Created: Friday, 12 March 2010 16:53
Author: rugfish |
BNP IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS TAKING THOUSANDS OF NEW MEMBERS BUT THE MEDIA WANT TO STILL TELL YOU LIES
SO WHAT'S NEW?
Well it seems Nick Griffin bending over backwards to protect the rights of British people in their own country to have the freedom to affiliate to a political view of their own was just not good enough for lawmakers.
Apparently, despite the British National Party having changed the party constitution 12 times, the 'Equal Opportunities Commissars', wanted blood as well, only it isn't 'our' blood they wanted, they want anyone's but.
Yet if this wasn't enough, the media frenzy in its efforts to hang Nick Griffin and the British people in public, led them to make a hue and cry about nothing in a blatant lie to propagandise to the British public that the party hadn't settled matters with the judge.
Here you have the BBC, stating a complete lie in its mad rush to misinform the British public in their millions
So sick are these Marxists, they simply can't wait to tell you yet another lie in saying that the BNP membership must remain "closed". I mean I can surely hear them giggling and cracking Champagne corks from Geordie Land here and I can imagine their pathetic faces turn 'white' with fright, that Party Chairman Mr Nick Griffin MEP, has confirmed that it is not.
As Mr Griffin said; We're Open, we're taking membership and we're going through the membership applications which amount to several thousands. He made a point that we won't be pushing ethnic applications on top like the government does but will instead be going through them in correct order.
They have since added in the truth about membership since Nick Griffin was interviewed
It seems we indigenous British don't count when it comes to being offended, because we happen to have 'unfortunately' been born with the wrong colour skin pigment which is unsuitable to the establishment which wants rid of us all.
But as long as others who happen to not be our shade are happy then I guess 13 times for constitutional change may be 'lucky', and it may do the trick to get the party into a position where its members won't be discriminated against any longer.
We won't have hammers thrown at us, and will no longer be made the jape and scapegoats by the government and so called opposition who merely call us names to hide their own incompetence's and their own discrimination against the white British man and woman in this country.
Even the god damn hateful media will have to shut it or be seen by all and sundry, to be committing a hate crime against British people and their rights to political conscience.
Perhaps the media can turn its eye toward a real evil in our midst.
Perhaps it can now begin to tell the truth but I doubt it.
Perhaps it can look at stonings of rape victims, child brides, polygymy, female circumscissions, Rapes, Muggings and Murder, Christians being hacked to death, and to another political ideology which this Marxist Govt has brought here intentionally to support THEM in their never ending fight against the British people?
Maybe if all white British people jumped off Dover Cliffs then that might suit these scum better. Then they wouldn't have to worry about us not voting for them, gaining power in our own damn country, and ripping down the monstrous thing they did to us under the guise of 'fairness and equality', whilst they speak for no one but themselves when they explicitly state that this country belongs only to mongrels and ethnics.
Created: Monday, 08 March 2010 10:41
Author: Tim Heydon |
San Francisco: A Liberal, Multi-Ethnic Paradise?
San Francisco seems to represent the very epitome of a Liberal Utopia. Famously the destination of flower-bedecked druggies, it has long been one of the most liberally-governed places on earth. And then there is the City itself. It is without question the most beautifully situated in the USA – and one of the most beautiful anywhere. The view from the Golden GateBridge which spans the narrows at the entrance to the great Bay from the Pacific, is stunning. When the fog has lifted, Skyscrapers shimmer in the heat in a mirage of modernity across the sparkling, brilliant blue of the Bay dotted with ferries, pleasure craft and larger vessels with the grim prison island of Alcatraz over to the left.
Created: Wednesday, 24 February 2010 20:52
Author: Sarah: Maid of Albion |
Since our inception in 1997, we have broadened our intellectual framework and built on our existing specialisms within gender relations. We now incorporate ‘race’, masculinities, sexualities, queer and trans- theories into our research work which has a core focus on the body.(Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, Leeds University)
Please mark for content only – Do not penalise for errors of spelling, grammar or punctuation(written instructions given to Dr Frank Ellis at the University of Leeds before marking a 2nd year grammar exam, 2004-2005)
The University of Leeds has aspirations to world class status (University and College Union, Leeds University)
The financial crisis which now confronts Leeds University (and other universities) has its origins in the egalitarianism of both New Labour and, it must be said, the Conservative Party. It was after all a Tory government that abandoned the distinction between polytechnics and universities, so imposing unitary status and preparing the way for the influx of large numbers of poorly qualified students into tertiary education. Inflaming this expansionist fever was also an assumption, encouraged by politicians and academics, that all who wanted to go to university, should be able to do so; that, indeed, going to university was akin to a human right. It is no such thing. Potential students have the right to pursue access to a university place, subject to their meeting the academic requirements for entry and being able to secure the necessary funding. If they are unable to meet the entrance requirements, they must seek other avenues of personal advancement. The huge increase in the numbers of students that started to overwhelm universities from the mid 1990s onwards inevitably resulted in course requirements being watered down to accommodate students who earlier would have been rejected. Too many students were granted access to courses for which they were ill prepared and for which they were intellectually unsuited. At the same time, they will have incurred large debts. Even worse, they soon discover in the world of mortgages and council tax that the much vaunted degree in gender studies or film studies does not impress a hard-headed employer. Over the last fourteen years the governing bodies of British universities have behaved in way which bears more than a passing resemblance to those other would-be masters of the universe, the banks, now rightly castigated for their incompetence. For their part, and in pursuit of a sub-prime clientele, the universities encouraged a reckless increase in student numbers regardless of academic ability. In the process they cruelly deceived many applicants about the benefits and costs of higher education, lied to the British taxpayer and will almost certainly have inflicted severe long-term damage on higher education itself. As regards Leeds University, I am bound to ask whether Michael Arthur, the vice chancellor of Leeds University and chairman of the Russell Group of universities, who presided over this porcine rush after fool’s gold, is competent to deal with his own local crisis and the national one that he and his fellow vice chancellors have done so much to create.
Created: Monday, 22 February 2010 16:51
Author: rugfish |
Anyone who votes for the LibLabUKIPCon Party, is voting to bring about the end of Britain and the future death of their people, their culture, their country and possibly their own or their family members lives.
It was the second episode of violence involving immigrants this year, after clashes in southern Italy in January brought about the worst racial violence in the country since World War Two and reignited a long-running debate on immigration.
The rioting began on Saturday evening after a 19-year-old Egyptian man, identified by police as Hamed Mamoud El Fayed Adou, was killed, apparently by a group of immigrants from South America.
Police said the North Africans, most of them Egyptians, went on a rampage and some clashed with police in the northeastern neighborhood where some 70 percent of shops are owned by immigrants.
Milan's deputy mayor, Riccardo De Corato, called the area a "Wild West between north African and South American gangs."
Created: Friday, 19 February 2010 16:23
Author: Tim Heydon |
A Grim Joke
One of the most grimly amusing moments in recent British History occurred on the occasion of a speech a few years ago (Jan 14th 2006) by our current (unelected ) leader Gordon Brown.
Britain, he said, should have an equivalent of the USA’s 4th of July or even the French 14th of July... ‘Where’ (he asked), ‘is the (British) equivalent of a national celebration of who we are and what we stand for… to ‘help develop the ties that bind the British together … commemorative, unifying, and an expression of British ideas of standing firm in the world of in the name of liberty, responsibility and fairness?’ The former Tory Prime Minister John Major agreed that Brown’s idea was ‘absolutely right.’
The punch line of the joke came when Brown was immediately pounced on by the representative of an Asian pressure group who denounced his arrogation of ‘fairness’ and so forth as a specifically British characteristic as ‘racist.’ Really, you had to laugh.
A foundation for political strategy in South Africa is the "redistribution of land ". This is a racist tactic intending that land ownership be moved to Black-Africans from White-Africans.[i] This clearly has enormous implications to the national economy and internationally, with grotesque precedents in countries such as Zimbabwe.
Revelations about the failure of land distribution which has already occurred. The key politician in the "redistributed” is the Minister Of Rural Development and Land, Gugile Nkwinti whose confession about these “repossessions” was reported in the (Johannesburg) Times, 3 March 2010.
He said: "The Department has purchased going concerns and because they were going concerns, there was always that hope that they would continue to produce. The reality is that that has not happened.
As the White-African administrators were forced from office, so began the fracturing of civic control in Africa. One of the earliest to fail, perhaps the most important, was border control. In parallel with this was a loss of integrity and capacity in the police, with extremes of corruption, rampant bribery and brutality. Even where integrity survived there was seldom a capacity to act. Most police forces had insufficient motor vehicles or communications, and the arms with which they were supplied were stolen or sold.
The legal system, from constable to judge subsided into disarray, corrupt and purchasable. Not surprisingly lawlessness increased. Initially petty crime was tested but soon this changed to brutality when it was seen that it was as easy to murder as to leave alive a potential witness. So began the era of confrontational crime; there was often no attempt to be surreptitious or to cover tracks.
The White-Africans had anticipated this catastrophe during their administrative period.
Despite their pleas for reason and caution, their civilising role was destroyed more by the self-proclaimed sanctimonious European sects, than by the black “anti-colonial movements”.
Created: Wednesday, 24 February 2010 07:21
Author: Dave Yorkshire |
I was reading a column over on the Telegraph website by Simon Singh with great interest, as what he proposes, and for which he has set up a lobbying group to pressure parliament into instigating, would have serious repercussions for the way our political movement in the future. You can get the details of the proposals here:
He starts his article with a seemingly sensible argument, based upon his own experience in being taken to court for an article published:
On Tuesday morning I will appear at the Court of Appeal in the latest round of a libel battle that has already lasted almost two years, and which could easily continue for another two years. It has cost me more than £100,000 in legal fees and this could double before we reach a final judgment. What did I write that was so terrible? I published a newspaper article raising concerns about chiropractors who use spinal manipulation to treat children for conditions such as colic, ear infections and asthma. I thought that it was important that parents were aware of the shortage of evidence surrounding such treatments, but the British Chiropractic Association disagreed and sued me personally for libel.
One can see the problem, which he himself goes on to explain. Essentially, any wealthy person, corporation, company or public body can financially intimidate a writer into retracting or suppressing a potentially true statement for fear of bankruptcy. As Singh goes on to state, in 2005, the Saudi billionaire Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz sued the American author Rachel Ehrenfeld for publishing Funding Evil, which exposed how terrorism is financed. She withdrew and settled out of court, as the potential fine for being found guilty would have been astronomical – and we all know how British courts favour “the religion of peace”. The fact he brought the case to a London court of all the places in the world speaks volumes.
Singh does, however, somewhat overstate his case, which made me very suspicious. The people he defends are always “of the highest integrity”, whereas his enemies are “Eastern European oligarchs, Saudi billionaires and giant corporations who want to silence criticism”. But the fact he states that newspapers and journalists are victims of oppression is somewhat laughable. Newspapers have enormous financial resources at their disposal. They also have a penchant for lying.
Several of Singh’s recommendations would tip the legal balance even more severely in favour of newspapers: “requiring the claimant to demonstrate damage and falsity” puts the onus on the victim of defamation and directly goes against Magna Carta. It is trial by newspaper, where those attacked have no hearing. His proposed damages cap of £10,000 is no deterrent to the politically biased media moguls, who would be able to defame politicians at will, free from any real consequence. His last recommendation is again dubious: “Exempt large and medium-sized corporate bodies and associations from libel law unless they can prove malicious falsehood.” This means that journalists could lie about any large business, forcing corporations to suck up to media moguls like Rupert Murdoch. Businesses that failed to do so could face a propaganda war that would finish them.
Let’s just suppose that (to take a hypothetical case purely at random), the daily newspaper of a media mogul publishes an article that states that the leader of a political party is an anti-Semitic Nazi and that his two pet Rottweilers are called, say, Anne and Frank in the run-up to an election. The newspaper has unlimited resources at its disposal to keep the leader dangling in the courts for years, slowly sapping his money. If, at some point, the newspaper is found guilty, they would receive a £10,000 fine under Singh’s proposals, which is probably the bank interest a media mogul’s money makes in a minute. But as the courts would have only the political leader, his family and friends’ words that the dogs were not called Anne and Frank, there would never be enough evidence to convict the newspaper, as the onus of proof would be on the libel victim. In any case, the damage to both him and the party would be done and democracy undermined.
Simon Singh is right when he says the libel law needs changing. He is right that the libel courts favour those with the most money, but this includes those rags of untruth people read on a daily basis. At the moment, individuals are at the mercy of the newspapers – just ask Nick Griffin – and laws need to come in to make sure that deliberate falsehoods are punished. The courts should be there for everyone, not just those with money. I’ll be keeping an eye on how this pans out; I’ve a feeling the media moguls will be lending their weight to Singh’s proposed reforms.
Created: Friday, 19 February 2010 17:33
Author: Grumpygit |
I was born in 1945, actually, on the very day the Japanese surrendered. The optimists could have argued that perhaps this was an omen for the future. Not because of my birth, specifically, but because on the day the carnage, destruction and millions of deaths caused by World War 2 ended, my birth and others like me on that momentous day could have been regarded as symbolic. We could have been seen as the sort of new beginnings the world needed, in order to change the world and be in the vanguard of preventing such horrors ever happening again. Our generation could have been viewed as the rebirth of a new world, a kinder world and a more peaceful world. Growing up in the 1950s, my world was, for the most part , very peaceful.
Of course, there were other conflicts such as Korea, Suez and Malaya. Worldwide, independence groups formed to rid themselves of British colonialism and many of these groups were extremely violent and barbaric such as the Mau Mau in Kenya, or EOKA in Cyprus, but my childhood world in South London passed mostly uneventfully. All my friends were white, we understood each others' humour and problems. We cycled everywhere and played in bombed out buildings, recreating the second World War, with ourselves always the victors. We searched for shrapnel or unexploded ordnance, (which we occasionally found, and exploded with a hammer, not realising the dangers involved).
