Category: British Politics

Salter: Accept that the State is no longer ours and rebuild radically of our people

Frank Salter: Accept that the State is no longer ours, that we may rebuild radically anew, embedding our national interests of our people.

In the West people are not mobilized in their own defense and why is that? Our Majorities are faced with a fundamental structural problem.

That is historically based….. when the nation states of Europe were formed (such as) England initially, there were a dozen Kingdoms….the consolidation of those small principalities came about through an implicit promise ..the promise was that the new centralized government would adopt the functions of the small tribal governments: so it would defend the people, on the same principle, it would defend externally and maintain internal peace.. it would not betray the basic interests of the society….there was an implicit understanding or assumption that the elite is invested emotionally in the people, that it is tied to the people, that it comes from the people….the people expected their elites to not be alien, not to hate them, not be hostile towards them, but to be drawn from them, and to actually feel one with them…so there was an assumption of identity defense…of concern about continuity and so on…

That is all broken down now. The elite do not identify with the people anymore - those normal aspirations for identity continuity. The fact is that the nation/state model (two separate terms there) - Nation, the bond of the heart, and State, the apparatus of government - have become separated; they don’t have the same relationship one to the other that they did even a hundred years ago. But still the assumption is there, that those functions are being performed; when the opposite functions are being performed! These States are actually overseeing replacement, a demographic revolution that’s taking place.

So, I argue that in this light what needs to happen is that the Majorities actually, in a way, need to accept their defeat. Sort of a radical thing, some people object to this. But I think we need to accept, acknowledge the profundity of our defeat and accept that the government is no longer ours. The State no longer belongs to the people. Once one has faced that harsh truth, then one can start thinking what we can do to survive in the future as a people.

We need to starve these governments of resources and building-up alternate national organizations that are well embedded in the people.

We are on a healthy trajectory right now with some fight-back in Europe. But for me the real sign of health will be when Tony Blair finds himself in court charged with treason. That would be a clear sign that something healthy is happening.

You know that the Blair government deliberately set-about to flood Britain with third-world immigrants as a way of breaking the spirit of conservatives…so that they would give up the fight to try to retain their country. I view that as least arguably criminal and if laws don’t exist - and I suspect laws don’t exist for prosecuting people like Blair - the law should be created.



Posted by DanielS on Sunday, September 21, 2014 at 07:11 AM in ActivismAnthropologyAnti-racism and white genocideAustralian PoliticsAwakeningsBritish PoliticsConservatismCrusade against Discrimination in BritainDemographicsEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsEuropean cultureEuropean NationalismGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityGlobal ElitismGlobalisationImmigrationImmigration and PoliticsMarxism & Culture WarMediaPolitical analysisSocial SciencesWhite Genocide ProjectWhite Genocide: EuropeWhite Nationalism
Comments (1) | Tell-a-Friend

It’s no.  It’s Devo-Max.  Plus a sop to the English?

So Glasgow is in.  It’s a good win for Yes.  But the tide for No running across the rest of the country is unstoppable.  The British political Establishment has won, and Scottish independence is off the agenda - if the “vow” to devolve maximum powers to Holyrood can be sneaked through the Westminster Parliament.

There are signs already of a substantial rebellion among MPs - perhaps over 100 Tories.  But that won’t be enough to stop it.  The question is: will it be enough to force a resolution to the constitutional element of the English Question - England, vastly the most populous, wealthy, and economically powerful part of the Union has no voice of its own.  Not only that, Scottish MPs vote on English matters at Westminster while English MPs have no say over Scottish matters decided at Holyrood.  Ditto Welsh matters decided in Cardiff.

Granting the Scots Devo-Max, allied to the preservation of the Barnett Formula (a subsidy from England to the Scottish taxpayer), will probably necessitate the minimum offer to the English of restricting voting on English matters to MPs representing English constituencies.  That will have dire consequences for a future Labour government which, if it could not command a majority in such a congregation, could not put through any legislative programme disagreeable to the Tories.

Regardless, an English congregation at Westminster is not at all the same constitutional animal as an English parliament, which is the only truly equitable arrangement, and the only one likely to satisfy the English electorate.  Of course, the Westminster parties cannot countenance a (likely hostile) English assembly.  Yesterday’s vote in Scotland has opened the proverbial can of constitutional worms.  There are still opportunities here for those of us interested in expanding the self-awareness and self-assertion of the English people - not on the scale of those that would have followed from a vote for Scottish independence, and the break-up of the Union, but a scrap of stale constitutional bread is a hearty meal to a starving man.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, September 18, 2014 at 11:04 PM in British Politics
Comments (18) | Tell-a-Friend

“Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them”

                “Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them”

  D: Don’t be silly. I can’t draw a conversation. I mean things.

  F: Yes—I was trying to find out just what you meant. Do you mean “Why do we give things outlines when we draw them?” or do you mean that the things have out-lines whether we draw them or not?

  D: I don’t know, Daddy. You tell me. Which do I mean?

  F: I don’t know, my dear. There was a very angry artist once who scribbled all sorts of things down, and after he was dead they looked in his books and in one place they found he’d written “Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them” but in another place he’d written “Mad men see outlines and therefore they draw them.”

  D: But which does he mean? I don’t understand.

  F: Well, William Blake—that was his name—was a great artist and a very angry man. And sometimes he rolled up his ideas into little spitballs so that he could throw them at people.

  D: But what was he mad about, Daddy?

  F: But what was he mad about? Oh, I see—you mean “angry.” We have to keep those two meanings of “mad” clear if we are going to talk about Blake. Because a lot of people thought he was mad—really mad—crazy. And that was one of the things he was mad-angry about. And then he was mad-angry, too, about some artists who painted pictures as though things didn’t have out-lines. He called them “the slobbering school.”

  D: He wasn’t very tolerant, was he, Daddy?

  F: Tolerant? Oh, God. Yes, I know—that’s what they drum into you at school. No, Blake was not very tolerant. He didn’t even think tolerance was a good thing. It was just more slobbering. He thought it blurred all the outlines and muddled everything—that it made all cats gray. So that nobody would be able to see anything clearly and sharply.

  D: Yes, Daddy.

  F: No, that’s not the answer. I mean “Yes, Daddy” is not the answer. All that says is that you don’t know what your opinion is—and you don’t give a damn what I say or what Blake says and that the school has so befuddled you with talk about tolerance that you can-not tell the difference between anything and anything else.



Posted by DanielS on Monday, September 1, 2014 at 10:19 PM in ActivismAnthropologyAnti-racism and white genocideArt & DesignBritish PoliticsConservatismCrusade against Discrimination in BritainDemographicsEnvironmentalism & Global WarmingEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityGlobalisationImmigration and PoliticsLinguisticsMyth and modernityPsychology
Comments (0) | Tell-a-Friend

Sir Gerald Howarth stands by letter: Time for England to fight back

Veteran Conservative MP has claimed that Enoch Powell was right to warn against immigration in his controversial ‘rivers of blood’ speech.

“It is time for England to ‘fight back’ against political correctness’ and he added:
‘If you don’t like it, go live somewhere else.’


Sir Gerald Howarth said that he stood by the letter and said his views had been reinforced by the child sex abuse scandal in Rotherham, where gangs of Asian men groomed and abused children.

‘For 40 years we have been subjected to a left wing political correctness which has stopped the British people from expressing perfectly legitimate and reasonable views. More than 1,400 children in Rochdale have paid the price for decades of political correctness, now people are speaking up.’

He said that it is time for England to ‘fight back’ against political correctness, adding:
‘If you don’t like it, go live somewhere else.’

Mr Powell delivered his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in Birmingham in April 1968, calling for the “repatriation” of non-white immigrants and claiming that the increased diversity would lead to riots…


Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, August 30, 2014 at 11:51 PM in ActivismAnti-racism and white genocideAwakeningsBritish PoliticsCrusade against Discrimination in BritainDemographicsEuropean NationalismImmigrationImmigration and PoliticsIslam & IslamificationMarxism & Culture WarPopular CultureSocial ConservatismWhite Nationalism
Comments (9) | Tell-a-Friend

Britain’s Camp of The Saints

                                                    - By Bill Giles

I think there is every indication that Britain has reached its Camp of the Saints moment, where millions of immigrants from every corner of the globe are now making their presence felt in so many negative ways, housing, jobs, overburdened institutions, social cohesion, lost of identity, crime, and not least, a national void and sense of foreboding.


Our elites are showing no sign of let up, the rip tide of humanity landing on our shores (and through our airports) is applauded by the liberal establishment, and yet still the majority of natives cannot understand the logic of it all. The tipping point looms nearer by each single day.

In Raspail’s story the liberal elites cave at every turn, until only Switzerland remains as an armed nation of resistance, only for them to crumble in the final hour in the full glare of liberal guilt, France is lost, western civilisation is lost.


There is no indication in Raspail’s thinking that the white race is under threat of existence from a deliberate attack by unknown dark forces or who would undertake such a dastardly plan.

Raspail’s tale tells us western civilisation had lost confidence in itself and in some way had no right to determine its tribe’s own future, like rabbits in the headlamp’s glare, whites are paralysed to act in their own defence.

Perhaps Britain is at this stage in the cycle of mass immigration, for there is no real sign of resistance from the mass of the people, still less as to what will galvanise them into any future kind of action.


Further, Raspail’s unfolding imagination does not extend to a narrative where Britain and America are engaged in fermenting a World war in which to bring about their New World Order, all of which throws Rumsfeld unknown-unknowns into immigration chaos.

As I have commented before, it seems when the elites have accomplished their goal, there is no plan B as to what will replace it.

How and when will we know when all is won or lost? 



Posted by DanielS on Thursday, August 28, 2014 at 11:16 PM in ActivismAnti-racism and white genocideAwakeningsBritish PoliticsCrusade against Discrimination in BritainDemographicsEthnicity and Ethnic Genetic InterestsEuropean cultureEuropean NationalismGenetics & Human Bio-DiversityGlobal ElitismGlobalisationImmigrationImmigration and PoliticsNo particular place to go
Comments (5) | Tell-a-Friend

Did I Really See That??

Am I really seeing that?

Posted by DanielS on Friday, August 1, 2014 at 03:27 AM in ActivismArt & DesignAwakeningsBritish PoliticsMediaPopular CulturePsychologySocial ConservatismSocial liberalism
Comments (0) | Tell-a-Friend

Did I Really See That?

Did I really see that?

Posted by DanielS on Friday, August 1, 2014 at 02:38 AM in ActivismArt & DesignAwakeningsBritish PoliticsEuropean NationalismMediaPopular CulturePsychology
Comments (0) | Tell-a-Friend

Nick Griffin gives way for Adam Walker

After fifteen years, Nick Griffin has stepped down from the party leadership in favour of Adam Walker.  His statement to that effect is here.  He will now take up the role, which I had never heard of before, of “BNP President on the Party’s governing Executive Council”.

Exactly why this happened now will doubtless be a cause of speculation in all the usual quarters.  But it doesn’t really matter.  For a brief moment in 2009 nationalism had a chance to make itself felt.  That was Griffin’s moment and he wrecked it by his own hand, most notably in his Question Time appearance. As the New Statesman observes:

From a peak of 58 councillors in 2009 it now has only two left. In 2009, the BNP won two MEPs, 940,000 votes and over six per cent in the European elections. This May, the BNP won 180,000 votes and barely one per cent of the vote.

Griffin’s leadership will be remembered for that wasted opportunity and for the divisiveness and paranoia which characterised his handling of senior party members in the aftermath.

Adam Walker carries himself more like a street activist than a (prospective) senior British politician.  He will not be burdened by high expectations.  But one wishes him well as one wishes British nationalism well.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 at 01:28 AM in British Politics
Comments (24) | Tell-a-Friend

2014 European Parliament election in Britain – what to look out for

The polls are open.  Today, the electorates of all the member states of the EU will elect their 751 members of the talking-shop which is the European Parliament.  The performance of Front National, Golden Dawn, Jobbik, Vlaams Belang, and Gert Wilders’ Freedom Party, among others, will create much interest for nationalists.  In Britain, too, the politics of dissent is the chief talking point of an increasingly desperate and totally unprincipled press.  There is a sense that the electorate has handled the smears maturely and, by and large, has not been swayed.  The pollsters report a settled feeling that, in England, at least, something big is about to happen.

Something so big, in fact, that I thought I might jot down some observations together with a very few markers for how we might assess it:


Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, May 22, 2014 at 01:04 AM in British PoliticsEuropean NationalismEuropean Union
Comments (82) | Tell-a-Friend

London’s Predominant Concentration of Those Who May Be Sought-Out for Accountability



Posted by DanielS on Monday, May 12, 2014 at 01:01 PM in ActivismBritish PoliticsEconomics & FinanceFar RightLibertarianismWorld Affairs
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend

Is liberalism in my European head?

Is liberalism in my European head?

...or in interaction with social influences such as media?

Posted by Guessedworker on May 05, 2014, 12:18 PM | #

“There is no psychological immune deficiency.  MacDonald made a mistake.  He is a psychologist, not a philosopher.  He looked in the structure of the mind for what exists in its thought.  Those who have internalised it and speak from it are not to blame for their suggestibility.  But nothing useful can come of a mistaken beginning.”

Posted by Guessedworker on May 06, 2014, 02:27 AM | #

“Incidentally, how does this crazed universalism of the European Mind square with the evidence for implicit racism?”


Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, May 7, 2014 at 03:37 AM in ActivismAnthropologyAnti-racism and white genocideBritish PoliticsConservatismEuropean cultureFar RightFeminismPolitical analysisPolitical PhilosophyPopular CulturePsychologySocial ConservatismSocial liberalismSocial Sciences
Comments (20) | Tell-a-Friend

Paul Weston arrested for reciting Churchill speech about Muslims


Posted by Morgoth on April 27, 2014, 06:58 AM | #

Paul Weston has been arrested for reciting a speech by Churchill, the one about Muslims.

Weston on preventing White genocide and implications of Muslim population explosion in Britain and other European nations:


Posted by DanielS on Sunday, April 27, 2014 at 07:39 AM in ActivismAnti-racism and white genocideAwakeningsBritish PoliticsCrusade against Discrimination in BritainFree SpeechImmigrationImmigration and PoliticsIslam & IslamificationLawWhite Genocide: Europe
Comments (65) | Tell-a-Friend

Establishment-speak and the servility of the media class

In the immediate aftermath of last week’s initial debate between the Deputy Prime Minister and LibDem leader Nick Clegg and UKIP’s Nigel Farage, an easy victory for the former was swiftly declared by the entire media Establishment – only for a snap poll by YouGov, conducted for The Sun, to prove them painfully wrong.  57% of the thousand-strong panel thought Farage won.  Only 36% thought Clegg had emerged victorious.

There followed a lot of very rough changing of journalistic gears, along with several admissions of Westminster village behaviour.  The underlying inference, though, remained that Farage’s views were “populist”, ie, not the sort of thing that interests the cogniscenti (they being far above the infirmity and fickle affections of the public Mind.  Naturally.)

Anthony Wells at YouGov – a left-leaning polling company if ever there was one - made the point that just finding a thousand people who would listen to the LBC Radio broadcast was a challenge in itself; and took months to achieve.  He seemed not to have great confidence in the sample at all.

Everything, then, hung on the second of the debates last night - an hour-long joust between Clegg and Farage on the benefit or otherwise of EU membership, to be broadcast live on BBC2:


Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, April 3, 2014 at 05:53 PM in British PoliticsEuropean UnionMediaPolitical analysis
Comments (18) | Tell-a-Friend

Texas Arcane:  Kwanstainia, UKandia, Kanookistan, and the OZealands

Texas Arcane:  Kwanstainia, UKandia, Kanookistan, and the OZealands

By Robert Reis

I was led to Texas Arcane by a link at .

What follows are excerpts from Texas Arcane’s ruminations at his since 2007.

He has enlightened me and caused me to think about the world in new ways.

Extensive quotations are place between parallel lines, e.g. ===.


Posted by Robert Reis on Wednesday, March 26, 2014 at 01:50 AM in Australian PoliticsAwakeningsBritish PoliticsEuropean cultureHistoryImmigration and PoliticsNew Zealand PoliticsThe Proposition NationU.S. PoliticsWhite Genocide: America
Comments (6) | Tell-a-Friend

Genocidal criminals, their deceptive arguments behind EU immigration policy called to account


Nick Griffin addresses EU Parliament, calling to account criminals behind EU immigration policy and their deceptive terms:


Posted by DanielS on Friday, March 14, 2014 at 11:29 PM in ActivismAnti-racism and white genocideBritish PoliticsDemographicsEuropean NationalismEuropean UnionImmigrationImmigration and PoliticsLaw
Comments (12) | Tell-a-Friend

The camel’s back

Free Movement of People: Bulgaria and Romania

From 1 January 2014 the transitional controls on free movement included in the accession treaties and adopted by the UK and seven other Member States when Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU in 2007, will end.  From that date Bulgarians and Romanians will have the freedom to live and work in those eight Member States (and in Spain, which has only had transitional controls on Romanian nationals).

… There has been a lively debate in the UK about how many Bulgarians and Romanians will come to the UK after 1 January 2014 and the British Government has announced it is looking at the rules governing social security claims as a consequence of this and future EU enlargements.

Do you want over a million Romanians and Bulgarians moving to crowded, bankrupt Britain?

Spain and Italy have not had restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians. So let’s see what has happened there. Currently there are about 920,000 Romanians and 170,000 Bulgarians in Spain. In Italy there are about 997,000 Romanians and over 70,000 Bulgarians. Britain has much more generous benefits and more jobs than Spain or Italy, So the absolute minimum number that will be moving here will be well over one million. Probably it will be closer to two million.
Now, let’s look at some other figures. Unemployment amongst Romanians and Bulgarians in Spain is 36.4% – that’s about 396,760 immigrants who are unemployed. So we can expect somewhere in the region of 400,000 Romanians and Bulgarians to be claiming benefits for housing, council tax and unemployment here in Britain.


Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 at 07:30 PM in British PoliticsEuropean UnionImmigration
Comments (35) | Tell-a-Friend

Exploiting the equalitarian state

by David Hamilton

The “progressive” views are now demonstrably failing but the fading generation of the 1960s cannot accept that they are causing all that they wanted to avoid.  Progressive values are no longer progressive, their moral arguments no longer moral, and they are no longer supported by the majority of the younger generation.  A serious empirical examination of the situation they have created reveals that they are not engineering a multicultural Europe but a mono-cultural one by replacing us with Muslims.

One only has to consider the Stockholm riots and the slaughter of a British soldier on a London street to see what a mess they are making of things.  Those riots and that slaughter were acts by enemies who proclaimed their loyalty to outside countries and acted in the interests of those countries against us.  That was their human nature.  But “progressives” try to pretend the attackers are as “British as you and me”!  Then the politicised police arrested Britons who reacted for comparatively petty things like “racist tweets” - while allowing Muslim preachers of hate to say what they like and convert young people to terrorism.  A “far-right” group challenged the police to arrest Anjem Choudary(1) or they would put him under citizens arrest. The Metropolitan Police rushed him and his family to safety to protect him from justice.

It is not easy to come to the realisation that the three main parties are against their own people and act as one on the central, core issues of the multi-racial, PC ideology.  They differ on emphasis, and some fringe members of the three-in-one party can express rebellious views on many things, but not the central ones - anti-racism, globalism, and loyalty to the EU.  The elites are an “Ideological Caste” and any who say the wrong things have their careers destroyed unless they publicly abase themselves, their careers enhanced if they vociferously make the right statements.


Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, July 20, 2013 at 01:37 AM in ActivismBritish Politics
Comments (65) | Tell-a-Friend

Four possible paths for the United Kingdom Independence Party

This post is a response to a multi-part question posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on the after Eastliegh thread.  I am only setting out the four possible paths that UKIP can go, or be driven, down.  In the conclusion I will also reply to another multi-part question asked on the same thread by Leon Haller.

So ...

The path to marginalisation

... is the Conservative Party’s preferred outcome for UKIP.  Conservative MPs and party managers seem to believe that it is in the gift of the party to engineer it (which it isn’t if the UKIP phenomenon is fundamentally a rage against the political class).  Conservatives must, of course, believe in the marginalisation thesis or they have to relinquish all hope of a 2015 election victory.

In reality, though, there is little hope.  First, quite without the UKIP problem, the Conservative Party is in terminal decline electorally.  Eddie George has turned out to be right when he said in 2010, prior to the General Election, that the party which entered government would be picking up a poisoned chalice, given the unpopular decisions that would have to be taken to pay-down sovereign debt.  He may have signalled some small change in that last week, with the BoE’s forecast of growth.  But the damage is done.  The coalition government has served only to confirm the public in its contempt for the political class.  Even prior to the UKIP explosion, Opinion polls have shown support for the Conservatives only hovering around 30%.  The first ICM survey after the local authority elections had them at 28% as UKIP surged to a new high of 18%, since when a (possibly rogue) Survation poll has put them at 24% and UKIP at 22%.  The Conservatives will not recover popularity now and the Prime Minister will not suddenly become liked or respected (though he may be replaced by someone who is).

Second, this bleak picture masks a bleaker crisis in the Conservative election machine itself.  Local association membership has halved in a decade, and it is the younger and more energetic members who are deserting fastest.  Conservative activism is grey-haired and suffers joint pain in many areas of the country.  It is also outrageously abused by the leader’s inner circle as well, of course, as utterly confused by their liberal metropolitan appetites.  Yet, to be in any position to form a government in 2015, the party must fight an aggressive campaign on the ground and win votes off the other parties. Lose their own core constituency to UKIP and that’s it.  They can’t get back from that.


Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, June 1, 2013 at 02:01 AM in British PoliticsPolitical analysis
Comments (46) | Tell-a-Friend

Griffin, Moslem Grooming and a “misinterpreted” article

Today Sean Thomas, the Daily Telegraph blogger, journalist and, under a pseudonym, author, posted a piece about the latest case of Moslem Grooming, this time in Oxford.  It was titled “Oxford gang rape: did people ignore this sort of scandal because racist Nick Griffin was the first to mention them?”

The article skips through a little of the history of the offence before arriving, in the last two paragraphs, at the efforts made by Nick Griffin to raise consciousness of it and shame the police into action:

There’s one more figure who played an important role in this saga. As long ago as 2001, Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP, was making claims about Asian grooming gangs. In 2004 he repeated these allegations in a speech clandestinely recorded by the BBC for a TV documentary, Secret Agent. He was arrested and charged with inciting racial hatred.

Which is exactly what he was doing, of course. He was making his allegations to stir up ethnic strife. Right-thinking people, aware of the BNP’s record as liars, presumed that these stories were just racist demagoguery. No doubt Griffin feels vindicated today: for telling the truth before anyone else. And yet it was thanks in part to his thuggish intervention that society felt able to ignore the scandal. And thus the abuse continued.

Comments on the article were disabled.  But appalled commenters raised the concerns on an unrelated thread, myself among them.  Thomas let it be known via a tweet that his original article had been doctored by a DT editor but it had since been amended.  It was still bloody awful, obviously.  So I emailed him to tell him so:


Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 07:18 PM in British PoliticsIslam & Islamification
Comments (66) | Tell-a-Friend

UKIP after Eastleigh

The final opinion poll is in - in fact, it’s the only council-dedicated poll that has been done - and the British public, or at least that section who will be voting in the local elections tomorrow, are poised to deliver their verdict for real.  There is, of course, huge speculation about the fortunes of the United Kingdom Independence Party.  Will its support be spread too thin to deliver the seats it deserves - the enduring penalty of the First Past The Post system?  Or is this going to be the election when the party jumps forward and announces itself as a truly broad-based, national party of, if not yet renewal, certainly protest?

We will start to find out about this time tomorrow night.  Meanwhile, the smear tactics of the mainstream parties and their friends in the media leaves little doubt that UKIP’s rise is real and significant.  We are in for a very interesting next 36 hours.

A good result for UKIP would be to win 100 new council seats across the areas where voting will take place (mostly Tory shire counties).  The Comres poll in these areas produced a 22% voting intention for the party.  It should be remembered that protest voters are motivated voters, so that 22% could punch above its weight.  But I think it’s wise to temper any such expectations with the knowledge that UKIP is a young party without a political history in many of the wards it is fighting.  Electoral politics, at least in Britain, is not a five-minute packet soup, and elections at local authority level frequently favour well-regarded personalities, and hinge on particular local issues.

But ... if the present, very exciting signs are borne out by the ballot box, we may be at the start of a genuine challenge to the parties of the mainstream - something we might have hoped, a few short years ago, would come from the BNP.  But better UKIP than nobody.

I will post interesting results and commentary on the thread.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, May 1, 2013 at 05:58 PM in British Politics
Comments (111) | Tell-a-Friend

Anti-politics and entryism to UKIP

Yesterday, the United Kingdom Independence Party, a collection of “nutcases, fruitcakes and closet racists”, to quote David Cameron from 2006, ran the Tories into third in the Westminster by-election at Eastleigh.  Today the quality press is resisting offering the usual excuses (ie, it’s mid-term madness ... a mere protest vote, etc).  It is asking a few significant questions about UKIP, in particular.  The most interesting is: how much of its support expresses that exasperation and exhaustion with the professional political class that is now known by the term, anti-politics?

Anti-politics is a completely normal response on the part of any electorate confronted with a self-referential elite that has forgotten even how to feign representation of the people.  Lower order politicians are only too well aware of this failing. After the Eastleigh result Stewart Jackson, MP for Peterborough, told the London Evening Standard:

“Unless things are demonstrably different in terms of public perception by the early summer he [David Cameron] will have great difficulty in persuading the electorate that we can win a general election.

“He is out of touch with the party. Both gay marriage and EU migration feed into a narrative that too much emphasis is going to the liberal metropolitan elite and not enough to the blue-collar working vote that Margaret Thatcher had the support of.”

So while the speed of UKIP’s rise might surprise some, the rise itself shouldn’t.  The straws were in the wind for both right and left with the early Tea Party movement and, later, the Occupy Movement.  Now we have the rise of, among others, Syriza and Golden Dawn in Greece, the youth identitarian movement in France, the astonishing success of Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Party in Italy ... all non-Establishment or anti-Establishment movements.  Has the grand political project of The Globality reached the stage where it is no longer possible to advance its agenda and affect an interest in the opinions of their supporters?  Are electorates of European descent finally awakening to the nature of modern political elitism and internationalism?

If so, Eastleigh offers little encouragement to British nationalists beyond the unsatisfactory proxy that is UKIP.  The BNP did not stand.  The fatally civicist English Democrats, to which the Butler retinue decamped, did stand.  Its candidate polled just 70 votes in a constituency of 79,004.  The Elvis candidate finished above them.

It looks very like UKIP is our only horse in the race, and must be supported accordingly.  We have to hope that there will be no electoral pact with the Tories in 2015 but, on the contrary, Nigel Farage’s party will literally kill the Tory Party - just as it did in Eastleigh - as the political right’s natural party of power.  Beyond that we must hope that no new alignment of the right in Britain takes place along the lines of that which brought Stephen Harper’s Canadian conservatives into existence in 2003.  Nationalists must find some way to influence a realignment process so that any new party will, first and foremost, be loyal to our people rather than to a set of easily “liberalised” and corrupted, petty principles about self-improvement or personal liberty.

To do that we have to work from within.  We have to join the party if we can (and former BNP members can’t - they are pre-banned), and stay in the party.  I wonder how many nationalists have the requisite degree of focus to pull off something like that.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, March 1, 2013 at 07:17 PM in British PoliticsConservatism
Comments (75) | Tell-a-Friend

A vote for UKIP

One of the arguments I am disseminating regularly these days is that a vote for the United Kingdom Independence Party, notwithstanding the obvious deficiencies of its platform, is the most productive for a Brit who loves not just his country but his people.  As usual this argument is framed within the English context.  It goes something like this, as posted this evening on the thread to Janet Daly’s current DT piece, The Tories can win if they put real people first:

There are two issues arising from Janet’s analysis.

First, the Conservative Party is a party of the City, big business and, like the other two mainstream parties, global elitism.  These are the interests Conservatives serve today.  They cannot turn to serve the people without turning away from their present beneficiaries.  They will never willingly do so.

The only event that can produce change here is the confiscation of any potential Conservatives possess to form another government.  If Conservatives are sufficiently electorally degraded, the political right will re-form - it must.  And that’s where the people’s interests come into the equation, for no party will gain support by openly declaring for narrow elite interests.

That is why a vote for UKIP is the most valuable vote you have.

The second question arising from Janet’s article is this: who are these people she refers to?  We no longer live in an England of distinct class interests; we no longer live in a white England but in a slowly browning England.  The immigrant populations do not have the same interests as the English - the exact opposite, in fact.

So the problem for the right is this: it can serve a people but not the people ... not all the people.  It cannot serve two masters.  Thus the will to political power necessarily becomes entrapped in the rising racial consciousness of the English people. The more awake are the English, the more the right must reflect that in its politics.

In the absence of a nationalist revolution, this is the way to the future life of ethnic England.  It is deliverable.  It may be the only possible result of all the dynamics in play at this time.  If not ... if it fails, the next grab for English freedom and life in the MultiCult will be the final one; and it won’t be political at all.

Now, if one accepts the logic here the next thing to watch for is how successful UKIP is in the run up to the 2015 election.  If the support achieved at the last round of by-elections is maintained or increased the destruction scenario can become a reality for the Tories. Yes, general elections are a much more difficult ask for a minor party than mid-term by-elections.  Yes, David Cameron will be able to nibble away at the softer end of UKIP’s support by his “negotiations” over a new relationship for Britain within the EU.  But still, the damage that has been done by Cameron to his party is unprecedented - he truly is to Conservatism what Tony Blair was to Labour.  I find it hard to believe that he will not pay some substantial electoral costs.

Of course, I may only be grasping at a few nationalist straws.  What else is there for an Englishman to do, frankly?

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, January 5, 2013 at 07:13 PM in British Politics
Comments (43) | Tell-a-Friend

Looking for a crack in the edifice

As well as the publication of the Leveson report, tomorrow sees three parliamentary by-elections - in Middlesborough, Croydon North and Rotherham (all currently Labour-held). Of these, it is the latter that Labour is concentrating resources on.  A combination of factors - the date (which will reduce turnout), the child grooming scandals, Denis MacShane’s resignation over false invoices, a divided local party and, most recently, the UKIP fostering row - means that the result is increasingly hard to predict.

The opening paragraph of a New Stateman article on the forthcoming by-election in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.

About this time tomorrow night we will know something new about a question which nationalists ask themselves whenever conversation drifts onto electoral politics.  What does it take - indeed, is it even possible - for a minor party to win a Westminster seat under First Past The Post?  The United Kingdom Independence Party, a one issue party of disaffected, golf-club Tory Eurosceptics, is thought by some to be in with a shout of overturning the disgraced Denis MacShane’s majority in one of the safest Labour seats in the country.  That is unlikely, and probably highly so.  But there appears to be a tide flowing for change in the constituency.  The Labour Party has taken an enormous knock in the town, and to continue voting for it requires either a considerable act of political faith or pig ignorance.  In the past the party has always been able to rely on a heavy supply of both.

Anyway, I thought it might be worthwhile to start a thread on the by-election.  A solid result for UKIP would be third.  But it would not surprise anyone if they finished one place higher, ahead of the Tories.  They don’t have to win to provide at least a partial answer to the question, “What does it take ...”  But they do have to get close.  That, though, would require both a collapse in the Labour vote (currently running nationally at 43%, while UKIP is at a record 11%) and a major shift of Tory, Libdem and Labour votes to the challenger.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, November 28, 2012 at 07:12 PM in British Politics
Comments (72) | Tell-a-Friend

A very small window on the English heart

Leicester is the tenth largest city in England, and the first, it is said, in which the English natives have been tipped over into minority status (though that is not officially confirmed).  It is also the burial place of “the last English king”, and of the arising of the first English Community Group.

The group was formed last year with the help and guidance of the English charity, The Steadfast Trust.  Its first significant project has been a poll of local opinion in areas like Braunstone where there is a high proportion of English people resident.  Some 5,000 questionnaires were sent out, and 112 were returned completed.  That’s a 2.24% response rate.  Now, that’s not a high rate, and probably doesn’t exceed the average vote in the city (these days) for the BNP.  But if one doesn’t pay too much heed to the number, there is some pretty startling stuff here.

The question, of course, is how far from representativeness the results are for the English of Leicester.  A YouGov study conducted in 2006 showed that 55% of respondees agreed with BNP policies when the name of the party was not attached to them, falling to 49% when it was.  So I wouldn’t write it off merely as an exercise in assorting the BNP supporters from the good folk of Leicester.

Here, anyway, are the survey results.


Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, November 1, 2012 at 07:23 PM in British PoliticsWhite Communities & Micro-Economies
Comments (55) | Tell-a-Friend

The perennial question of the demise of the BNP

... discussed at the British Democracy Forum in a post titled somewhat more speculatively than it would seem, “Message to Nick Griffin’s Special Branch handlers”.

Bear in mind the that German government court papers of a year or two back indicated that out of 200 leading NPD functionaries, 30 were working as undercover agents.

The interesting part of the conversation begins with a response to another BDF member who had observed that, “There is a great willingness - indeed, an enthusiasm - to believe that Griffin is “state” or an “agent”. To do so allows one to exculpate the mind. It is a nonsense. Griffin is nothing more nor less than a failed would-be businessman with a penchant for dubious practice, like most pyramid salesmen.”

Mike: Fair point for general membership but others knew well what was going on and blanked it from their minds for convenience. The ords look at the tops and say well they are still there so the rumours must be false. The tops are guilty parties.

It’s the same with state plants. They can scream to high heaven ‘I’m a plant’ and people blank it as something which only happens in books - like bank runs. There is one at the moment outside the BNP who screams it. As someone said to me of followers ‘They’ve been told and it goes over their heads’. Now you can never be 100% sure so the correct thing is to be wary of what they are up to and where it might lead not ignore it.

View the operations of Mark Kennedy elsewhere. Appears from nowhere and very helpful plus provides facilities. People like that you keep an eye on. If they are plants they’ll let it slip somehow. It’s only human. Look out for sabotage or luring you into situations which can be used against you but not necessarily involving anything illegal. And keep in mind that the state is obsessed with building databases of ‘enemies of society’. MI5 had files on FOUR MILLION people some years ago. Even they admitted this was a little excessive. A lot of these plants are name and address collectors. Anyone opposing state policy - even writing to a newspaper - is an ‘enemy of society’.

I think these guys must be soft minded. They’ll be dumped as soon as not useful. It’s not worth it.

Mill: The problem is that such a large proportion of prominent nationalists have been labelled “State Plants” at some time or other, that it becomes difficult to separate the fiction from the reality.


Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, October 1, 2012 at 07:27 PM in British Politics
Comments (216) | Tell-a-Friend

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

jamesUK commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 09/22/14, 02:26 AM. (go) (view)

jamesUK commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 09/22/14, 02:24 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Salter: Accept that the State is no longer ours and rebuild radically of our people' on 09/22/14, 12:13 AM. (go) (view)

Guest Blogger commented in entry 'Animal faith' on 09/21/14, 10:56 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 09/21/14, 10:16 AM. (go) (view)

jamesUK commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 09/21/14, 09:46 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 09/20/14, 11:39 PM. (go) (view)

jamesUK commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 09/20/14, 09:02 PM. (go) (view)

MOB commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 09/20/14, 06:20 PM. (go) (view)

Francis commented in entry 'Animal faith' on 09/20/14, 01:48 PM. (go) (view)

Guest Blogger commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/20/14, 12:32 PM. (go) (view)

Guest Blogger commented in entry 'Britain's Camp of The Saints' on 09/20/14, 09:42 AM. (go) (view)

Guest Blogger commented in entry 'Britain's Camp of The Saints' on 09/20/14, 08:21 AM. (go) (view)

Radon commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 08:14 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 03:50 PM. (go) (view)

charles allcock commented in entry 'Why Hitler hated Jews' on 09/19/14, 03:06 PM. (go) (view)

jamesUK commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 01:40 PM. (go) (view)

jamesUK commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 01:31 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 08:41 AM. (go) (view)

Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Animal faith' on 09/19/14, 07:18 AM. (go) (view)

Leon Haller commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 06:40 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 06:15 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 06:01 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 05:38 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 05:22 AM. (go) (view)

Leon Haller commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 04:35 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 04:13 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 03:47 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 03:20 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 01:09 AM. (go) (view)

Leon Haller commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 12:11 AM. (go) (view)

Leon Haller commented in entry 'It's no. It's Devo-Max. Plus a sop to the English?' on 09/19/14, 12:02 AM. (go) (view)

Lurker commented in entry 'Referendum on Scottish Separatism' on 09/18/14, 10:26 PM. (go) (view)

Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Animal faith' on 09/18/14, 03:32 PM. (go) (view)

melba peachtoast commented in entry 'Animal faith' on 09/18/14, 02:42 PM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.


Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media


Controlled Opposition





Historical Re-Evaluation




Nationalist Political Parties


Whites in Africa