The Hereford Times on the Battle of Britain

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 21, 2005, 03:25 PM | #

BTW,

Sorry for this stupid question, but I wonder if Hereford is where the famous “Hereford Cow” comes from?

But then again maybe it is from Lahore or Islamamabad?

Posted by Matt on October 21, 2005, 03:44 PM | #

They are just ignorant.  Most Britians are too stupid to understand the ramnifications of large scale immigration demographic outcomes.

I don’t want anyone to tell me otherwise or BNP would win in a landslide.

Posted by Matt on October 21, 2005, 03:45 PM | #

should read Britons not Britians.  Hell maybe I am in that category ..lol

Posted by Matra on October 21, 2005, 04:11 PM | #

Matt I don’t want anyone to tell me otherwise or BNP would win in a landslide.

Well, here’s some encouraging news for you, Matt:

London becomes BNP heartland

http://www.irr.org.uk/2005/october/ak000035.html

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 21, 2005, 04:16 PM | #

> BNP

I think the establishment and of course the Negroes are terrified of the latent power of the BNP.

Recall how that savage Negro beast in GW’s last post used the BNP as an epithet against Joan Rivers.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on October 21, 2005, 04:18 PM | #

Given that the Tories are appointing an Old Etonian leftist multicultural druggie as leader, the May 2006 local elections should be very interesting indeed. Worth pounding a few doorsteps for the BNP, I would think, if only to whack the Tories across the kneecaps before it’s too late!

Posted by Lurker on October 21, 2005, 04:42 PM | #

Historical note - In 1940 Pakistan hadnt been invented, it was part of (British)India.

Posted by onetwothree on October 21, 2005, 06:12 PM | #

It would have been even more ironic if those had been German children.  More ironic, less tragic.

Posted by AD on October 21, 2005, 06:15 PM | #

London becomes BNP heartland

If those stats in the link are correct, i will support the BNP instead of the other Euro party i donate to. Do people think 23% of the London vote(which probably translates to 40% of the white London vote) is realistic or just a reaction to the July bombings?

Posted by Guessedworker on October 21, 2005, 06:37 PM | #

AD,

Miss Margetts’ logic is flawless.  UKIP is as dead as the Euro.  Cameron’s Conservatives will distress the core Conservative voter on all issues save Europe.  But Europe will win Cameron no votes and, anyway, Gordon Brown is not seen as a soft touch on Europe.

But underneath these party issues the browning of London goes on and on.  What choice does the non-liberal have but to consider the BNP.  If it continues its crawl out from under the verbal excrement poured daily upon it by the establishment it will be a significant beneficary of these developments.

That, as Martin says, is a wake-up call to the Tories.  Conservatism today lives on the pinnacle of two slippery slopes.  Either a liberal-cum-culturally Marxist analysis can inform it, as now, or something more traditionalist.  That’s because Conservatism as such disappeared many moons ago.  The option of genuine Conservatism can’t really exist, in my opinion, without serious reform to the franchise.

A few striking electoral successes by the BNP would certainly begin to turn the Party towards the slippery traditionalist slope.  This, of course, I would support rather than the BNP.  In two more elections, whether Cameron wins or loses in 2009, it might begin to manifest.  I am by no means a pessimist.

Posted by Geoff Beck on October 21, 2005, 11:12 PM | #

> That’s because Conservatism as such disappeared many moons ago.  The option of genuine Conservatism can’t really exist, in my opinion, without serious reform to the franchise.

The inversion of all values and norms is so extreme in US institutions and among much of the “herd” that the only possible way in which “serious reform” can happen here is by radical political change, nothing less than revolution or secession. This of course means the spilling of much blood (GASP).

Conservatism simply is not a mechanism available at this hour.

We must rid ourselves of the disease of egalitarianism, then we can sort out a natural aristocracy among our people, re-establish artistic norms and standards, and etc…

Posted by john rackell on October 22, 2005, 02:02 AM | #

“That’s because Conservatism as such disappeared many moons ago…
A few striking electoral successes by the BNP would certainly begin to turn the Party towards the slippery traditionalist slope.  This, of course, I would support rather than the BNP. ”

I dunno - the Conservatives abuse you, then they abuse you some more and then what do you want to do…give them one more chance. Hmmmm, don’t the psychologists call this the battered wife syndrome?

The stalwart, decent BNP - the nice guys - don’t lie or break your heart, who state they will end immigration now, but don’t get any respect. Sure you might love’em a little but you’re always waiting to trade up. What game playing.

The UK is naturalizing 100K per year - mostly Labor supporters - I believe Blair’s margin of victory in the popular vote was 100K - Britain is receiving 500K new immigrants per year who will be eligible to vote in 3-5 years. Will they vote for the traditional Britain? The math for waiting doesn’t seem encouraging. Since voter turn out is so low in Britain what is the way to win - surely the Middle Class Tory base is already voting in large numbers - they are tapped out in terms of vote potential to get out from under the current and future demographic changes - engaging the working classes in Britain and getting them to vote is the only hope and only the BNP has the credibility to do that - and every smart middle class person with a shred of patriotism should be supporting them as our last best hope, which they very well may be.[all imho of course].

——————————————

How can the problem be the franchise when we all realize the public can be gulled into doing anything the elites want, including slitting their own throats through tacit support of suicidal race replacement programs?

Posted by john rackell on October 22, 2005, 02:17 AM | #

An addendum to the above -

Regarding the demographic changes - isn’t Trevor Philips recent call to end the ghettoization of ethnic Britain part of a cynical ploy of dispersing large numbers of ethnic voters - block voters too - into every constituency in Britain to act as the decisive swing vote against any nascent revival of the British ethny? His call that multiculturalism has advanced too far is just an attempt to destroy the remainder of Britain.

The ghetto’s have served their purpose of establishing a beachhead - a disproportionate concentration of ethnics that are largely invisible and don’t raise the British people’s hackles because they are largely out of sight out of mind—discounting for the sake of argument that the Midlands is pretty much a Muslim enclave—now Trevor wants to bust out of the beachhead - the guy is a Montgomery of strategy.

Posted by Guessedworker on October 22, 2005, 04:34 AM | #

John,

I admire your way of looking at things.  But on the BNP issue you should look a little deeper than mere Party affiliation.

More than century and a half ago now Europe - excepting Britain - was in revolution through the rising challenge of nationalism to liberalism.  The British political tradition, however, was and has remained determinedly liberal since 1832.  In no way has this been diluted by the negative and leftist nationalisms prevalent in Scotland and Wales.  They are essentially liberal in character and it is that which bestows a place in the mainstream upon them both.

What I am trying to say here, John - and not for the first time - is that the BNP has far more of a job on its hands than merely picking up the votes of people pissed off with immigration.  They are opposed by the entire political culture.  They must aim to change it.

That’s not as outrageous an idea as it sounds.  Our liberal political culture has run its course.  It is in its advanced stage and the decay is visible everywhere.  The law of Nature and vacuums applies.  Something must take its place - and if nothing positive is done to replace it that something will likely be a “refinement” of the statist oppression we have developing now.  So a positive nationalist outcome would seem to be all well and good.  But what would that really mean?  We English, like Americans, have our patriotism.  But we have had no truck with nationalism in the past.

Thus my caution and my preference not to “trade up” as you put it, but to argue for a renewed Conservative zeitgeist, since we understand that rather better than nationalism, and we know it works.

Posted by john fitzgerald on October 22, 2005, 06:46 AM | #

It did work, but it can’t in a multi- whatever society. Conservatism is dead.
Most nationalists are aware that the establishment aren’t going to hand over power when they lose an election. But one step at a time.

Posted by Guessedworker on October 22, 2005, 04:56 PM | #

John,

Conservatism is not dead.  True, the Conservative Party is currently pursuing relevance to a liberal society.  Conservatism has thereby been desserted.  But ...  a remove from OMOV to, say, the reward of other moral bases for franchisement would favour stable forces in society once again, and out of that Conservatism could grow anew.

As regards “nationalists”, there are none, not really.  That’s my point.  In Britain we have never had any nationalists to speak of.  We don’t know what a nationalist is.

Really, what would nationalism mean if it became the dominant political idea in our culture?  Not just taking the country back.  That isn’t all nationalism is - that’s just using it as a tool.  But genuine Conservatism would have the same effect if the moral bases for franchisement reflected the indigenous people.

We tend to use the word “nationalism” as a vessel for our feelings.  That’s not right.  It has its own philosophical content, if we did but know it.