Email received at 17.40 hrs this evening:

PRESS RELEASE

Media hate attack on BNP as black ops fake leaflet drops through doors

Within the last hour we have just heard the alarming news that someone has posted inappropriate, but yet unseen or specified leaflets, to the neighbours of murdered MP Jo Cox.

The media and MPs are openly attributing these leaflets to the BNP claiming that we delivered them.

The British National Party did NOT produce or deliver any such leaflet.

The BNP have notified the police insisting on a serious investigation using fingerprint and DNA technology to identify the perpetrators of this vicious act.

Although I understand that this incident has and is understandably causing alarm, anger and distress it is also vital for the facts to be known before this unacceptable act is wrongly blamed on the British National Party.

Since first hearing about this we have given statements to ITV and been refused access to the author of the original erroneous article in the Yorkshire Post.

The reporter is still, over an hour later, “in a meeting” as media outlet after media outlet copy the incorrect article and publish it over the internet.

We will be lodging a serious protest with the media regulatory body as we think the way this has been handled without giving us our right to comment on the allegations is in itself shocking.

Let me be clear, we have already stated that the murder of Jo Cox was outrageous and we find violence of any sort abhorrent, we also find this new affront disgraceful and we categorically deny any involvement in the production and distribution of this leaflet.

As things stand now, the British National Party has also become a victim of this vicious act.

MPs, the police and the media all have a duty to report such incidents in a factual manner and not to stoke hatred and potential threats to the BNP and our many members and officials who could themselves become victim’s of hate crimes as a result of us being wrongly blamed in this incident.

Again, our thoughts and prayers go out to Jo Cox’s family as this recent outrage must be adding significantly to the already terrible pain.

END

News.com.au, “Belarus dictator Alexander Lukashenko accidentally ‘orders’ workers to strip naked at work”, 28 June 2016:

       
Office workers in Belarus uploaded this image to social media after they went nude. Picture: Instagram/ssnnooppooyy

PEOPLE have been posting pictures and videos of themselves naked and scantily-clad at work — in tribute to their president’s slip of the tongue.

It comes after President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, 61, mixed up his words during a speech on new technology.

       

“Innovations, IT-technologies, privatisation — it is all clear. We’ve conquered all of them. But everything is very simply, one should get undressed and work,” he said.

       

People in Belarus took part in the “undress and work” trend after their president had an unfortunate slip of the tongue. Picture: CEN/AustralscopeSource:australscope

The president had actually wanted to tell people to “develop themselves” — however the phrase sounds very similar to “get undressed” in Russian.

What many described as a “Freudian slip” instantly went viral online and triggered a saucy flashmob event on social media.

       
Dozens posted pictures of themselves at work including naked and semi-naked businessmen and women at their desks.

       
A female assistant in an electronics store posted a picture of herself with only a keyboard protecting her modesty.

Other images included a bikini-clad brunette chopping wood with an axe, a rock band posing naked but for their instruments, and a young and rather nicely tanned woman gardening in nothing but tiny shorts.

Tattoo artists, radio hosts, journalists and even construction workers were soon stripping off at work to join in the fun.

All of the participants of the flashmob posted their photos online, with the hash tag #getnakedandgotowork, where they instantly went viral.

       

Belarus is a landlocked country bordered by Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.

Russian is the main language, spoken by 72 per cent of the population, while Belarusian, the official first language, is spoken by fewer than 12 per cent.

Related Marjorityrights Story: Belarusian Nationalism, A White Nationalism

Express, “European SUPERSTATE to be unveiled: EU nations ‘to be morphed into one’ post-Brexit”, 28 June 2016:

EUROPEAN political chiefs are to take advantage of Brexit by unveiling their long-held plan to morph the continent’s countries into one GIANT SUPERSTATE, it has emerged yesterday.

           
German Angela Merkel met with European heads today at the EU summit

The foreign ministers of France and Germany are due to reveal a blueprint to effectively do away with individual member states in what is being described as an “ultimatum”.

Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels.

orders, including the procedure for admitting and relocating refugees.

The plot has sparked fury and panic in Poland - a traditional ally of Britain in the fight against federalism - after being leaked to Polish news channel TVP Info.

The public broadcaster reports that the bombshell proposal will be presented to a meeting of the Visegrad group of countries - made up of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia - by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier later today.

Excerpts of the nine-page report were published today as the leaders of Germany, France and Italy met in Berlin for Brexit crisis talks.

In the preamble to the text the two ministers write: “Our countries share a common destiny and a common set of values ??that give rise to an even closer union between our citizens. We will therefore strive for a political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this venture.”

The revelations come just days after Britain shook the Brussels establishment by voting to leave the European Union in a move some have predicted could leave to the break-up of the EU.

A number of member states are deeply unhappy about the creeping federalism of the European project with anti-EU sentiments running high in eastern Europe, Scandinavia and France.

Responding to the plot Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski raged: “This is not a good solution, of course, because from the time the EU was invented a lot has changed.

“The mood in European societies is different. Europe and our voters do not want to give the Union over into the hands of technocrats.

“Therefore, I want to talk about this, whether this really is the right recipe right now in the context of a Brexit.”

There are deep divides at the heart of the EU at the moment over how to proceed with the project in light of the Brexit vote.

Some figures have cautioned against trying to force through further political integration, warning that to do so against the wishes of the European people will only fuel further Eurosceptic feeling.

England suffered one of the most humiliating defeats in their history after Iceland came from behind 2 -1.

Match report

Coach Roy Hodgson resigns ...goes the way of fellow mercenary maiden David Cameron… it’s not really the yang of karma, but hermeneutic feedback of another leak in the hull that needs tending ....all a part of getting your ship in order, England. Along with your Brexit victory there needed to be humbling defeat - albeit on a trivial but symbolic level - a lesson in the integrity of losing with your own men rather winning with mercenaries in international play.

Now, if you are going to lose to a tiny country of 330,000, a country that has the integrity to play with its native White men…

Why not play with your native English men and see how it turns out?

Better to lose with your native men than to win with mercenaries..

The Times, ‘MP’s dying words: ‘I can’t get up, my pain is too much’’, 18 Jun 2016:

Jo Cox’s last words as she lay dying were to tell her assistant that she could not get up because “my pain is too much”.

In a dramatic account of the MP’s final moments, Gulham Maniyar described how his daughter Fazila Aswat, who worked as Mrs Cox’s assistant, cradled her in her arms as she lay covered in blood.

That was the scene of the attack, an attack not just on one MP, but on the institution of parliamentary democracy itself. I open with that quote for context, to remind everyone of the gravity of what we are actually talking about here.

The Occidental Observer has an article called ‘The selective compassion of Jo Cox’, by Francis Carr Begbie, in which he, and I assume the editors at Occidental Observer share his view since they didn’t dissent from it, comes out and trashes the reputation of Jo Cox and tries to style as almost the worst thing that ever happened to the United Kingdom.

It’s truly astonishing to see the amount of hatred being directed toward an MP who was tragically assassinated by a crazed gunman, a woman who most of these writers were unaware of the existence of before she was killed, and who stood on the right wing of the Labour Party. She had also only held her seat in Batley and Spen for one year.

Mind reading and time travelling

The range of criticisms directed against the deceased is pretty wide. For example, Begbie accuses Cox of not caring about the white members of her constituency, because she didn’t comment on the Muslim rape epidemic when it had reached her town. Begbie writes, “of all the subjects she enjoyed sounding off on, this world-famous crisis affecting the poorest Whites on her doorstep was not one of them”. What was she supposed to say? How do they know what she was or wasn’t thinking about?

Jo Cox became the MP for Batley and Spen in May 2015, everything that preceded her taking that seat could not possibly be attributed to her, yet somehow ethno-nationalist sites across the internet have transformed her into the symbol of everything that is ‘wrong’ with Batley and Spen. That district became more demographically South Asian in 1950 because British businesses decided that they wanted South Asian workers from Gujarat, Punjab, and Kashmir to migrate to West Yorkshire to desperately protect the already-in-fact doomed textile industry which Britain had been maintaining with the use of protectionist policies since the 1880s.

Jo Cox showing up in 2015, cannot possibly be blamed for making the best of the constituency that the bourgeoisie themselves had given her. This makes no sense. It makes no sense at all.

She only just got there

No article is complete at the Occidental Observer without some kind anti-feminist insinuation, and so Begbie strangely includes this line, “Her constituency seat had been represented by local White men for decades so an all-female shortlist had to be imposed on the local party to ensure an acceptable candidate could be given this plum.” What complete nonsense! No mention at all is made of the fact that the constituency was redrawn multiple times and only came into existence in its present form in 1997. Neither is any mention made of the fact that the ‘local white man’ who held that seat was none other than Mike Wood who held that seat from 1997 to 2015. Mike Wood literally presided over every single development that the Occidental Observer complains about, including the gerrymandering and creation of the constituency called ‘Batley and Spen’, yet no mention is made of this man’s existence! He is merely glossed over as a ‘local white man’, as though that somehow makes everything okay.

Mike Wood presides over Batley and Spen for 18 years, is blamed for nothing. Jo Cox runs it for 13 months, gets shot by some idiot, and suddenly the Occidental Observer has magically discovered that everything is the fault of Jo Cox. Truly breathtaking. Fucking incredible. Maybe Jo Cox is a time traveller, she time travelled to 1997, and to 1950, perhaps?

Middle-Eastern migrant strategy

Begbie also writes of Jo Cox, that “she was also calculating enough to help more dubious causes, as when she lent her name to a government minister who was lobbying for Britain to begin bombing in Syria”.

What is dubious about this? Nothing. Begbie is referring to the letter which Cox wrote in a Guardian article on 11 Oct 2015, co-written with Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell, in which she places the rescuing of civilians at the centre of the parliamentary debate, and advocates for the creation of safe zones inside Syria so that the migrant influx can be stemmed.

Yes, you read that correctly. I will quote her directly. Here:

The Guardian / Jo Cox MP, ‘British forces could help achieve an ethical solution in Syria’, 11 Oct 2015 (emphasis added):

[...]

Some may think that a military component has no place in an ethical response to Syria. We completely disagree. It is not ethical to wish away the barrel bombs from the Syrian government when you have the capacity to stop them. The deaths and fear generated by these indiscriminate air attacks are the main drivers of the refugee crisis in Europe. Nor is it ethical to watch when villages are overrun by Isis fighters who make sex slaves of children and slaughter their fellow Muslims, when we have the capability to hold them back.

What is critical in advancing any military component is that the protection of civilians must be at the centre of the mission. This objective becomes ever more imperative in the light of Russia’s bombing in recent days. We need a military component that protects civilians as a necessary prerequisite to any future UN or internationally provided safe havens. The creation of safe havens inside Syria would eventually offer sanctuary from both the actions of Assad and Isis, as we cannot focus on Isis without an equal focus on Assad. They would save lives, reduce radicalisation and help to slow down the refugee exodus.

The approach of focusing on civilian protection will also make a political solution more likely. Preventing the regime from killing civilians, and signalling intent to Russia, is far more likely to compel the regime to the negotiating table than anything currently being done or mooted. Of course, a military approach by itself won’t work, nor will any of the other components. Only through an integrated strategy with the protection of civilians at its core can we rescue something from this crisis.

[...]

I invite anyone to tell me what precisely is wrong with that. No one can tell me what is wrong with that, because there’s nothing wrong with it. Some may ask, “But isn’t her mention of Assad a problem?” In actual practice, no. Only actions against ISIL could have had efficiacy since we know Russia’s presence in the theatre had already made it impossible for the west to directly attack the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in the first place. The way I’ve highlighted bold text in that quotation is entirely deliberate.

Allowing all of the refugees to be contained within safe zones inside Syria and Iraq, would prevent migrants of all kinds—whether they are fleeing from the SAA or from ISIL—from actually feeling the need to cross to Europe, seriuosly reducing the scale of the crisis and accomplishing an objective that people concerned about migration ought to have been able to agree with.

Obviously the conflict should not even be happening. But it is happening and so selecting a solution that does not involve trying to house all the Arabs inside Europe, made her stance significantly better than the ridiculous mainstream stance of ‘just open the borders and absorb all migrants forever’.

This general pattern is similar to the idea that Anthony Zinni suggested.

I’ll quote Anthony Zinni:

TIME, ‘U.S. Military Plan For Looming ISIS Offensive Takes Shape’, 26 Feb 2015 (emphasis added):

There’s only one way to take land, and that’s with well-trained ground forces. That’s why retired Marine general Anthony Zinni thinks the time is right for Obama to acknowledge reality and tell the nation he is sending 10,000 American troops into the fight. Zinni ran the U.S. military in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions as chief of U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000, and still has business dealings in the region. He’s just back from a trip to Cairo, and he says he’s hearing a growing willingness among regional powers to put troops on the ground to fight ISIS—so long as the U.S. is alongside them.

Rumbles from Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates all suggest those nations are willing to fight on the ground. “I think this is all designed to try to push the United States to put something on the ground,” Zinni said Feb. 23. “If we put a couple of brigades in, I think you’d get five or six regional countries. And I think you could twist the arms of the French, the Belgians and maybe even the Brits.”

Two U.S. brigades, with their supporting personnel, would total about 10,000 troops. Zinni says the nations in the region are not coordinating their efforts in an effort to lure the U.S. into the fight on the ground. “But they’re getting scared, and have gotten angry at ISIS’s atrocious behavior and they’re willing to step up,” he says. “It would have to be a whole set of bilateral relationships, and we would have to pull it together.

The U.S. would have to act as the catalyst to make this happen, says Zinni, who was an early advocate of sending U.S. ground troops into the fight. “There’s an opportunity now to put a small piece in terms of ground forces in there, and get a lot more from these countries, and be the glue that puts it together,” he says. “There is no unifying structure and no single entity out there that can bring this all together—it has to be the United States,” Zinni insists.

But what about Obama’s pledge to keep U.S. combat boots out of the fight? “They have a moment here and it’ll blow by if they’re not careful,” he says. Obama “could always say that the situation on the ground has changed, and the willingness of the Arabs to stand up to this gives us this moment,” says Zinni, showing why he’s a better general than a politician.

What Zinni was describing there, is very close to ‘Seek, Destroy, Clear, Hold’, a strategy currently being employed in Operation Zarb-e-Azb by the Pakistani Army with relative success.

It stems the flow of migrants because by holding the zones that have been cleared and rebuilding infrastructure on the fly, it prevents migrants from making dangerous trips to flee the violence, since obviously they could just stay in the location that they are in and receive assistance and protection around the clock.

The political problem is that selling ‘SDCH’ to whiny white western liberal populations is next to impossible, and that’s where MPs like Jo Cox are incredibly useful. She could provide the political and ‘humanitarian’ argument which constituents needed to hear, that the defence sector was unable to convincingly enunciate. I shouldn’t have to be explaining this, but what Jo Cox’s feelings about entirely hypothetical refugees in the United Kingdom were, didn’t frankly matter, given that the part of her plan that takes precedence in terms of the order of battle is that she supported the creation of safe zones in Syria.

No one would have to worry about whether she is or is not going to cuddle and appease Syrian and Iraqi refugees in the United Kingdom, if those migrants had never arrived due to the creation of safe zones in Syria. This is basic logic.

When you’ve been around white liberals and experienced them for long enough, you learn to accept that there are some aspects of their psyche which are biased toward indiscriminate kindness, and this is a bias that is not going to be changed by anyone’s words, but if they are willing to help find common sense solutions to problems then it is fine to link up with them in order to scrape out some limited gains in a bad situation.

What is treason anyway?

Jo Cox was among the best that you could expect from the Labour Party. It would be unreasonable to expect anything greater than what she had offered.

This is why I never had a big problem with Jo Cox, beyond the obvious fact that she’s a liberal. I was deeply saddened the day that she died.

Jo Cox is not ‘a traitor’.

Tom Mair is the real traitor here, and if the death penalty were not unfortunately abolished in the United Kingdom, I would hope that Mair would end up being hung from the gallows until dead. Mair has probably done more to assist our enemies than anyone else in recent years. Perhaps Mair will end up being inexplicably and mysteriously hung from the side of his bedpost using his own clothes knotted into a noose, but I can only hope. Hey, it happens sometimes, at times the CCTV in prisons just suddenly stops working for no apparent reason.

In overview, ethno-nationalists need to get more politically savvy, and stop running to defend every mentally ill white male who makes grief-stricken faces after committing some absurd, stupid, and horrific crime. Tom Mair was not a victim of anything, if he didn’t like the fact that all the South Asian Muslims had been concentrated into one area of that West Yorkshire constituency, he should have exercised some patience and self-control, thanked the stars that self-segregation had occurred and moved to one of the white areas of the constituency instead. He was not being forced to integrate with them, and Jo Cox had only just arrived in the constituency in May 2015 and had literally done nothing to him.

Tom Mair is stupid. This is not even 57-dimensional chess. It’s simple 2-dimensional chess. But he was a fucking idiot consumed by his own sense of entitlement and lack of strategic thinking. He is stupid, he is subhuman trash. And he is condemned.

Excellent article and comments at TOO about the politics and circles of Jo Cox and her husband.

The article casts evergreen light on the nefarious power structure and imminions* of the British political class well beyond doubts as to how the Cox murder would impact the Brexit vote, now that the vote has transpired.

Some pearls from the article and comments:

“Hers was the typical smooth career path of the modern political cog.”

Her political way was paved by becoming a water carrier for wives of the liberal political class. She imbibed and voiced its concerns - i.e., for the plight of anybody** but White native British. To the point where she ignored the rape of British girls that was going on under her nose - crimes being prosecuted, in fact, the day she died. Despite the obvious contradiction of Islam and her liberal politics, she would not say “boo” to Islam because her lucrative political career depended upon support of Muslims in her constituency.

Her husband was in complete alignment with her liberal political madness. He openly discussed ways to pander to those young people, at least those who have not yet been disabused of the PC kool-aid, as a group to counteract growing “national populist anti-immigration sentiment.”

He was such a political apparatchik that on the day that his wife was murdered, he was preoccupied with lambasting the leave campaign as opposed to attending to normal protocols of family bereavement.

Just the kind of tag-team that would flush ordinary White men down the toilet. She the gate keeper to make sure that their voice and concerns were blocked and never to be addressed; only letting through and empowering liberal “alpha males” like Brandon, who would complete the act of flushing normal White men down the toilet.

Both were lavishly rewarded for betraying normal British people.

Now that we have a bead on the patterns underpinning Jo and Brandon Cox’s insane liberalism, it begs the question of who Tommy Mair was in response to theirs and their society’s insanity? Should we dismiss him as merely crazy? Should we shy away from the fact that he had political and native nationalist motivations because his manifestation was of dubious tact?

Or is it occasion to look at silenced voices behind the reaction?

* It was too tempting to not go with what started out as a typo to the word “minion” here.

** Excepting, perhaps, if they interfered with Jewish interests..

WSJ, “Brexit: A Very British Revolution,” 24 June 2016:

The vote to leave the EU began as a cry for liberty and ended as a rebuke to the establishment

A Leave supporter holds up a Union Jack flag after the result of the EU referendum outside London’s Downing Street Friday. Photo: Neil Hall/Reuters

The world is looking at Britain and asking: What on Earth just happened? Those who run Britain are asking the same question.

Never has there been a greater coalition of the establishment than that assembled by Prime Minister David Cameron for his referendum campaign to keep the U.K. in the European Union. There was almost every Westminster party leader, most of their troops and almost every trade union and employers’ federation. There were retired spy chiefs, historians, football clubs, national treasures like Stephen Hawking and divinities like Keira Knightley. And some global glamour too: President Barack Obama flew to London to do his bit, and Goldman Sachs opened its checkbook.

And none of it worked. The opinion polls barely moved over the course of the campaign, and 52% of Britons voted to leave the EU. That slender majority was probably the biggest slap in the face ever delivered to the British establishment in the history of universal suffrage.

Mr. Cameron announced that he would resign because he felt the country has taken a new direction—one that he disagrees with. If everyone else did the same, the House of Commons would be almost empty. Britain’s exit from the EU, or Brexit, was backed by barely a quarter of his government members and by not even a tenth of Labour politicians. It was a very British revolution.

TNO, “Brexit Contagion: Germany Fears 5 More ‘Leaves”, 25 June 2016:

The German government has admitted in a secret briefing paper leaked to Die Welt newspaper that another five countries—France, Austria, Finland, the Netherlands, and Hungary—might follow Britain’s example and leave the European Union.

The document warns that a prolonged and messy British exit process can have a “crucial” impact in boosting the Eurosceptic movements in all five nations.

       

The document, titled “Task Force: Proposed referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union” was developed by the German Finance Ministry for what it describes as “difficult divorce proceedings.”

The document says it was to offer the UK “constructive outlet negotiations” which will end up in Britain becoming an “associate partner country” of the EU.

The exit process—governed by Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty—allows for a two-year withdrawal process. “This creates time and the basis for negotiations,” the document says, adding that if necessary, this time period could be extended.