My speech to the English Democrats Conference on the 16th September 2017
Ladies & Gentlemen
Welcome to Leicester and to the English Democrats 14th Annual General Meeting. We are now into our fifteenth year since our launch in August 2002. Fourteen is an important birthday for a young person. They are on their way to adulthood but not there yet. Not only are they likely to be fully into the toils of puberty, but also a fourteen year old is more likely to be found criminally responsible if prosecuted. Make of that what you will ladies and gentlemen!
Last year we were of course exultant at the results of the EU referendum, although not so sure about the results of the Tory Party Leadership election. If you remember I said that I thought that Theresa May had the sort of obsessive, control freak, uncharismatic personality that could well make her the Tory Party’s Gordon Brown. I rather think that history has proved me right. What do you think ladies and gentlemen?
In many ways it would appear that Theresa May is even worse than Gordon Brown, as on top of everything else she makes very stupid and obvious mistakes, like calling the General Election and scheduling it when the universities were still in term time so that the National Union of Students would be able to gather the maximum number of students to vote against her, which explains the loss of several of the Conservative’s former safe seats!
Also she came out with probably the most politically unwise manifesto that I can remember the Conservatives ever producing in all my increasingly all too long period of interest in politics.
So bad was the proposed attack on the interests of old people, who after all are more inclined to vote than any other category, that my mother rang me up to ask me if I thought that she really could safely vote for the Conservative Party! Let me tell you ladies and gentlemen that that would have been a turn up for the books!
But then not only is Theresa May dogmatic, she is also all too politically correct. Not only was she the prime mover behind gay marriage, but we have seen several instances recently where she has said the stupidest things. That is from the point of view of anybody who is making out they are Conservative.
Not only does she drop a colleague immediately if they say something politically incorrect, but then she supported the antifa thugs in attacking what she uncritically accepted were neo-Nazis. Actually they were mostly simply protestors objecting to historic Confederate statues being removed across the Southern United States. Such a person as Mrs May could well next be found agreeing that Nelson should be removed from Nelson’s Column in Trafalgar Square!
I have heard it said that some of Theresa May’s Cabinet colleagues think she is simply a “Blairite in very expensive trousers”. Maybe that is the explanation for why she shows every sign of not being actually somebody who cares about our country and its history and its culture.
One thing is certain. Theresa May is an outright enemy of English Nationalism!
Her Government is pressing ahead with its attempt to categorise anybody who doesn’t believe in her so-called “British values” as an extremist.
The Government’s position is now that anybody who doesn’t subscribe to their definition of fundamental “British values” is automatically an extremist. So let’s examine what you have to sign up in order not to be an extremist according to the Gospel of Mrs May. Here is their definition of fundamental British values:-
The fundamental “British values” are:- of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.”
Ladies and Gentlemen let us just go through this carefully with a lawyer’s eye to analysing the definition. Obviously by definition any English nationalist such as all of us here in this room will not subscribe to fundamental “British” values.
Ignoring the point that naturally if you were a Scottish nationalist or a Welsh nationalist in Scotland or Wales it wouldn’t be suggested that you should have to subscribe to British values, since they are allowed their own Nations! We are not!
But the definition Theresa May’s so called “British values” goes further than that. This definition means that you couldn’t even be a biblically inspired Christian because you couldn’t subscribe to these fundamental British values if you believe what Christ says:- “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” then they define you as an “extremist”.
Now you may ask what it is we should do about this Government plan? I do not particularly wish to model myself on Winston Churchill, although I think stomach wise I am probably not dissimilar. Churchill’s defiant call for “we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender” but that would be the sentiment that I would wish us all to be taking to heart.
One of the problems for England over recent years has been the lack of any other leadership for England or for English values, or the English Nation or almost any aspect of England. We in the English movement need to focus on making sure that we build up our leadership cadre. One way we can do that is by letting people know that there are some groups out there who are prepared to stand up for English people and to fight our opponents through the official system, whether it be complaints or bringing court cases. The Prevent Strategy which British values is part of gives us a way to do this.
There is a case that I advised on, which is relevant.
As part of the case we reported a Leftist troublemaker to the police. He was visited by the relevant police Prevent Team and has now been put on the Prevent “Watch List” as an Extremist!
What that means is that if that Leftist now takes part in any activity in the future which is hostile to, for example, English nationalists, then the police are far more likely to crackdown on him than they would have been hitherto.
From now on he will be on the “Watch List” and will be flagged up as somebody whose activities ought to be disrupted.
It is the same with reporting anti-English so called “Hate Crimes”. These always ought to be reported. If a police officer shows any reluctance to accept it as a “hate crime” then a complaint should be made against the officer concerned. The complaint should be taken as far as it can be up the Police Forces' complaints system - so that it gets into the records that a lot of the “hate crime” is perpetrated against the English rather than by them.
Equally no opportunity should be lost to insist that you are “English” on ethnic monitoring forms rather than permitting yourself to be put down as “British” which is a legally invalid category and therefore waives your rights and your community’s rights under the Equality Act.
In the last few days we have had the publication by a group which calls itself “The Community Security Trust” which has launched what it has described a joint initiative with what they call a leading British Muslim support group to offer advice for victims and witnesses of hate crime.
This guidebook, written in collaboration with the Tell MAMA organisation and backed by the Crown Prosecution Service, also includes details of how to navigate the criminal justice system and understand the law and processes of the UK court system.
The Community Security Trust said it was an “important tool” in tackling a rising tide of antisemitism and Islamophobia in the UK.
The Community Security Trust though the guide has a focus on antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred, its advice can, be used by anybody who has suffered any kind of hate crime, which can occur due to race, religion, sexuality, age, disability, gender or any other characteristic.”
This guidebook sounds as if it is encouraging their client groups to take exactly the sort of approach that we ought to be taking for our people and for anybody who is in anyway picked on or victimised for being an English Nationalist. We also need to use the same arguments to advance the interests of our People as against any other minority groups.
One of the great things that has happened around us over the last eighteen months is that the Left have dropped the mask of being nice and instead have revealed just how hateful they are.
Hateful that is in both senses, both full of hate and worthy of being hated. Just listen to this from one of them called Emily Goldstein published in Thought Catalogue under the heading“Yes, Diversity is About Getting Rid of White People (And That’s A Good Thing)
This is what Emily Goldstein wrote:-
One of the more common memes that I’ve seen white supremacists spread around recently has been “diversity is a code word for white genocide”. The concept here is that diversity is only promoted in white nations, and that the end goal is to eliminate white people altogether by flooding all white countries with non-white people until there are no white people left. Well, guess what, white supremacists? That’s exactly right. Diversity IS about getting rid of white people, and that’s a good thing.
First off, I am a white person myself, so allow me to get that out of the way. I’m extremely glad that the white race is dying, and you should be too. White people do not have a right to exist. Period. That may sound like a bold statement, but it’s entirely true. Any white person with even the faintest knowledge of history should curse themselves every single day for being white. Throughout all of recorded history, whites have engaged in oppression, genocide, colonialism, imperialism, and just plain evil on a massive scale. White people have denied every other race the right to exist, and have – at some point in history – oppressed every single race on the planet.
Why, then, should whites now be allowed to live in peace when whites have historically been the world’s #1 source of conflict and oppression? Whiteness is racism. Period. Whiteness is the source of all oppression in the world. Whiteness is racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and heteropatriarchal capitalism. Eliminate whiteness and you eliminate every single form of oppression that the world currently faces. No white people means no oppression. White people are like a cancer and oppression is a symptom of the cancer. Cut out the cancer altogether – with the cancer being white people – and you get rid of all of the oppression which white people cause.
I have dedicated my life to fighting racism, and I have determined – based on all available evidence – that the only way to really eliminate racism is to eliminate whiteness. Whiteness is the ocean from which racism flows. Get rid of whiteness and you get rid of racism. Despite what white supremacists often claim, white people do not have a “culture”. White “culture” consists of nothing more than oppression, genocide, and the disenfranchisement of minorities. White “culture” is racism and nothing more. When white supremacists talk about “white culture”, what they’re really talking about is racism. Over the course of history, white people have built a massive empire based entirely on the hard work of oppressed and disenfranchised minority groups. But guess what, white people? That empire is finally coming to an end now, and its demise is music to my hears. To quote the great anti-racist activist Tim Wise: “Do you hear it? The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently? Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.”
Descendants of Holocaust survivors can personally attest to the evil that white people are capable of when they hold the reins of power. Thankfully, whites won’t be holding the reins of power for much longer. When white people die out, so will racism, sexism, queerphobia, and all other forms of oppression. The only way to eliminate racism, white privilege, and white supremacy is to eliminate whiteness altogether. When I teach my students about human rights, critical race theory, and the role of whites in worldwide oppression, my white students often ask me how they can “atone” for the evils of whiteness and how they can make up for centuries of white oppression. And I tell them: you can do that by not having any children and ensuring that the white race does not live to oppress anyone ever again in the future.
Thankfully, white birthrates are indeed very low, while the birthrates of minorities are much, MUCH higher. Within our lifetimes, whites will be a minority in a significant number of formerly white countries, including the US, the UK, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, to name just a few. To white supremacists yearning for the days when whites could rape and pillage the world with impunity, this is incredibly frightening. To people on the right side of history, however, this looks like progress. Whites are finally getting their just desserts – and it’s about time. I sincerely hope that, when the white power structure finally comes crashing down, whites will receive no mercy from the minority groups that whites have spent centuries oppressing. We certainly don’t deserve any mercy or kindness, as we have given nothing of the sort to others.
Whites should also know that, when they do become a minority in formerly white countries, they will NOT be receiving affirmative action or any of the other benefits meant to assist the minorities that whites have historically oppressed. Why? Because whites don’t deserve those benefits. It’s as simple as that. One can look to South Africa, where whites are only about 8.4% of the population, but blacks continue to receive affirmative action because blacks in South Africa have historically been disenfranchised by whites. The same thing will happen when whites become a minority in North America, Europe, and Oceania, because whites have historically oppressed minorities in all three of those continents. Not to mention, why should whites receive any kind of benefits when the ultimate goal is to get rid of whites altogether? Finally, laws against hate speech will serve to prevent whites from complaining about this, as any white person who complains will be arrested, given a long prison sentence, and made an example of for the rest of the remaining white population. Speech that attempts to justify the white power structure and perpetuate white oppression of minorities is not freedom of speech, and it has absolutely no place in modern society.
As white people, we all need to recognize that we no longer have a place in the world. This world now belongs to the minorities that us whites have spent centuries oppressing, and there is absolutely nothing that any pathetic white supremacists can do about it. In order for a better world to be created, white people need to be exterminated. Period. It’s as simple as that. We should simply be thankful that our death will be accomplished through mass immigration and declining birthrates. When whites have exterminated other races, it wasn’t nearly so peaceful – it was done through violent genocide. But other races are not as evil as whites are, and it’s important to remember that. The world belongs to minorities now, and they will make a much better, more peaceful world with what they’re given. Only when white people have ceased to exist will a peaceful and progressive society – free of racism and hatred – be possible. The only way to eliminate white privilege, white oppression, white racism, and the oppressive white power structure is to eliminate white people altogether.
So, yes, white supremacists: diversity is indeed white genocide. And white genocide is exactly what the world needs more than anything else.”
Forgive me that was quite a long item but consider this. If one of us wrote an article in which you imagine changing “white” for any other group we would no doubt be under arrest.
In this case some people must have at least complained because Thought Catalogue has removed it saying “the article you are trying to read has been reported by the community as hateful or abusive content”!
We now need to pursue Emily Goldstein in the same way that she would be pursued if she wrote something for example anti-Semitic. Ladies and gentlemen what do you think?
So ladies and gentlemen turning to the English Democrats, what do we need to do to help focus people on the English Cause?
As I have said on previous occasions, politics is more of a war than an argument. We need to build up our resources and our fighting skills and all things needed to fight this war.
Just consider this information from the Daily Mail:-
“Businesses and wealthy individuals ploughed £24.8million into Theresa May’s coffers – compared to Jeremy Corbyn’s £9.4millions, funded largely by the unions.
The Prime Minister’s decision to call the snap election in April led to the humiliating loss of 13 seats two months later. Labour surged, denying the Conservatives a majority despite their much smaller election war chest.
Electoral Commission data shows the election prompted parties to raise a record £40 million in donations in the three months between April and June.
The Liberal Democrats received £4.4 million and the Scottish National Party £600,000.
UKIP, which was boosted by a £1 million donation from businessman Arron Banks ahead of the 2015 election, was much less well-funded in 2017, receiving just £150,000.”
Ladies and gentlemen I can tell you here and now that, in my view, if we had just half a million pounds, let alone all the millions that the Establishment Parties have, together with all their years of brand recognition etc., I would expect us to make that great breakthrough for England!
If we had just one MEP come over to us we would be entitled to three Party Political Broadcasts a year. But when you turn to look at the party that is most likely to break up in the near future, UKIP, what do you see?
Ladies and gentlemen what you see is a party that hates the very idea of England amongst almost all its leaders. There is only one leadership candidate in the UKIP leadership election who has said he supports an English Parliament and that is David Kurton, one of their two London Assembly members. What an irony for a party which sometimes claims to be campaigning for England that there should only be him among the contenders that supports any English Parliament! The most openly hostile one was David Coburn, UKIP’s Scottish Leader, who openly says he hates English nationalists.
The one thing you can be sure of is that whoever of their candidates wins this leadership election then there are some MEPs who have already said that they will be leaving UKIP if that person wins!
So UKIP is in the process of fragmentation. It has probably now reached the stage that it is irreversible and, although it has got further to fall than the BNP had six or seven years ago, it is worth remembering that the BNP is now virtually non-existent and probably would have completely disappeared if it were not for the fact that every now and again they get a substantial legacy from elderly supporters who have lost the mental capacity to be allowed to make a new Will since the BNP’s collapse.
Every now and again I get the opportunity to quote a bit of the ancient Chinese Philosopher of War, Sun Tzu, “Master Sun”, and so far as we are concerned he has words of political patience to offer us, which are:- “If you sit long enough on the riverbank, the body of your enemy will float past”!
So ladies and gentlemen what is the future of the English Democrats and of the English Cause I hear you ask. Ladies and gentlemen is there anybody out there asking that question? Thank you!
Well the first thing to be said is the question of English nationalism and of what should happen for England has now been recognised even by one of our academic groups of enemies in University College London in the form of their Constitution Unit.
Those who are particularly interested in the constitutional question may remember that the Constitution Unit was founded by Gordon Brown and his circle with the principal objective of undermining any calls for a united England!
Whilst I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the academics in the Constitution Unit are in any sense our friends, nevertheless they have now reached a point where they think that this is an issue that they need to address and they currently have a project in place to look options for an English Parliament.
Whilst that is not as powerful an indicator of the importance of the issue as large numbers of people demanding it on the streets would be, it does show that amongst constitutional thinkers it is becoming clearer and clearer that the arguments that we have made all along are more and more difficult for the anti-English British Establishment to dismiss.
Of course they still want to break us up into “Regions”.
Of course they want to criminalise people that stick up for England, but just think of Gandhi’s famous saying “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”. Just think where we are on that scale.
I recently had a meeting with a former Labour MP who said the disconnect between the British Establishment and the English People is now so great that the UK Constitution is like a very badly loaded brick lorry driving along the road. You can see that the bricks are going to start falling off soon but you can’t be sure exactly when or exactly what the damage will be!
We have come a long way but we do still have a great challenge ahead of us to make the breakthrough that we need to do for our Party, for England and for the English Nation. We need to build up our Party and to do our best to energise our local organisations and the facilities, our political candidates to maximum the opportunity.
Ladies and gentlemen I hope we will go forth from this conference with renewed determination to win a united national future for England.
England has been one of the great countries of the world. It can be a great country on earth again. The English Nation has been great and can be great again.
Just let’s take a leaf out of Trump’s campaign book, let’s Make England Great Again! Let’s make our slogan “Make England Great Again! MEGA, ladies and gentlemen, we want a MEGA future. What do you say? Make England Great Again!
LABOUR IN TURMOIL IN SCOTLAND AGAIN
Kezia Dugdale, the Labour Scottish Leader, has just resigned with immediate effect after only serving a two year period since 15th August 2015.
On the face of it as, under her leadership the Party has gone from one MP to seven, you would have thought she might have been considered a success and be wanting to stay on. But she has resigned with all sorts of rumours as to why she has done so now floating around.
I wonder if the answer might be quite simple?
Ms Dugdale has invested a lot of time and effort in trying to move Labour towards a “Federal” system, whereby the different nations of the United Kingdom would have separate powers defined as against the powers of the centre (i.e. more like the United States of America), than was the case before the devolution process started under Blair.
She seemed to be having some success in terms of the newspaper headlines with it being announced only last week that Labour was going to move to a Federal system.
Here is a link to an article about this >>> Jeremy Corbyn puts federal government 'on the table' if Labour win power | The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-federal-government-kezia-dugdale-devolution-scotland-wales-northern-ireland-stv-a7913876.html
It then came out that the supposed “Federal System” was one in which England wasn’t going to get any representation, but instead the English “Regions” were going to get some sort of limited representation.
But what must have finished it off for her was Jeremy Corbyn’s remarkably stupid remark in answer to a question at a well-publicised Question and Answer session at the Edinburgh Festival in which he said:-
“We are thinking very hard about what forms devolution would take in the future. Devolution in Scotland has gone a long way.
“We are looking at the way we bring about genuine devolution and particularly economic devolution. Could you have a separate economic and legal system in different parts of the UK?
“I think that becomes difficult and very problematic. I want a Labour government that is going to legislate better working conditions for everybody across the UK.”
Here is a link to an article about this >>> Jeremy Corbyn mocked for saying 'problematic' for Scotland to have own legal system - even though it does already | PoliticsHo
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/home-affairs/justice-system/news/88503/jeremy-corbyn-mocked-saying-problematic-scotland-have
The fact that Mr Corbyn could say that about Scotland, which has always had a separate legal system not only shows that the man is profoundly ignorant of the basic constitutional structure of the United Kingdom, but also it gives an insight into his real views. What he said is just like a “spoonerism” where you mis-say a word which gives away your real views.
This comment is a political spoonerism where Jeremy Corby has given away the fact that he generally is not interested in any sort of a Federal system, since of course all Federal systems have to some extent different legal and economic arrangements in the different states!
If YOU had been working on trying to make Labour Federal and then your Leader had come up to Edinburgh and at a high profile event made such a stupid remark which gave away his true opposition to everything you had been working on, wouldn’t you resign too?
I wonder whether we will next hear that Kezie Dugdale has joined her new girlfriend the SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament, Jenny Gilrath in the Scottish National Party?
EU NEGOTIATIONS – DEAL OR NO DEAL?
I have been watching the news reports about the British Government’s negotiations with the EU’s negotiator, Michael Barnier, and also their dealings with Jean-Claude Juncker.
The interesting thing is that, despite predictions of common-sense negotiating at the behest of German car makers, it seems evident that the EU negotiators are behaving in exactly the same kind of way as we are used to EU negotiations taking place in the past.
Had the EU been a different organisation where negotiations could take place flexibly and sensibly and on a common-sense basis, then there can be no doubt that David Cameron would have brought back a far better compromise package, which would probably have resulted in there being a narrow majority for Remain in the referendum.
So the lack of the EU’s willingness to negotiate on anything of significance is part of the reason that we are where we are at the moment.
Almost inevitably the EU is now again adopting an intransigent approach to negotiation, whereby they are not prepared to discuss the financial settlement before the terms of the divorce have been settled. That thinking would be muddled even if we were talking about a real divorce of a married couple.
In a proper divorce the first stage is merely to decide whether or not the situation is one where divorce is proper. In an English court that is now done quite simply. It is more or less taken for granted that if the couple want to divorce they will be able to, provided they can make suitable allegations.
Once the divorce has been ordered, then the court will be prepared to go on and deal with the financial settlement. Clearly there is little intention of having further relations between the divorcing couple except for looking after the children.
This is not the kind of situation that we are in with Brexit. It is not equivalent to a divorce despite some of the rhetoric that claims that it is similar.
If it was a divorce it would be one where the EU were saying that they won’t ever discuss what the arrangements for the children will be until we have settled how much we are going to pay them! That is simply not a way which the court would accept was proper for divorcing couples to behave.
So the EU is not behaving in a proper way.
It is however behaving in exactly the sort of way that you would expect EU apparatchiks to behave, that is in a demanding and dictatorial way the purpose of which is about protecting the EU as an entity, rather than looking after the interests of EU member states, let alone EU citizens!
IS JEREMY CORBYN JUST ANOTHER DECEITFUL POLITICIAN?
On the 17th August Jeremy Corbyn was interviewed by the BBC. The interview went as follows:-
Jeremy Corbyn:-
“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”
BBC interviewer:-
“Do you not think it is a problem with Pakistani men because we have seen in Rochdale, in Rotherham, Newcastle and Oxford that being the problem?”
Jeremy Corbyn replied:-
“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”
BBC interviewer:-
“Did you sack Sarah Champion?”
Jeremy Corbyn replied:-
“No she resigned.”
BBC interviewer:-
“Did you sack or did she resign”
Jeremy Corbyn replied:-
“She resigned”.
BBC interviewer:-
“So you did not sack her?”
Jeremy Corbyn replied:-
“She resigned.”
BBC interviewer:-
“If she had not have resigned would you have sacked her?”
Jeremy Corbyn replied:-
“Well she resigned so that is the question.”
BBC interviewer:-
“Do you think she was right to resign?”
Jeremy Corbyn replied:-
“She resigned and I accepted the resignation.”
BBC interviewer:-
“Do you think she was right to resign?”
Jeremy Corbyn replied:-
“Well I accepted her resignation so clearly I did and I thank her for her commitment to the safety of women and the vulnerability of women and championing equalities in this country and I will be working with her in the future.”
(Here is a link to the original >>> Jeremy Corbyn: Wrong to blame 'entire community' for abuse - BBC News).
This interview was in the context of his being asked about Labour’s Shadow “Equalities Secretary”, Sarah Champion, being forced into the position of resigning by him. Jeremy Corbyn repeatedly denied she had been sacked.
The truth was, of course, that he had made it impossible for her to continue. If she had been an employee that would clearly have been a “Constructive Dismissal” situation. So that was Corbyn’s first deception in this interview.
The second deception in the interview was to claim:-
“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”
Sarah Champion had never said, nor indeed has any commentator from any part of the spectrum, so far as I am aware, ever said that the whole of the Pakistani or Muslim community, or the whole of any Muslim community, or indeed the whole of any community whatsoever, is involved in child sexual exploitation.
What Sarah Champion had pointed out however is nothing more or less than the truth, namely that the gangs of exploiters are principally Pakistani Muslim men (but also include other Muslim men) and also that the “ethnicity” of the victims was almost invariably young white English girls.
Jeremy Corbyn then went on to say that:-
“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”
This was his third deception in the short interview!
Where it is of course true that there are individual paedophiles from all communities, what is certainly not true is that there are gangs of paedophile criminals drugging, raping and prostituting on a hugely profitable commercial scale thousands of young girls from another ethnic or religious group.
The idea that there is any “moral equivalence” is however completely preposterous and shows how far adrift Jeremy Corbyn’s moral compass actually is.
But then that is of course all too true of Labour politicians generally because they are the very Establishment Party that was most involved in protecting the Muslim politician child rape gang members and their “clients” and in closing down any criticism of what was being done and also in concealing it and also in persecuting anybody who opposed that.
So I ask: Is Jeremy Corbyn any more or less deceitful than Tony Blair?
What do you think?
IS THERESA MAY THE WORST PRIME MINISTER EVER?
I saw this question asked on Twitter recently in response to her latest outburst of what would be complete nonsense for any genuine Conservative to say about President Donald Trump finding “equivalence” between alleged fascists and the counter-protesters in Charlottesville.
Speaking with NBC Theresa May blasted Trump saying:- “I see no equivalence between those who propound fascist views and those who oppose them”.
She went on to say:- “ It is important for all those in positions of responsibility to condemn far-right views wherever we hear them”.
The latter is of course an indication of her own politics, but the former is a dubious point especially when considered in the context of the Charlottesville riots.
Also her further remarks to the BBC were equally dubious. Mr Trump had merely said in his press conference on the previous Tuesday that there was “blame on both sides”. “You had a group on one side that was bad”, he said. “You had a group on the other side that was also very violent. Nobody wants to say that. I’ll say it right now”.
Mrs May also went on to tell the BBC:- “As I made clear at the weekend following the horrendous scenes that we saw in Charlottesville, I absolutely abhor the racism, the hatred and the violence that we have seen portrayed by these groups.”
"The United Kingdom has taken action to ban far-right groups here, we have proscribed certain far-right groups here in the United Kingdom.”
And she repeated:- “there is no equivalence."
Here is the link to the article>>> Theresa May on Trump comments: Far-right should always be condemned - BBC News
In effect, Mrs Theresa May, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was using her office to say that Fascists, Nazis, White Supremacists etc., should have no rights.
In fact many of the protesters were there to prevent the destruction of a memorial to the Confederate side of the Civil War.
Furthermore many ordinary white anomalies feel that they have been increasingly pushed into self-identification as “whites” by the increasingly vociferous “community” groups, such as “Black Lives Matter”. A very good article appears about this in the Spectator which I set out below.
It is usually dangerous for a foreign politician to hold forth in the way that Theresa May has about what is going on in America. Of course she doesn’t know and cannot know all the details of what actually happened, but the idea that the “White” protestors are automatically in the wrong and that the “anti-fascist” protestors are automatically in the right is simply bizarre.
Is she really saying that Fascism and Nazism is automatically worse than Communism when history tells us that the Communists have killed vastly more people than the Fascists and Nazis did?
Is she really saying that there is “no moral equivalence” because the killing of the victims of Communism as “class enemies” is more understandable than the “racial” victims of Nazism?
I once heard a BBC broadcast interview of the former student Far-Leftist radical, Tariq Ali. He was saying why he thought that Stalin’s 55 million dead didn’t make Stalin worse than Hitler with his 6 million dead because Stalin’s killings were about class not race! Is Mrs May now lining herself up with the Far-Left?
If Theresa May is saying that Communist mass murderers have no “moral equivalence” to Fascist ones then I would suggest that what this shows unequivocally is that she is not a “Conservative” in any meaningful sense.
In considering whether Theresa May is a “Conservative” it is worth bearing in mind that she was the principal architect behind the push for gay marriage; also that when she was Shadow Home Secretary and the then Home Secretary, Harriet Harman (aka Hattie Harperson), introduced her Equalities Bill, having said that her Bill was “socialism in a single bill”, Mrs May responded in the House of Commons that she on behalf of the Conservatives welcomed the Bill. Theresa May said that she only regretted that it didn’t go far enough!
I am not sure whether all of this makes her the worse Prime Minister ever, but it certainly does add grist to the point which I made when she first emerged as the Conservative Leader, that I thought that she was likely to be the Conservatives equivalent of Gordon Brown.
Here is a link to my speech saying that >>> Robin Tilbrook: CHAIRMAN’S SPEECH AT THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CONFERENCE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2016
http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/chairmans-speech-at-english-democrats.html
I think her latest comments show that she is going to prove to be worse than Gordon Brown, not only on her track record of action, but also on her cack-handed attitude to dealing with foreign affairs.
When she was Home Secretary she was intimately involved in welcoming various foreign leaders from the Chinese President downwards with far more questionable “moral equivalence” than Mr Trump!
Of course it may be that Theresa May thinks they didn’t matter because they weren’t Westerners and therefore their repressive states don’t challenge her Blairite Left-Liberal world view!
The whole determination by multi-culturalists to destroy statues of historic figures which the protesters were trying to prevent in Chalottesville is intended to wipe away any of the monuments to our history. This is not only a phenomenon in America (where they are even now talking about trying to get rid of statues of George Washington because he owned slaves!). It has happened here also.
Remember when an ungrateful South African student, who had been sent to Oxford on the Cecil Rhodes Scholarship repaid his benefactor by trying to have Rhodes’ statue removed from Oriel College! No doubt Cecil Rhodes remark that “to be born an Englishman was to have won the lottery of life” was too unbearable to multi-culturalists to allow his statue to remain, however great his charitable giving!
I suspect that, given the chance Theresa May would prove just as much of a failure at genuine conservatism over such a statue here in England as she has been in her comments!
Here is the article from the Spectator by Brendan O’Neill, which I think puts all these points about 'moral equivalence' into a sensible context.
What do you think?
The violent product of identity politics
"Identity politics is turning violent. It’s been brewing for a while. Anyone who’s witnessed mobs of students threatening to silence white men or Islamists gruffly invading the space of secular women who diss their dogmas will know that, as with all forms of communalism, identity politics has a menacing streak. And at the weekend, in Charlottesville, Virginia, it blew up. That ugly clash between blood-and-soil while nationalists and people crying ‘black lives matter’ is the logical outcome of the identitarian scourge, of the relentless racialisation of public life.
Charlottesville was both shocking and unsurprising. It was shocking because here we had actual Nazis, waving swastika flags, in 21st century America, the land of the free. That is deeply disturbing. But it is also unsurprising because in recent years, across the West, people have been invited, implored in fact, to think racially. To be ‘racially aware’. To think of themselves as belonging to a particular race, and to believe their racial make-up confers certain privileges or penalties on them – it shapes them. The young men hollering about ‘white pride’ at Charlottesville are surely responding to this racial invitation. They’re being ‘racially aware’.
To those of us who believe in racial equality, who admire Martin Luther King’s vision of a society in which character counts for more than colour, the rise of this PC and profoundly divisive racial consciousness has felt alarming. The pressure to view every aspect of life and culture through a racial lens has become intense. The academy wrings its hands over all the Dead White European Males in the canon. Student radicals claim white philosophy isn’t suited to black students. The idea of ‘racial microaggressions’ invites us to view even everyday conversation as loaded with racial tension. Leftists regularly claim that Brexit and Trump and other things they hate are the fault of ‘old white men’. ‘Dear White People’, say PC people before launching into a diatribe against ‘white’ behaviour. Race has become the explanation for everything, the obsession of the age.
Things have got so bad that anyone who seeks to resist racial thinking, on the humanist basis that people are individuals rather than bundles of DNA or the unwitting products of history, can expect to be rounded on. To say ‘I don’t see race’ is actually quite racist, says a writer for the Guardian. The University of California’s guide to acceptable speech – many campuses have one these days – describes statements like ‘I don’t believe in race’ and ‘There is only one race, the human race’ as ‘microaggressions’, because they fail to acknowledge the individual as a ‘racial/cultural being’ in the past, refusing to treat individuals as racial/cultural beings was a good thing. Now it’s bad. You must treat people as expressions of race. And if you don’t, you’re racist. Talk about doublespeak.
This is the foul nature of identity politics. It defines people, not by their achievements or beliefs, not by their character or work, but by their skin colour, their genitals, their sexuality. By their inherited traits rather than things they’ve done through the exercise of their own autonomy. ‘As a black woman’, ‘As a white man’, ‘As a mixed-race genderqueer’… these are the baleful prefaces to speech and debate in the 21st century, because what matters most is not what a person believes in but what shade their skin is or what chromosomes they possess. Biology trumps belief: a full and foul reversal of the modern, enlightened idea that the individual can escape the circumstances of his birth and determine his destiny for himself.
And as part of this truly nasty business, we have witnessed the rise of white identity. Some people have an apparently ‘correct’ white identity: they check their white privilege, they go on demos with placards saying ‘I was going to write my opinion, but it’s probably about time white men just shut up and listened’. White shame. And others, like those gurning torch-carriers at Charlottesville, have a bad white identity: they love being white, they think it’s better than being black, they flirt with Nazi ideology. White pride. But these seemingly opposed whites share something very important in common: they’ve embraced racial identity. They define themselves as white. They have responded to the cry of the identitarian and made themselves into racial creatures. And both sides bristle with menace, as can be seen in the contorted faces of the ‘bad whites’ in the all-right and in those ‘good whites’ who yesterday pulled down the Confederate Soldiers statue in North Carolina and then kicked and spat on it.
Those whites at Charlottesville look to me the ugly products of identity politics, of the elevation of trait over conviction, nature over character. Popular culture and the mainstream media say over and over again, ‘You are white, you are a white man, that is your identity, that is your privilege, admit it and own it’, and those men have simply turned around and said: ‘Okay’. A serious problem in this millennium perhaps the biggest problem, is the retreat from universalism, the surrender of the racial imagination. It has green-lighted a neo-racialism without realising how lethal this is. Anyone who thinks they can racialize public life without creating tension and storing up violence is clearly unfamiliar with history.
(Here is a link to the original>>>
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/08/the-violent-product-of-identity-politics/)
MULTI-CULTURALISTS HISTORICAL LIES EXPOSED!
I have just read a very interesting and profoundly significant book by Dario Fernandez-Morera, the Associate Professor at the Department of Spanish and Portuguese in North Western University. The book is called “The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise – Muslims, Christians and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain”. The book has been very thoroughly researched and, for the academically minded, has nearly 100 pages of closely typed footnotes providing sources and evidence for every assertion.
The reason such detailed research is required is because the effect of the book is to explode the unhistorical Leftist theory that has been put forward by academics, politicians and media commentators that Islamic Spain or Al-Andalus was a “multi-culturalist” and “Diverse” paradise.
In fact as Professor Fernandez-Morera shows in comprehensive detail, the written sources, whether they be Islamic or Christian or Jewish, are all agreed there was nothing more or less than the typical Islamist tyranny with widespread executions and discriminatory legal rules suppressing, in particular, Christians.
The current political importance of this research is that it means that those Leftists advocating “multi-culturalism” are now left with no Islamic example in history where “multi-culturalism” and “diversity” has worked nicely, instead what we are left with is very many examples where multi-culturalism has led either to civil war or the need for a ruthless tyranny to put down the dissident elements within the area controlled by that State.
It should however be remembered that “multi-culturalism” has been adopted or fostered by most Empires throughout history. In the case of the British Empire it is worth remembering its record of applying the ancient Roman imperial formula of “Divide and Rule” (“divide et impera”).
I wrote about that, as regards Malaya, in this article >>> THE IMPERIALISTIC ROOTS OF MULTI-CULTURALISM
http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/the-imperialistic-roots-of-multi.html.
Within pre-First World War Europe the key example of a multi-culturalist state was the Austro-Hungarian Empire with its detailed rules on the entitlements of the various ethnic groups within that Empire.
When reading Professor Fernandez-Morera’s book I often wondered about the motivation of the various historians who are quoted telling the most outrageous lies about what life was like in Al-Andalus.
It would be very interesting to know whether their remarks are a product of both sloppy research and of simply going with the least line of resistance in following those others who have made similar remarks, or whether they have a specific purpose in distorting the history to make out that Islamic Spain was ruled justly and thus to ignore the sufferings and oppression of the subjugated Christians.
Given that academics do not mislead in the same way in writing about other parts of the world, such as when Christians subjugated others in more modern Colonial history, it seems to me to be far more likely that the misleading about Medieval Islamic Span has been done deliberately and has been done to specifically advance the multi-culturalist political project with an eye to undermining our own culture and civilisation.
Do read it for yourself and see what you think!
Here is a link to buy the book >>> The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain: Dario Fernandez-Morer
https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Andalusian-Paradise-Christians-Medieval/dp/1610170954
THE SCANDAL OF BBC WAGES – THE REAL STORY IS NOT THE INEQUALITY BUT THE EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION TAKEN FROM TAXPAYERS FUNDS
I have read with amazement the mainstream media’s coverage of the BBC’s pay scandal which in its obsession with politically correct equality seems to have missed the main common sense point.
It should be remembered that the BBC exists primarily on a so-called syndicated tax. This is the “Licence Fee” which forces us all to pay the BBC £147 for the right to use a television whether we watch the BBC or not.
Any of us that do not pay the “Licence Fee” can be prosecuted and potentially sent to prison.
It is also worth remembering that everyone of those whose taxpayer funded pay has just been revealed is being paid more than the Prime Minister (who is currently paid p.a. £150,402)!
So now we all know where so much of our money goes!
It seems that it is being paid to people whose contribution to any serious public interest benefit (which you might expect from a taxpayer funded entity) is often extremely questionable.
It is also interesting to consider what these now revealed salaries show about the BBC's bias. Almost all their top names are Leftist Remainers! In fact the only one who isn’t, that I have noticed so far, is Andrew Neil.
I ask you:-
1. Whether Chris Evans, with his declared pay of £2.2m (14,966 times the licence fee!), or Graham Norton, with his declared pay of £850,000 (5,783 times the licence fee), are doing anything socially useful that is worth such a huge amount of taxpayer money?
2. Also whether even the supposedly more serious “public interest” broadcasting personnel, such as Huw Edwards (£600,000), Eddie Mair (£425,000) are worth anything like the money they are being paid?
In the circumstances I wonder if I would be alone in suggesting that far from raising any of the BBC’s women’s salaries, what should be done is to reduce the salaries of all those relevant employees of the BBC so that none gets more than the Prime Minister?
Further I would say that as regards all positions that are taxpayer funded – that is right across the UK State – all their pay should be subject to a maximum figure of what the Prime Minister gets, unless there is a specific reason justifying the exception (such as the need to recruit a particular person whose salary has to exceed the Prime Minister for reasons of competition with other potential employers).
Given the general lack of talent amongst senior UK State employees, and the UK’s various quangos, I would doubt whether that condition would often be met!
Who would agree?
