates against doctors who trained overseas.

A so called ' independent study ' had found that foreign doctors are much more likely to end up in front of one of its disciplinary committees than those who train in the UK.

They are also substantially more likely to be found guilty of an offence and are at much higher risk of being banned from practising medicine.

Prof Isobel Allen, Institute of Policy StudiesResearchers said they found no evidence that these doctors were discriminated against.

This report from the IPSR is nothing more than a smokescreen for the government to use. At the same time the IPSR report found no evidence of discrimination, it claimed it was racism that is the cause of foreign doctors being disciplined - the real reason is of course is that they are not required to speak English and therefore make mistakes, have bogus qualifications, have less qualifications and also make more mistakes than British doctors. To call the people racists who protect patients is disgusting.

The word racist used against a White person should be made as illegal as the derogatory words used to describe ethnics and immigrants.

The fact that the liberals and the left and tories regard foreign doctors entering the UK, that take British doctors jobs and that abandon their own people to die, as something we should celebrate as part of multi-culturalism and the global free movement of people is evidence of just how mentally ill and sick these people are.

Foreign doctors in the UK is our national shame not our national pride - it is evidence of our criminality and selfishness. It demonstrates how we would rather inport in cheap doctors instead of training and empoying our own and how we would rather let the natives and indigenous peoples of the developing world die instead of training our own doctors.

Foreign doctors in the UK is evidence of murderous racism by the left, liberals and tory right - they would rather a few blacks die in Africa than they have to raise taxes or restrict the movement of foreign doctors into the UK and be called racist.

Friday, 21 September 2007

Diversity in Medway and North Kent - the scum invasion

Here are a selction of stories from Medway in Kent where I live ;

A WOMAN was punched in the face after she refused to buy what looked like fake gold.
Joanne Valentine was left with a swollen cheekbone and is now too frightened to go out.She had just left her house in Chalkwell Road, Sittingbourne, and was walking along London Road towards the town when two cars full of what she thinks were foreign people, pulled up beside her.

Boy attacked by woman with metal pipe

A BOY of 10 needed hospital treatment after being hit in the face and across the back by a woman wielding a metal bar.The incident happened after community tension spilled over in Luton Road, Chatham.

Police said it was being treated as racially-motivated and an investigation has been launched.
There were four women in the group of people who attacked Jake Stedman. His mother said he tried to run away but his legs collapsed beneath him.Amanda Stedman said: "He's now too frightened to go out on his own and he has to sleep in my bed now because he's so traumatised."
'Needle' attack girl's HIV fear

A YOUNG woman faces an anxious wait after being stabbed twice in the stomach with a hypodermic needle.
Katie Dawson, 19, from Strood, fears she may have been infected with hepatitis or HIV after the attack in Chatham town centre.
Violent robber befriended train passengers

A PROLIFIC and violent robber has been jailed after kidnapping and threatening to stab three men he made friends with on trains in Kent. Ricky Randhawa, 29, of Mulberry Road, Northfleet, faced Maidstone Crown Court charged with three counts of robbery and two counts of false imprisonment following three incidents in January this year.
Witness appeal after assault near cricket club

POLICE are investigating after a 20-year-old man was treated in hospital for a neck injury after he was assaulted near Whitstable Cricket Club in Belmont Road.The assault happened just after midnight on Sunday. The victim, from Faversham, was taken to the QEQM Hospital in Margate. Police say the offender as an Asian youth, aged between 15 and 18, and about 5ft 7ins tall. He was wearing a blue jumper with vertical white stripes.
Convicted student nurse 'a serial fraudster'

A 44-year-old student nurse has escaped a jail term after fleecing the NHS of more than £3,000 – despite having a previous conviction for fraud.Single mother Wuraola Okenla, of Mounts Road, Greenhithe, near Dartford, began a diploma in mental health nursing in September 2006, but lied on her claim form to inflate her NHS bursary.Okenla, who has six children aged eight to 18, said her weekly childcare costs were £225. But an audit by NHS Bursaries in December 2006 discovered they were just £75 per week.
Blind woman's bag stolen at rail station

POLICE are appealing for help to trace a man captured on CCTV who is wanted for questioning after a blind woman had her handbag stolen at a Kent railway station. The 41-year-old victim was sitting in the booking office at Deal station on May 31 at about 12.15pm when she decided to go outside and wait for her train. She accidentally left the bag on the bench.
A man has been jailed for four-and-a-half years for killing another man with a single punch.
Nowbahar Bahar, of Harmer Street, Gravesend, Kent, was convicted at Maidstone Crown Court on Thursday of the manslaughter of David Henkel, 32.

Mr Henkel hit his head on the ground or a wall after being punched outside a kebab shop in Chatham on 23 July 2005.
Bahar, who arrived in the UK from Afghanistan in 2001, claimed he acted in self-defence.
But the court was told by two teenage witnesses that Bahar was the only person to throw a punch during the incident on a Saturday night.
12th november 2004
Robbers break mobile phone owner’s legs

A YOUNG man has been robbed of his mobile phone and assaulted by two men as he was walking home.

The 19-year-old was walking along the lower part of Castle Road, Chatham, on Sunday just after 12.30am, when he was attacked by two men of Eastern European appearance.
They stole his mobile phone, a blue Nokia, and assaulted him, causing fractures to both legs.
One of the robbers is described as 21-years-old and 6ft 1ins tall with a moustache. He was wearing a green fleece.

The second robber was also about 21 and 5ft 9ins tall, wearing a brown fleece.

Both offenders were described as “dark European.”

Anyone who may have seen something or have information in connection with the incident is asked to contact Medway Police on 01634 884252 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
In 2004 there were 'officially' just 74 adult asylum seekers in Medway acording to the official medway council figures above. The report above then states that of these 74 asylum seekers there were 8 crimes a month where the perpetrator was classified as an asylum seeker - thats a lot of crime for just 74 people.
7.27 The following crime figures, relating to January to July 2004, do not include verification that the person involved was actually an asylum seeker so the picture below includes cases where the perpetrator has been described as an asylum seeker. On average there are 8 crimes a month where the perpetrator is described as an asylum seeker, 3 where asylum seekers are the victim and 4 crimes where both the perpetrator and victim are described as asylum seekers. 7 out of the 100 crimes during this period (involving people described as asylum seekers) would be categorised as major incidents by the police.
A policewoman has told councillors in Medway that the number of asylum seekers is five or six times greater than official figures.

At a meeting for asylum groups, Pc Caroline Pope said crime had risen and asylum seekers were in part to blame.
3.4 Funding is provided from the standards fund and Medway Council. For 2004/05 the standards fund allocation is £343,320, 50 % of which is funded from Department for Education and Skills (DfES) standards fund grant. £150,000 (the maximum permitted) is retained centrally to subsidise the cost of the service to schools, in part by meeting the costs of the management of the service. The balance of £193,320 is devolved to schools. A further £375,618 is provided by Medway Council and delegated to schools. There is additional funding to support asylum seekers. This is part of the vulnerable children standards fund allocation and the distribution between the various elements is determined annually. The allocation for 2004-2005 for this purpose is £60,000.

UFO's and Nationalism

The issue of UFO's is not one that the establishment politicians willever address or look at in a political manner even though the issue of UFO's is of direct National Security interest.

I have seen UFO's twice so far. Once in broad daylight I was walking with my family on a local beach called Upnor in Medway in the early Eighties when I was about 14 and as I gazed up at the top of the tree line of the woods adjacent to the beach I saw a dull grey silver disc rise up and fly over the local woods. It was about six foot long and about six foot wide and rose up into the sky then disappeared back below the skyline as soon as I sighted it. The movement was deliberate and controlled. The object had been lifting itself above the woods from the ground and when it came into eyesight recoiled to the right with incredible speed. As soon it realised it was being observed it dropped back below the trees. This suggests to me that not only was it under conscious direction but that it was aware it was being observed and took direct action to ensure that it could not be observed. It resembled the bottom picture.

The second time was in 2004 and was in broad daylight over Birmingham city centre. The object was filmed by a local man from his garden and the footage was later shown on Central News. It was reported in the news article that the object was caught on the radar of Birmingham Airport. The object was a silver ball with a slight rim around the centre and was emitting what looked like white lasers from the underneath and sides, as if they were somehow stabilising the object as it hovered in mid air. I saw the object for about two or minutes from a train window going into New Street Station. It resembled the top picture with the beams of light radiating out as in the second picture.

The plethora of reports of UFO's from across the world cannot be ignored. Either the governments of the world have access to zero gravity technology and stealth technology decades ahead of what is currently known to be in existence or else we face an alien threat to our National Security.

The former theory may be correct, as some the witnesses at some UFO sightings state that US military insignia are seen on the crafts, but if the latter is true then we have to start dealing with this in a serious way. That means getting the US to admit it nhas these craft, what technology they are using, what the capacity is of these craft, what threat they pose to our national security if the Chinese get hold of the technology and also what the bloody hell have they been doing not giving their closest allies access to this technology.

The first report above reveals that some of these objects have targeted UK military bases for reasons as yet unknown. If they are US planes then the US is in breach of UK airspace but if these are alien objects then the purpose of targeting UK military installations can only be to test our response to these craft.

So far only one government, Brazil, have acknowledged that UFO's exist and they are studying them as potential threats.

The only strategic reason why anyone would want to test our military response to a penetration of UK airspace and also to test the response of military personel at UK military installations is if they have an intent at some time that threatens those installations and UK national security.

I believe that one of the most important issues that affects our national security, and has yet to be taken seriously as an issue, is the UFO issue. If the US have craft with the capabilities we see in UFO's then we are wasting billions and billions of pounds per year in buying planes like the Eurofighter. These advanced alien or unknown military craft render all our present military weapons systems and defence systems obsolete. This means the UK is at present totally vulnerable to an attack from these craft. The fact that spies have penetrated the US military for decades and leaked information to the Russians and Chinese, and also hackers are being used by the Chinese to penetrate and steal US military information, means the technology of these craft will at some point be in the hands or our potential enemies. The fact that these craft, if they are US weapons systems, have to be built somewhere also means that corporate espionage threatens to leak these technologies to our enemies.'Mile-wide+UFO'+spotted+by+British+airline+pilot/

This is unacceptable. Either the US reveals whether it is the source of these craft, and what the hell they think they are doing with them when they penetrate our airspace and threaten our military establishments, or we have to take a far more proactive approach in dealing with them.

If these objects are of alien origin then we cannot adopt a 'hope for the best attitude' with them. They are potential threats and must be dealt with as potential threats. They are not just threats to the Military-Industrial Complex but also the average British citizen. They were regarded as potential threats by both Winston Churchill and Lord Louis Mountbatten, both of whom were military pragmatists.

The issue of alien abduction also needs to be addressed. If alien abductions are real, as many eminent psychologists and scientists now acknowledge, then this means we have to adopt a far more assertive stance against these objects. The many cases and testimony of people abducted by these craft suffering horrific procedures suggests they regard us almost with as much contempt and compassion as we regard cattle. It appears they have an agenda that, unlike the liberals, has no respect for the ideology of universal human rights.

The fact that many people who suffer abduction events suffer what seems to be some of conditioning or programming that alters their perception of the event means that these objects are ttrying to hide what they are doing. The fact they are hiding what they are doing also suggests a malign motive in many cases. Though some events seem to suggest that not all of them follow the same agenda, the fact they all have hidden agendas is worrying. The fact that some people suggest that people like Bush and Blair know what they are doing and are keeping it secret is not reassuring.

This whole area of national security has yet to be studied and researched properly. One of the things I will be pushing the BNP into doing is that when we are in power we will order an immediate Public Inquiry with the power to call witnesses and order the release of classified military documents concerning UFO's. If the inquiry finds that the presence of UFO's exists then we will then demand a formal response from the US, China, Russia etc as to what they know and if they are in charge of these craft that are penetrating UK air space.

I am a supporter of the Disclosure Project and at this site a whole range of documents are available to study.

The UFO phenomena is not the subject of cranks and weirdos, it is a national security interest.

During the Second World War on the 13th of June 1944 people in Essex saw a strange metallic silver object flying through the sky that exploded when it hit the ground. At first the government and the public thought the witnesses were mistaken and had seen merely a German plane dropping bombs. The people who saw them were laughed at ridiculed.

Over the next few months 1,435 of these objects hit south-east England. They were the V1 Flying Bombs and until they appeared in the sky over Southern England no-one knew the Nazis had such advanced technology.

Those who have spent decades scoffing at those who have seen UFO's are the sort of people who ignore reality until a bomb drops on their house. We cannot wait until a fleet of UFO's appears in our skies with some sinister intent as they did during the Battle of LA

We also cannot wait until the US admits it has this technology and through its usual security cock ups lets China or Russia get hold of it. If the US has this technology then we must have it as well or else we are totally defenceless.

Those that scoff at those of us like Winston Churchill and Lord Mountbatten and myself who see the issue of UFO's as primarily a national securrity threat are the real cranks and weirdos.

Those of us who want answers are the real pragmatists and patriots.

Thursday, 20 September 2007

How To Prevent a Future Banking Crisis

The Northern Rock crisis was due to the bank incurring debts that wiped out a large percentage of the money that investors had put on deposit within the bank.

Why the hell are banks allowed to gamble investors money - surely the law should say that an investors secured deposit means the bank should retain enough liquid capital to cover money owed to investors in the event they wish to withdraw their money.

Gambling with investors money without their permission is simply stealing - it is dishonestly appropriating the property of another without their permission and then gambling with it. Investors leave their money simply on deposit - they do not give banks permission to gamble that money without their permission.

If banks want to speculate then fine - but let the directors be personally liable for the losses and not the investors when they cock it up with their greedy little shylock money schemes.
We should make this a BNP policy as regards banking rules ;

No bank will be allowed to use investors deposited capital that has been placed in secured deposit accounts for any unauthorised investment schemes or other financial transactions that expose those deposits to any adverse risks or potential losses without express permission from the depositor. In the event of any bank using an investors capital for any reason and for any purpose without express permission and the bank then loses that secured deposited money, then the directors of the bank are to be held personally liable for the losses of any deposited monies owed to investors and their personal assets may be seized and used to recompense the monies owed to the investors.

That should stop the greedy bastard directors of these banks gambling with other peoples money - when they realise that they will be forced to sell their houses, lose their sports cars and holiday homes and be left destitute instead of the investors who trusted them with their money then they will think twice before they indulge in any more infantile investment schemes.

The Bank of England should also be prohibited from releasing any tax payers money to support those shysters that lose investors money - instead of the bankers all playing the Banking Cabal game and looking after each other , how about looking after the investors andf the tax payers first.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

The collapse of the Northern Rock bank and the devastating fall in its share prices over the last few days, including a withdrawal of customers deposits worth over 2 billion pounds, has revealed a hidden crisis in our country that links immigration, British workers and a government so desperate to keep in power that it would rather millions of homeowners go bankrupt than they lose power.

First time buyers in Britain today are having to borrow 3.37 times their income just to get a mortgage. This means we have a created a society which forces young families into levels of debt that are crippling if they want to own their own home. In 1977 the average mortgage was £8,376 with an average salary of £4,451 with the ratio of salary to mortgage of 1.85 % with their mortgage payments representing 13.3 % of their total yearly income. Today the average mortgage is £117,000 with an average salary of £35,000 with a salary to mortgage ratio of 3.37 % representing 19.1 % of their total income.

The price of home ownership for the average British family is now predicated on thbem being in perpetual debt. Low paid workers can now only rent property instead of buying it, and rental prices are rising as Eastern Europeans uproot and come to Britain thereby driving up rental property prices as well as house prices.

Many British families are now forced to borrow up to five times or six times their salaries in order to buy a home, and this strata of low paid families has created the pool of people who inflated and sustained the Sub-Prime lending bubble. The current crisis is based on liabilities incurred as a byproduct of the sub-prime system being sold off and bought by other baks elsewhere in the world. The UK banks as well as speculating on debt from the sub-prime industry in the US have also exported their UK liabilities elsewhere in the world. Even though this type of sub-prime industry did not even exist a few years ago, it is now a multi-trillion dollar industry that has infected the entire global banking system. Just as greed governed its growth, the nexus between the banks based on debt transfers means they have all now infected each other with the illness. The real crisis has not even arrived yet, as the true extent of the crisis will only become apparent over the next year or so as the banks auditors investigate the banks libailities and then discover just how much debt the banks have accrued. The current share price rise in banks is nothing more than media spin by the economists attempting to deceive the customers of those banks whilst they shift their own shares elsewhere. Whilst the bankers talk in public about how this is not a crisis in banking, even though this is the first run on a British Bank (Northern Rock ) in over 140 years, they are busy swopping their shares for others.

This is a crisis inherent in global capitalism and is evidence of the utter folly of the modern globalist system. In order for UK workers to be ‘productive’ in the Global economy, in other words be able to compete with Chinese and Indian workers as per wages, then British workers need to be paid wages that do not even cover the necessities of life in our society.

Every family needs a home, but due to the rise in house prices over recent years this has meant that British workers are unable to afford to own their own homes. Whilst the directors of globalised British companies that outsource their work to countries such as China are seeing record profits, at the same time British workers are being forced into massive debt in order to just to own a home.

This current crisis is all the fault of Gordon Brown, though the drive for a globalised free market was itself a product of Thatcherite fundamentalist economics. Gordon Brown has merely accelerated the Thatcherite revolution to such an extent that she even visits her economic acolyte in Downing Street.

The bail out of the failing banks whose greed led them to create the sub-prime mortgages industry is proof that the banks were acting with the support and assistance of the Labour government. The release of credit to the banks by the Bank Of England is de facto Nationalisation of those banks. The Bank of England is rewarding the greed and stupidity of those banks hit by the crisis with free money and an extension of credit. Instead of engineering the British economy away from dependence on banking, and a return to manufacturing and indutry, the Bank of England are in effect rewarding greed with tax payers money. Whilst they take benefit overpayments back from single mothers, the Labour government are more than willing to subsidise the bankers that fund the Labour Party itself.

Immigration into the UK has driven up house prices and sustained rising house prices. Whilst millions of our people have fled the country as part of the ‘white flight‘ crisis, and whilst the birth rate of the indigenous British people has fallen below replacement levels, the rise in house prices has continued to accelerate due to demand for housing from new immigrants flooding into the country.

The decision of banks like Northern Rock to allow British workers to borrow money to buy houses that they could not afford to pay back was a political decision supported by the government. The Labour government needed banks like Northern Rock to lend low paid British workers money for mortgages they could never pay back in order to avoid the crisis in low wages for workers and rising houses prices due immigration becoming painfully apparent. As long as the banks were willing to lend money to families who could not pay back the money then the crisis would remain hidden and the government would retain the votes of the Working Class and the Middle Class.

The decision to bail out the banks with British tax payers money is the governments way of paying the banks back for keeping them in power. The entire Sub-Prime mortgage industry that is in crisis has been nothing more than a political life support system for the Labour government, as it has allowed the crisis in low wages and rising house prices to be hidden behind a wall of insane mortgage lending.

As long as the immigration invasion into the UK continues and as long as British workers are forced to compete in the global market with nations such as China and live on low wages then the real crisis behind the crisis will continue.

The collapse of the Sub-Prime mortgage industry will now reveal to British workers just how much they have been betrayed by the Labour government. They will not be able to afford to get mortgages in the future as the banks that were willing to lend them insane levels of debt will now no longer be able to do so. The collapse of the banks will lead to a collapse in support of the government as British families find in the future that the banks will no longer loan them the insane amounts of money they require just so they can buy their own house. The decision by Mervyn King to release credit to the banks is a way to try and ensure the Labour government remain in power by sustaining the debt bubble that and the sea of credit that people have borrowed over recent years. When the ability to get credit ends then the British economy will collapse.

The only solution to the crisis is an immediate end to mass immigration into the country that sustains rising house prices and the creation of a Nationalist economic system that places the interests of British workers before the profits of the directors of globalised British companies and that prohibits British banks from indulging in the economics of greed. This country deserves a government that puts the British people first and not themselves or their paymasters. There is only one party that has forseen this crisis and warned the British public of it and only one party that can solve the crisis, and that is the British National Party.

Wednesday, 19 September 2007

BBC acts as Al Qaeda Propagandist

As many of you who read this blog wil know I regard the majority of the media hacks in the country as mewling maggots feasting on the corpse of our society and who should be branded with the words VERMIN on their foreheads. At best they are vultures who profit from death and horror, at worst they are directly responsible for the majority of ills in our society.

One of the worst, and most corrupt media institutions i9n our country is the BBC. The BBC is the biggest employer of freaks, degenerates and left wing assholes in the country. It is run by a cabal of Sharia Socialists and demented Liberals that think the BBC is nothing more than a mechanism for the creation of a left wing Multi-Cultural society. The BBC does not report the news, it tries to create a New Socialist Society.

The latest BBC example of how they use the power of the media to manipulate peoples mind comes via a report at Damian Thompson's Daily Telegraph blog about an item on the BBC Newsround website. The Daily Telegraph is a Tory paper, so it prints stories that flatter the fops and popinjays in the Tory Party. Attacking the BBC is ok for the Telegraph as the BBC attack the Tories.

Newsround is like the news for kids who realise Teletubbies arent real. Its job is to brainwash our young people and inculcate white guilt at the state of the world and make them feel responsible for the plight of all suffering people of the planet ( which as well all know is primarily the fault of the idiots in charge of those countries suffering problems eg Mugabe and Zimbabwe. ) It follows the Michael Moore principle of politics which is ' Blame Whitey For Everything '. It usually offer stories of poor non-white indigenous peoples suffering from war/famine etc which are designed to emotionally manipulate young white kids into becoing crusaders for the poor of the world after they leave school. As a result of this emotional conditioning these white kids then leave university after doing social work degrees and then join organisations like VSO or The Red Cross etc etc. Many of these ' crusaders' then end up dead/raped/shot in some rat infested, third world shit hole where they have wasted their youth trying to get the natives to stop doing to each other what they have been doing to each other for centuries and what they will still be doing to each other in centuries to come.

The Newsround site greeted the 9/11 anniversary by stating, under this headline, "Why did they do it?" the following:

The way America has got involved in conflicts in regions like the Middle East has made some people very angry, including a group called al-Qaeda - who are widely thought to have been behind the attacks. In the past, al-Qaeda leaders have declared a holy war - called a jihad - against the US. As part of this jihad, al-Qaeda members believe attacking US targets is something they should do. When the attacks happened in 2001, there were a number of US troops in a country called Saudi Arabia, and the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, said he wanted them to leave.


1) Why say widely believed to be behind the attacks - do they think remote controlled planes flown by MOSSAD agents flew into the towers ( even though Al Qaeda have now aired more than 9 of the hijackers ' martyr videos' claiming responsibility for the attacks )

2) Al Qaeda has been attacking the West for years before the Iraq / Afghanistan War and have been attacking 'apostate' fellow Muslims for just as long - are they saying that the fact that Islamic extremists attack the West is our fault ?

3) Are the BBC saying that attacking America is a legitimate option for those fed up with American foreign policy ?

Yet again the BBC , and the wankers that infest it, are using their powers to spread propaganda that is nothing more than apologism for terrorism. The fact that this crap is being peddled to kids on the Newsround website makes it even more insidious.

The BBC is a joke. No-one in this country should pay their TV licenses. Why should we pay to be lied too by a bunch of coke snorting, degenerate, left wing assholes.

The fact that the BBC has even ripped off the poor deluded simpering kids who sell their tear sodden teddy bears and train sets to build wells for the latest ( never ending ) failed third world state. Blue Peter is a sick disgrace. They even used Childline to make money for themselves and their own staff members.

I regard this endless emotional manipulation of our kids as a national disgrace. Whilst they are raising money for the Third World , 20-30,000 of our own old people die of hypothermia a year and more than 50 % of old people who enter hospital for medical treatment are suffering from clinical malnourishment. Our owld people are literally starving to death in their own homes - they either keep the heat on and starve or dont pay the heating bill and die of cold. Whilst Blue Peter and Children In Need likes to highlight the plight of ethnic suffering, the suffering of our own people is minimised and ignored - unless of course they are ethnic, ex-gang members in need of a new sports centre in Peckham or some other 'trendy' ethnic cause .

The BBC bosses use the license fee like a smack head uses heroin. They dont have to care whether the money is squandered as we are forced to pay for it whether we want too or not. A few years ago they used to imprison poor single mothers for not pying their TV license whilst the BBC executives used to go un junkets to the Bahamas to talk about ways to make more money for themselves.


Snippets from the News

The Liberal Loonies led by Ming the Muppet want to have an amnesty for illegal immigrants. The last thing this country needs is more Liberalism and more Immigrants. Thankfully the fossil that leads the party of the idiot fringe will not get elected into any serious position of power.

For an example of how our country and civilisation is facing problems because of failure to create a society and communities based on nature, as opposed to ideology, the article below is very interesting.

The menopause exists to ensure that women have free time to help to look after their young grandchildren, new research has suggested.

A study of two African villages stretching back to 1950 has found that children have a distinct survival advantage if they have a maternal grandmother with no infants of her own to help their mother to look after them.

The results appear to support the evolutionary theory that the menopause emerged as a means of ensuring that young mothers have extra help while bringing up their children. An alternative theory suggests that the menopause occurs to reduce the risk older women face of dying in childbirth.

This is evidence of the neccesity for a nation state based on Communities rather than the facile notion of Society as promulgated by the current political elites. What we need to do is create a country based on communities with extended families and kin based communities. This means Grandmothers would be living in the same communities with their extended families offering them support and guidance instead of miles away in distant towns or in other countruies due to them white flighting the country. Instead of the Politically Correct Nannny State running the country we could have the Nanny Family where the family takes care of the family instead of the State taking charge of parenting in order to brainwash our children into being little PC Robots.

Top Cops Wake Up.;jsessionid=NWTUCVQPSREOBQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/09/19/nmigrant119.xml

Apparently the Police are worried about immigrant crime affecting their performance targets and hence their politicalyl correct Brown Nosing promotions and pensions ( for the rules of promotion these days in the police the rules are blame white racists for everything even race attacks on whites and insert nose firmly up the arse of the nearest Labour politician ) . Instead of arresting Kittens for Criminal Damage for attacking balls of wool, the Police have realised that they have to do a real job and arrest those things called criminals. As this means getting involved in policing instead of pretending to be social workers in uniform, this means a few of them have come into contact with these things called 'criminals' and some of these ( SHOCK ! HORROR ) are FOREIGNERS. Therefore the police now want more money (AS USUAL) to do the bloody job they should have been doing all along. Useless bastards.

Even The Guardian is on the story with this article -,,2172376,00.html - which links Immigrants with knife crime and drink driving. Soon the Guardian is going to release a story on the link between breathing and oxygen.

Between 2003 and 2004 the number of foreign nationals arrested in the county for drink-driving soared from 57 to 966, although it has since fallen by two-thirds. ( Probably because all the drink drivers are now on benefits and can afford to get cabs or they use the police as taxis to drive them back from the pub at night and then get tucked up in bed bythe cops, read a story in their own language by the coppers and then given a police regulation teddy bear. )

In another example of the bloody obvious resold as 'news' the article below is also interesting

The C.R.E says the nation is fractured - well they should know seeing as they are the mechanism that has been used to destroy our country, society and communities. Multi-Culturalism destroys communities, immigration destroys countries and the C.R.E has been the fascist enforcement mechanism to ensure any dissent is criminalised and dissidents are imprisoned.

With all the powers of the old witchunters the CRE during the time of the New Cromwell ( Blair ) went around the country looking for witches (racists ) and devilry ( racism ) - and with their own special powers of perception saw witches and devilry everywhere ( Institutional Racism ). Trevor Phillips, or The Witchfinder General, as we who hold him in contempt call him, then went out from town to town burning witches in public ( sacking them from their jobs ) if they wore the sign of the devil on their clothes ( the badge of england such as on the lapel of the sacked HMP prison officer ) or wore the sign of the devil ( a Union Jack Tattoo ) on their skin ( football fans who tried to leave the country during England games ).

The wankers that ran the CRE ( such as Furball Singh the drunk cricket hooligan who threatened to headbutt a copper are the reason why we have Fractured Society. After the hearing Singh was obliged to tender his resignation from his £100,000 a year job and, although he was given a £115,000 pay off, his career was effectively over. He had a nice tax payers cheque for being sacked ( ).

A hundred grand a year for Ghostbusting ( looking for the phantoms of institutional racism that the proffessional hysterics and shysters of the race relations industry see everywhere ) is a nice little earner. Only drug dealers , wankers in the media and the race relations industry earn that sort of dough a year.

The good news though is that Singh is now in Iraq ( ) Singh is only one of four British officials to be appointed to a six-figure salary job in the new Iraqi administration being set up with the help of the US Agency for International development (USAID).

Oh the joys of being an ethnic minority in the UK. One law for them, one law for us - as bloody usual.

Saturday, 15 September 2007

The BNP and the ANC - PART 1

Nick Griffin is our Nelson Mandela.

One of the defining features of the Gordon Brown faction within the Labour Party that is now running the country is their defining obsession to ‘take back’ the symbols of Britishness from ‘the Far Right’. Gordon Brown is utterly obsessed with trying to create a politically correct and artificial version of British history and British culture that supports, and thereby promotes, the left wing political view of the Labour Party. He is always banging on about how the left must ’reclaim the British flag’ and promote a modern multi-cultural version of Britishness. As a disciple of the social theorist Robert Puttnam, Gordon Brown realises that unless a functional politically correct version of Britishness is created then the various ethnic tensions and social dynamics within multi-culturalism will mean multi-culturalism will collapse as a functional principle of social organisation at some point in the future.

Along with this attempt to redefine and recapture the symbols of British culture and history by Gordon Brown has been an attempt to describe history in a way that promotes the personalities and causes that they want to see regarded as examples of noble idealism by British society. For Gordon Brown the primary noble personality, and therefore the ultimate socially acceptable role model for whites in the world today, who is lauded for his so called ‘selfless idealism’ is Nelson Mandela. For the liberals and the left Nelson Mandela is a hero, not a terrorist.

They worship him like the Soviets once worshipped busts of Lenin and Stalin. His cause to overthrow apartheid and create majority black rule in South Africa is celebrated as a noble cause and statues to the man are now even erected in Parliament Square.

In this article I will offer a radical nationalist re-interpretation of Mandela’s struggle for black majority rule and explain how the liberals current view on Ethno-Nationalist struggles in Europe is both hypocritical but also logically and morally unsustainable when compared directly to Mandela’s struggles and aims. Whilst the ANC and Nelson Mandela should never be regarded as ’moral’ in any way due to their advocacy and use of terrorism as part of the political process, what is interesting is how the media and the liberal elite have managed to turn Mandela into a ‘hero’ without ever logically analysing what other political white majority movements could also be regarded as ’heroic and noble’ for following similar political aims, though with less criminal political methodology.

The ANC are a racist terrorist organisation based on communist ideology. It is an organisation to be despised and not admired. This article is an analysis of the logical inconsistencies of the Liberals view on the ANC and Nelson Mandela, and should not be taken in any way as implying any support for the ANC or Nelson Mandela. South Africa today is a racist state which has institutionalised racism against its white citizens just as Britain has institutionalised racism against its indigenous people. The purely cosmetic whiteness of South African sporting teams, such as the Springboks rugby team, is used to divert attention away from the ongoing pernicious racialism of the South African ANC government directed daily against its white citizens. Most whites in South Africa live in fear of the day that Nelson Mandela dies for they fully expect a black uprising that will inflict racist riots and pogroms against all whites. The brutalisation of white South Africans by racist criminals, especially racist rapes, is devastating the white community and hundreds of thousands of white South Africans have already fled the country. The New South Africa is becoming a racist terror state, not a representative democracy.

Even within the history of the ANC as regards the non-white population of South Africa we can see a racial dimension at work. The ANC represents mainly the Zhosa tribal group and their main enemy was always the Inkatha Zulu tribal group. Thousands have been murdered in ethnic and political warfare between the two tribal groups. Asians and mixed race people were also despised by the ANC for working with the whites. The whites that joined the ANC were mainly deluded idealists prepared to sing songs about killing whites and plant bombs in railway stations in order to curry favour and rise amongst the ranks of their black comrades. The fact that many of these white supporters of the ANC struggle have now fled South Africa citing the racism of the ANC regime is evidence once again of the idiotic idealism of the far left. The political rhetoric of the ANC is today blatantly racist against whites and the South African government supports the racist pogroms of Robert Mugabe in neighbouring Zimbabwe against white farmers. White farms are being seized by the ANC South African government and white businesses being punitively taxed by the South African government. White owned businesses are forced to hire blacks from the majority population, as opposed to hiring whites from the minority ethnic population as is usual under the rules of political correctness, or be fined by the government.

But it is a fact that the actions of Nelson Mandela and the ANC are defined by the liberals and the left in our country as noble. If this true for the ANC then the cause of the BNP must also noble and heroic. Unlike the ANC and Nelson Mandela though, our hands are not stained with the blood of innocents torn apart by bombs, burning tyre necklaces and bullets used to get into power. Unlike the ANC we in the BNP are a peaceful, democratic, political, social and cultural movement who reject violence and whose actions are at all times within the Rule of Law as defined by the British Constitution. That is in direct contrast to the ANC and the actions of Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela is the most successful Racial Nationalist of all time.

He fought for and won Black majority democratic rule in South Africa in the face of determined opposition from a well organised white minority. Whilst Nelson Mandela and the ANC fought for democratic Black majority rule in South Africa, Nick Griffin and the BNP are also fighting for democratic White majority rule in Great Britain. Both the ANC and the BNP are the political mechanisms of an indigenous rights movement. The BNP represents the indigenous ethnic majority of Great Britain and the ANC represent the native black population of South Africa. The ANC fought against Apartheid as the mechanism of minority rule in South Africa, whilst the BNP fights against Political Correctness as the mechanism of minority rule in Great Britain.

Just as Nelson Mandela has been persecuted and prosecuted by the South African government for his political beliefs, Nick Griffin has also been persecuted and prosecuted by the British government for his political beliefs. As Nelson Mandela has experienced, Nick Griffin has also been charged with ’political crimes’ against the State, this being breaches of the so called Race Relations Acts and the Public Order Act 1986. Unlike the ANC though and also Nelson Mandela, Nick Griffin and the BNP have never used terrorism, murder, bombings and violence as part of their political methodology to attain power. The BNP have always been a political, social and cultural movement that have participated in the democratic electoral process and have rejected all forms of organised political violence even when we have been targeted and attacked by both the Far Left and agents of the State security services. We have never even organised to defend ourselves from the attacks by the organised Far Left in a way that would have ensured we could have dealt with the threats we faced. Even though we were abandoned by the police and the authorities we did not respond in any way to those who attacked us. Like the workers in the Mask of Anarchy by Shelley we merely folded our arms and looked upon those that attacked us with the utter contempt they deserved until their rage died away and they crawled away in shame and baseless pride. This means that the BNP are in fact a more ’moral’ movement than the ANC, and that Nick Griffin is a more ’moral’ politician than Nelson Mandela.

Nick Griffin is in fact Britain’s Nelson Mandela. Like Nelson Mandela and Nick Griffin, all BNP activists and member should be seen as heroic and noble people who selflessly dedicate themselves to the preservation and promotion of their country, culture and kin. According to the liberals and liberal media Nelson Mandela fought for majority black rule in South Africa in order to end minority white rule and create a representative democracy. The goal of the ANC that it frequently proclaimed was to ensure that South Africa was a democracy that represented the interests of the ethnic majority as opposed solely to the interests of its ethnic minority, this being the whites. In a way the BNP and the ANC fight for the same thing, though in vastly different ways, which is the right to organise political, social and cultural representation for the indigenous ethnic majority and to participate in the democratic political system. We are also both indigenous rights movements. Just like the ANC we are fighting against minority ethnic rule. For the ANC the enemy was Apartheid, for us it is Political Correctness.

Both Apartheid and Political Correctness are mechanisms of minority rule. They are both political systems of repression that assert the rights of ethnic minorities over those of the ethnic majority. In Britain, as it was in South Africa under apartheid, the ethnic majority are under direct Minority Rule. This is the Tyranny of the Minorities that is the basis of the burden of Minority Rule that we indigenous Britons are forced to tolerate and pay for. The Tyranny of the Minorities is when the rights and interests of ethnic, political, social and economic minorities within the nation take precedence over the social interests and democratic rights of the indigenous ethnic British majority. This is the basis of our nations system of Minority Rule.

In Britain today we are controlled by a cabal of minorities ; these are the rules of Political Correctness, Middle East oil billionaires that fund the political parties, the laws of the Race Relations Acts and Public Order Acts, the Liberal Consensus, Media Corporations, Leftists, Globalists, Dhimmi-Politicians, Sharia Socialists, immigrant lobby groups, Liberal Judges, PC vicars and religious faith leaders, religious pressure groups, corrupt union bosses, foreign corporations and supra-national political institutions such as the EU, ECJ, ECHR, WTO and NATO. Each of these groups represent only the rights and privileges of factions and minorities within the nation and do not the interests of the ethnic majority of British citizens.

Pressure group politics and professional lobby groups dominate the democratic consultative processes, whilst the functions of the legal system and the outcomes of legal cases are dependent upon those ethnic groups and other organisations that are financially able to access the legal system.

The New Apartheid in 21st Century Britain is based on Political Correctness. Just like apartheid was in South Africa, political correctness in Britain is a political mechanism designed to empower minority groups at the expense of the majority ethnic group. It is part of the Cultural Struggle and Racial Struggle of the left to subvert and destroy our native indigenous British society.

Over the decades a succession of minority Conservative and Labour governments have controlled the country via minority rule in order to advance their own sectarian interests. Not once has any of those governments had the democratic legitimacy of having the direct approval of over 50 % of the British population. The total electorate in the 2005 general election registered to able to vote was 44, 245, 939 in a country with a population of nearly 60 million - that means nearly 16 million people are not even registered to vote. 61.3 % of the total electorate able to vote actually bothered to vote. The present unelected Prime Minister Gordon Brown runs a government that was voted into power in 2005 with just 54.95 % of seats in Parliament with just 35.3 % of the vote and with the support of only 21.59 % of the British population ( not including the 16 million who did n ot register to vote). 79% of the British people did not vote for the present government, but the voices of the silent majority are not heard in the political process. Only 8 candidates in the whole country got more than 50 % of the votes cast in their favour - and hence had a democratic mandate. Labour won the election with a vote of 35.3 % of 61.3 % of those that actually turned out - not even a majority of those who bothered to vote. With a simple majority in Parliament the minority rule politicians can control the entire country.

That is not a legitimate democratic system. Neither is that a democratic mandate to rule, that is the very definition of Minority Rule and it is the capture of democracy through the capitulation of the majority to either apathy or alienation. These minority governments both left and right then undertake political programmes that primarily represent and reward the sectarian interests that support the parties themselves. The Labour Party passes laws to help the unions that fund it and gives knighthoods to the foreign businessmen that also fund it, whilst the Tories represent the interests of the global corporations and the foreign businessmen that fund its political campaigns. Neither of the three big parties represent the People, they represent only sectarian factions within society. The Trades Unions represent only the financial interests of the union bosses who grow rich on membership fees of the unions and also the sectarian political interests of the political groups the unions support. The only people the unions do not represent is the interests of British workers. They represent the interests of Cuban and Chinese workers, globalisation, asylum seekers, immigrants and ethnic minorities and do not ever represent the interests of British workers.

Minority Rule is also enforced in the New Apartheid British state by the Race Relations Acts and the Equality Department that contains the C.R.E. The C.R.E and the rest of the state funded race relations industry are mechanisms designed to empower immigrants and ethnic minorities at the expense of the indigenous ethnic majority. The role of the C.R.E. is to ensure that the law pro-actively discriminates against the ethnic majority and that we white indigenous Britons become second class citizens, and a racial underclass, in our own country. The C.R.E pro-actively works with the government and private companies to ensure that ethnic minorities are fast tracked and promoted into jobs they are not qualified for whilst whites are denied jobs and systematically penalised because of their colour and race. The C.R.E recommends new race based laws to the government that it wants to see put on the statute books. These new laws are designed to promote Positive Discrimination policies and Affirmative Action programmes that accelerate the disenfranchisement of the indigenous British people from the economic process. The C.R.E, the media and the Police all ignore and minimise racial attacks on whites in Britain,whilst race attacks against ethnic minorities are turned into political crusades to demand the removal of ever more rights for whites. The Police are routinely dragged before Employment Tribunals for racism against white officers and white applicants for jobs are denied interviews they are qualified for so that under qualified ethnic minorities can benefit from affirmative actions plans.

In the New Apartheid of Political Correctness a whole new system of totalitarian Minority Rule has been constructed that just like under classic apartheid is a classic fascist race based system and that rewards a person solely on the grounds of their colour or racial background and not on individual merit. Indigenous white Britons in Britain are now nothing more than second class citizens in their own country, and that second class status is now fully enshrined in the law itself.

Another mechanism of Minority Rule is the takeover of our democratic system by the media. The media propagandise the political parties that the public are conditioned into voting into power. The media decide who wins elections, not the people. Through their power to control public opinion, to selectively present facts and ideas to the public and their almost total control of public debate on political issues, the media effectively control who the public vote for. It is the minority of plutocrats, corporations and leftist editors and journalists that control the media who unilaterally decide what is politically acceptable in our society and thereby who gets elected into power. It is the media liberals and leftists in papers like the Guardian who advertise the governments politically correct Servile State jobs whose self appointed experts then tell us that we cannot have closed borders because immigration benefits our society and at the same time imports in ever more new Labour Party voters. It is the media capitalists in papers like the Daily Mail that support ‘controlled immigration’ as it brings in cheap workers and lowers British workers wages and thereby benefit’s the corporations that advertise and sell their products in the Daily Mail. The media do not represent the interests of the British people, they represent and promote the interests solely of the corporations or factional interests that own the media and the puppet political parties the media control. The role of the media is to ensure that the interests of the majority of British citizens are not represented by political representatives that they are conditioned into voting into power. The media promote and advertise only the political parties that they own. Then once in power those elected politicians then reward their media and corporate masters with laws that profit the corporations that own the media. Only the corrupt and the servile ever get elected into power by the media. The agenda of the media is to prevent political change, not represent the interests of the British people or the British nation. The role of the Media is to ensure that their own factional interests, left, right and liberal, are allowed to control the political development of society by denying access to any political parties that threatens media minority rule over the British electoral system. It is the media that says we cannot close the borders of Britain, that we cannot deport immigrant illegals and criminals, that we cannot scrap political correctness and the Race Relations Acts. It is the media that demands our total adherence to the totalitarian creedo of Political Correctness by labelling anyone that dares speak out as a ‘racist‘. It is the media that calls those political parties like the BNP that demand the removal of illegal immigrants and convicted immigrant criminals ‘racists’ and then use their pages to demand that the public not vote for them. It is the media that bears the primary responsibility for our plight.

Another aspect our Minority Rule is the takeover of the so called ‘independent’ legal process by minority groups and supporters of Political Correctness. The liberal Judges that have infiltrated the British legal system now routinely overrule British statute laws with bogus ’human rights’ arguments that put inane theories on universal human rights before the actual national security interests of the majority of the British people. Other Judges have political interests that interact with their judicial roles. The recent libel case involving the BNP activists Chris and Barry Roberts was heard before Judge Sir Stephen Sedley, a long time member of the British Communist Party and President of the British Institute of Human Rights with links to Liberty and Amnesty International, is a case in point. Under the dicta enshrined in the Pinochet Principle in Re Pinochet (1998) the Judge should have withdrawn from the case as a long time member of the Communist Party can scarcely be said to be ambivalent to nationalism and nationalist activists in their court. This rule for Judges is in place in order to ensure that there is no chance of any judicial bias in legal cases. The law requires that Judges ‘ Must not appear biased or impartial ‘ . The Judges adherence to the Communist cause in the Barry and Chris Roberts case meant the Judge was not fit to hear a case involving well known Nationalist activists for the BNP involved in a libel case against a well known Communist election candidate and Communist supporter - this being the convicted liar and thief Gerry Gable of the Searchlight magazine. Instead of withdrawing from the case the Judge, and the other two judges on the bench hearing the appeal, found against the BNP members and at the same time ‘clarified‘ the position of the libel laws in the UK to ensure that the Roberts brothers and others in the future did not come under its protection. The Roberts Brothers were not told of the Judges political affiliations. This is the same Judge who said that too many black males had their DNA held on the Police computers and that therefore everyone in Britain should be required to provide a sample of their DNA to the police to hold on their computers. The role of Judges in the modern legal system is to repress and remove the rights of the ethnic majority and create a ’legal’ apartheid state where we, the indigenous British, are legally recognised as a racial underclass in our own country. Other judges, such as Sir Henry Hodge the husband of Margaret Hodge the Dagenham MP and vociferous critic of the BNP, who is jointly responsible for allowing the convicted immigrant murder Learco Chindamo to stay in the country after he is released from prison, place the interests of immigrant killers before the safety of society as a whole. Other judges blocked the Home Offices’ attempt to appeal the decision not to deport Chindamo after his release.