There have been two posts on the BNP website covering last week’s election results.  One of these is a very brief region-by-region round-up.  The other is a Nick Griffin essay dealing with causal factors and forward-strategies.  Griffin is good value and worth a read, particularly this:-

So here’s the bottom line: Several years ago our improvements in our own electoral machine caught our opponents off guard and gave us the string of victories that made us the story of successive elections.  But the shock and humiliation of losing to the BNP forced the other parties to up their game.  So from shock firsts we’ve been forced down to good but shell-shocked seconds.  And that is where, by and large, we will stay unless we learn the lessons of May 2007 and take our game up a level as well.

Labour and the LibDems have learnt to concentrate on mobilising their own core vote (the elderly, ethnic minorities and the local functionaries of Brown’s welfarist empire), while their leftist allies combine expensive smear sheets and phone calls targeted at especially at postal voters to depress our vote.  This is why, from key seats up and down the country we got reports of sitting Labour councillors trudging round the streets putting out their election addresses by themselves.  Their activists weren’t sitting on their hands, they were manning telephone banks to identify pro- and anti-BNP voters and work on them accordingly.

As one would would expect, Griffin was not alone in giving his opinions to fellow nationalists.  Various nationalist websites have been offering interesting interpretations of the results.  There is some optimism, some stubborn pride.  But the overall tenor is undeniable disappointment.  After all, the omens had been so good.  The candidates in their canvassing and the leafletters on their rounds were providing plenty of positive feedback.  The customary barriers to the Party - a blackened reputation and the power of the main parties on the ground - seemed less formidable.  Nationally, the Labour Party was weaker than at any time since the Foot era.

But it all went ever so slightly sour.  An uneasy feeling stalks the nationalist right that something systemic, something not ameliorable is at work in all this.  Sure, practical explanations like Griffin’s - all those Labour activists “manning telephone banks” - are comforting.  They offer a way forward in an “anything you can do ...” sense.  But they reduce everything to the level of engine room politics.  Are electoral mechanics really where success for the Party resides?  Is that, as a world-weary Peggy Lee once sung, all there is?

READ MORE...

The Right Honourable Tony Blair MP announces his retirement as Prime Minister tomorrow.

I hope in my heart that one day the Prime Minister will be able to say sorry to the families bereaved by this war, and that one day he will find himself able to visit in hospital the soldiers who have been wounded by it.

Reg Keys, father of Tom who gave his life in an illegal war.  From his election speech at Sedgefield, where he challenged Blair at the 2005 General Election.

“I understand for these families.  It is a time of immense grief and anguish.  But I can’t say what I don’t believe.  I don’t believe it was wrong to get rid of Saddam.  I also don’t believe that the reason that we have the problem we have in Iraq is because of anything other than a deliberate attempt to give us that problem by terrorists.

Tony Blair speaking to the grieving families of soldiers killed in Iraq

Here are a few simple reminders for posterity of the decade during which Britain suffered Blair in Downing Street:-

READ MORE...

From the Daily Mail today:-

Schools with mainly white pupils will be forced to send their children to mix with other races and religions.

A legal duty for schools to promote community relations comes into force in September.

Government guidelines to help them comply could require staff to take children on visits to multi-ethnic schools, stage joint plays and sporting events or twin with other schools.

Ministers said some suburban teenagers had never met a Muslim or Hindu and needed more contact.

Ofsted, the schools watchdog, will be given the power to force schools to comply. Those who do not risk being consigned to a failing list.

Teachers’ leaders said the guidelines were heavy-handed and unnecessary.

The advice says schools should “give their pupils the opportunity to mix with and learn with” pupils from other ethnic, religious and class backgrounds.

Lessons in all subjects should help to teach children tolerance and break down prejudice.

Schools must encourage pupils to strike up e-mail friendships with children at schools with a different racial or religious mix. They should also consider inviting imams and vicars to talk.

... One in five schoolchildren is from an ethnic minority, official figures show. Two per cent of secondary schools and 5 per cent of primary schools in England have no ethnic minority pupils.

Alan Johnson brought in the requirement for schools to “promote community cohesion” after abandoning plans for admissions quotas for faith schools.

The Education Secretary wanted all faith schools to reserve a quarter of places for non-believers but changed the plans after opposition led by the Catholic Church.

Instead, he said schools should be required to demonstrate they are improving community relations.

So the prime-mover of this deeply unwelcome proposal is The Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP, who was appointed Secretary of State for Education and Skills in May 2006.  Here is his ministerial team, among them Jim Knight, who seems to be connected with this particular proposal.

The political provenance of this initiative is the failed attempt to legislate powers for local councils to make new faith schools reserve a quarter of places for children outside the religion.

Johnson defended that attempt by declaring, “There must be a balance between preserving the special quality of faith schools and building greater community cohesion and understanding between different cultures.  By opening up a proportion of places to children of different faiths where local communities wish this, we will help create a system where all faith schools play a full part in the education of local children.”

The principle involved in this seemed clear at the time, even if it was not directly enunciated by ministers for fear of inflaming Pakistan in the North.  Islamic schools narrow their pupils’ understanding of the majority way of life.  Experience of the Kufr and the Kufr’s faith might tell little Moslem mites not only something about the England in which they were domiciling, but about themselves, their teachers and even some of the Suraw.

Now, it was not a particularly good proposal.  Natural balkanisation is better.  And the Bishops took it as an attack by secular leftists on faith schools per se, which is certainly not what Johnson said.  But the implicit focus seemed to me to be in the right place for once.

The new proposal, however, is quite different.  Now we are not talking any more, even implicitly, about challenging Islamic fundamentalism.  It’s the English instinct to separate that ministers find offensive.  The old, self-hating leftist twitch is back.

Well, in my unending quest to be charitable to politicians I persuaded a certain John Standing (who, you will understand, is someone extremely well-known to me but, strangely, to no other living being) to e-mail Lucky Jim the Schools Minister and his Tory Shadow, Nick Gibb MP.  Nothing too complicated.  I don’t want to tax their limited intellectual resources:-

READ MORE...

Professor Ted Cantle CBE ...

... has a lofty vision for England.  He believes that la-la land can and must be built here, for all our benefit.  And, no doubt, for his.

The key is to just open

goy

English eyes to the amazing humanity and really, really amazing social and cultural contributions of our exciting new black and brown brothers.  And our new Albanian brothers.  And our new Russian Mafia brothers.  And let’s not forget our new Turkish and Kurdish brothers, and so many, many more.  Brothers - and brutthas - in humanity every one.

Clever Ted - who used to run Nottingham city council - picked up early on the fashion among desperately disappointed government ministers for alternatives to Multiculturalism.  He came up with Interculturalism - not new but, hey, nor is hope.  And G-d knows, hope is all desperately disappointed government ministers have got.  Hope and taxpayers’ money, of course.

Ted’s Interculturalism is a Freudianised cash cow that “defeats” raysissum and breaks down “preconceived” barriers by getting us all to lie back on his black imitation leather couch and blah blah blah in the prescribed manner.  It’s the same old Marxian crap about everything being socially-constructed, ie perfectible.

Perfectible makes good money.

READ MORE...

Nicolas Sarkozy is a friend of the north African Muslims. Sarkozy is simply a slave trader in the old tradition of the Marrano Jews. The slave game gets played by the slave-providing society (frequently African) with the slave-trading society (frequently Jewish) against the target territory (frequently European-controlled):

  1. Get the elites of the target territory addicted to cheap labor.
  2. Thereby destroy the middle class (yeomen) of the target society by turning the elites against their own people economically.
  3. Put enough “feet on the ground” in the form of slaves from the slave-providing society, that it is “impossible” to repatriate them.
  4. “Liberate” the slaves and destroy the remainder of the society that slavery has already gutted of its yeomen/middle class.

The only thing that staved off utter disaster for the US during the 1800s was the fact that the yeoman class had a frontier to which they could escape—an “error” that was “corrected” with JFK’s phoney “New Frontier” and the subsequent land grab.

French yeomen have no such option provided them.  They’re f*cked—sometimes quite literally—by the multi-pronged attack against them by their elites, quasi-Marrano Jews (like Sarkozy) and Africans.

The mismatch between “Post-ABC News poll, those more tuned into the ‘08 race” and the post-Republican Candidate debate online polls of ABC and MSNBC goes well beyond normal disparities between “scientific” polling and online polling.  Ron Paul leads all other candidates by a more than comfortable margin in the online polls and is hardly even considered a “dark horse” candidate by the offline “scientific” polls.  This is made even more interesting if, as has been reported here the MSNBC online poll prior to the debates had Ron Paul with only about 9% vs its present 34%.

Glib explanations that “Ron Paul’s supporters are internet addicts…”, as have been advanced on neocon sites such as Freerepublic.com, while very unsatisfying, are at least better than the utter silence regarding the glaring disparity from the mainstream media whose own online polls so drastically depart from their “scientific” polls.

Moreover, at present it appears that FOX News is excluding Ron Paul from the upcoming South Carolina debate because:

“the public is better served when serious candidates speak on the issues”

One can’t help but entertain the possibility that perhaps some of the disparity is due to Ron Paul’s consistent opposition to Neocon “invade the world, invite the world” policy that has taken hold of the mainstream media… that plus the fact that—rare among self-described “libertarians”—he doesn’t seem very hypocritical when it comes to recognizing the asset known as national citizenship.  (His immigration report card is an astounding B+.)

A quantitative estimate of approximately how far off we can expect these online polls to be is called for…

READ MORE...

MR commenter Gongstar posted a link to a BBC Radio 4 documentary which, as he says, is worth a listen.  Somewhat ironically from our point of view, it is titled Peckham’s Lost.

That title actually refers to the abject failure of innumerable government thaumaturgies to save the younger generation of black “South Londoners” from themselves.  It is a 40-minute investigation of feral black youth in Peckham, scene of some particularly savage, recent black-on-black lethality.

READ MORE...

There is an important article posted to VDARE today by Randall Burns titled: “Immigration Policy Squanders The Value of Citizenship” exemplified by this passage:

If we take the current theoretical value of citizenship at a midpoint estimate of $225,000: we can ask ourselves, is the American public really getting $1.4 trillion per year in value for current levels of legal immigration? I would argue that it isn’t. In fact recent immigration—which is often unskilled, uneducated and often actively hostile to the existing US population— is creating nowhere close to that level of benefit.

It also isn’t surprising that the predatory wealthy like Bill Gates can make money when they have something to dangle in front of prospective foreign employees—the perquisites and privileges of US residency and citizenship, paid for by the rest of us.

To underscore the importance of my point: If we look at the median level of privately- held wealth, it was only about $61,000 per citizen family in 1998. (The average level of privately held wealth is around $270,000 per family). That means decisions regarding immigration policy and the definition and value of citizenship are far more important to a clear majority of Americans than any personal savings or earnings they are likely to have over their lifetime.

If we use a higher value on citizenship, immigration swamps even our currently absurd trade deficit as a liquidation of American assets.

As we move towards a saner immigration policy, we need to think of policies that maintain the current value of US citizenship and broadly held private property levels for those already here-and that are calculated to attract those immigrants who really do bring something to America.

Americans deserve at least the consideration from their political leaders that property owners would get from a real estate developer.

Part of the importance of this article is that it attacks the fallacy of hypocrites claiming to be libertarians who demand open borders.  It does so by treating citizenship itself as a property right with estimable monetary value.

Now, agreed, it ignores the enormous value most people attach to kinship, however it is the first time someone has called the bluff of self-proclaimed “libertarians” by putting numbers to the asset that we know as national citizenship.