Total Visits

Friday, 29 January 2016

Winston McKenzie and the Big Brother House "stitch-up"

Winston McKenzie and the Big Brother House "stitch-up"

As announced shortly before Christmas, we in the National Council of the English Democrats were pleased to be approached by the former UKIP candidate and high profile spokesman, Winston McKenzie, who wished to be our London Mayoral candidate. I was pleased to announce the National Council’s decision after our selection of him.

At that time we did know that Winston McKenzie was going to go into the Big Brother House and obviously hoped he would boost his candidacy and also the name recognition of the English Democrats.

It was also a useful milestone in showing the progress of the English nationalist Cause that a member of the “ethnic minorities” now identifies himself as having English national identity and as being a Black Englishman. If English nationalism is going to prosper and England is going to have a future then we do need people who are not “ethnically” English, but are culturally so, to identify as being of English National Identity.

It is instructive by contrast to consider the Right Honorable David Donald Cameron MP, who: despite benefitting from the best that England can give; despite being partly English by heredity; despite being born in England; despite being brought up in England; despite going to one of the most famous and historic English Public Schools; despite going to the most famous English university, Oxford; despite working in England and also despite representing an English Parliamentary seat, nevertheless when asked by Andrew Marr whether he was going to look after the interests of his English constituents by getting rid of the Barnett Formula (the unfair additional spending on every man, woman and child in Scotland over and above what is spent in England at English taxpayers expense (which last year topped over £1,900 each), nevertheless when asked that question Dave Cameron said:- “No! Because I’m a Cameron and there is quite a lot of Scottish blood flowing through these veins!”

I suspect that the Big Brother management and production team, who, in multi-culturalist quota terms, are disproportionately homosexual, had decided to make an example of Winston for his reported remarks of several years ago, when he was a UKIP spokesman, when he purportedly suggested that, as an evangelical Christian, he thought that the best way to bring up children was in a traditional married family of mother and father. As part of also saying that he was opposed to “gay marriage”, he said that he thought that fostering children into such a “family” was almost child abuse.

Whilst quite a lot of people would either not necessarily agree with this remark or would not have gone so far as to put it that way (we know all too well that leaving children in the hands of the State is the most likely way in which a child is going to wind up being abused, as demonstrated all too clearly in Rotherham), nevertheless, if we did actually live in a free country (as we used to say) then he would have been within his rights to say such a thing.

In the event Big Brother’s management went about their self-appointed task of vilifying Winston McKenzie. First of all by editing down an interview of an hour or so to less than 5 minutes in which they took out of context a rather ordinary old fashioned joke about keeping his “back to the wall” if he was put in a bedroom with gays. The media then blew that up as being the main thing that he was saying.

Big Brother’s in-house commentator, whose, so far as I can see, sole claim to fame is that he is gay, announced from the start that Winston was going to be removed at the earliest opportunity.

It then came out that Big Brother had changed the rules to have the first eviction on the first Friday. They then started taking about building a wall that Winston could be up against when he was interviewed after being evicted.

Then as part of the eviction they took the votes of the public. As someone who has never previously watched Big Brother and has certainly no interest in ever watching it again, I am led to believe that they take payment for people voting. I suspect because the vote did not go the way they wanted they then got the other contestants to vote.

Interestingly for the thesis that the whole voting charade was as the comedian, Jim Davidson, tweeted “a stitch up”; the information given to the other contestants in the Big Brother vote about the other candidates was not prejudicial, but in the case of Winston they told the story about gay marriage and child abuse. Given the disproportionate numbers of gays in the house and the general quality of the other individuals that made it inevitable that he would be thrown out. He was then subjected to a tirade by one of the Big Brother so called “personalities” and ejected from the programme.

Winston’s comments and attitudes, which were focus of this hate campaign, do not represent English Democrats Party policy, they are personal to him. However we do oppose political correctness and we do strongly support the English traditional liberty of free speech. Whereas what was amply demonstrated here was that the Gay Lobby and their Leftist supporters in the British Establishment media are totally against free speech for anyone except themselves. In other words they are only in favour of Leftist propaganda and do not deserve to be given any credibility as either professionals or as journalists.

Steve Uncles, our Campaign Director was invited onto a BBC radio show and the recording of that interview is below. I think it would be hard to find a better demonstration of the New Establishment/British Political Media class' attitude to free speech and to prejudice than this interview.

Here is a link to the interview >>>

What do you think?

As the great Roman Historian Gaius Cornelius Tacitus once wrote:- “If you would know who controls you then you should look for whom you may not criticise.” An observation which, if pondered, still yields useful insights about the world today and our society!


  1. I am beginning to lose the plot a bit. We have been referred to the destructive aim of multiculturalism and to Lawrence Auster's essay. Francis speaks of the genocide of the ethnic English and indeed of all whites. I thought that the EDs were a party pledged to defend the ethnic English from genocide and restore England to they way it had been before the unmaking of England occurred. Interested to hear other comments.

    Meanwhile US General Wesley Clarke has had things to say about the role of the Federal Reserve Bank in the weakening of Europe, the creation of ISIS as their weapon in world domination etc. This brings us to the subject of anti-Semitism as we know who is behind the Federal Reserve and most of hegemonic world finance. I dreamt last night about anti-Semitism and my views since discovering so much in the last 30 years. But I wish to stress the difference between Zionists and Jews and thousands of Jews have died for the aims of an elite few as have millions of Europeans as William Mallinson has just said.

  2. Bring on the clowns

    1. They're already here

    2. Robin, don't know what happened to my last posting about the genocide of the English with a native English minority in about a decade and a white minority by 2070. And the fact that you should be backing a native English candidate in London for the native English who are still left there but in a minority in what used to be their capital. Perhaps it will appear in due course. Did Lawrence Austin say that they would vote BNP given the chance. Perhaps that is why the BNP who warned about race replacement, have suddenly been removed from the political scene.

  3. Three points. Firstly, Steve Uncles' treatment by the bullying radio interviewer was disgraceful. He was not allowed to complete a sentence, let alone a point, without being shouted down. I hope suitable protests have been made to the programme's producers.
    Second, it demonstrates that challenging and defeating Political Correctness as the enemy of free speech and of democracy itself should rise to the top of our priorities. The purpose of Political Correctness is to enable politicians and journalists to write off people who make comments that are not PC by labelling them "xenophobes", "homophobes", "racists" etc, and as such, not to be listened to on any matter. A non-PC remark is both "wrong" and "bad" and justifies (in the eyes of the Politically Correct,) behaviour such as was displayed by that interviewer.
    Third, since PC has this stranglehold on freedom of speech and we have all succumbed to it to a greater or lesser extent, the lesson of this business has to be, "if you don't want your words to be jumped upon by the Politically Correct, don't say anything that can be by choosing your words very carefully." Donald Trump can get away with it but as things stand, we will throw away all chances of electoral success if we leave ourselves open, through ill-judged remarks, to maulings from Politically Correct journalists. I fear that Winston McKenzie's forthcoming campaign will be dogged by quotes from that interview. For the time being, until such time as we have some influence, we have to play by the Politically Correct's rules. If we don't we're never going to have any influence.

    1. political correctness and anti-racism are pure and simple Marxist concepts.

    2. Clive you are right. We need to use the same weapons ie Race Relations Acts, Hate Speech and so against our enemies. We need to take legal action because nothing else is working.

    3. Robin is meant to be the expert on legal action and I have suggested he go to court over genocide of the English people. He does not seem to have responded. I see that Charlotte Rampling was going on about anti-white racism. Does anybody have chapter and verse on that one?

  4. I agree with Clive in that we have to play by the Politically Correct's rules. The English Democrats might as well pack up now if they don't. The 'Politically Correct' are in control of things and will be for the foreseeable future, end of. Winston's 'joke' from his own perspective, may have been a bit of lighthearted banter to which a few pub goers would find amusing. But he should have known that some people would find the comment offensive. How any self ascribed politician such as Winston McKenzie can think that he can get away with a comment like that is beyond belief and serious questions should be asked about his selection to be the ED's London mayoral candidate. He should have known, the 'Politically Correct' will seize on a comment like that and rip him and the ED's apart.

    As for Mcenzie's views generally, although they are personal to him they are pretty regressive on certain subjects to be fair and not likely to appeal to any mass groundswell of potential support for the English Democrats. I agree with Robin that this was a "useful milestone in showing the progress of the English nationalist Cause that a member of the “ethnic minorities” now identifies himself as having English national identity and as being a Black Englishman." So what a pity that Mckenzie holds views which went out with the arc.

    Mckenzie's hyper religious views may appeal to some English Democrat members who would like a return to pre 1960 but most of the general public would not countenance such outdated views and the English Democrats by appointing people with such views to prominent positions, will consequently, continue to languish in the polls.

    To get anywhere, the English Democrats should be saying we are in favour of gay equality not sending out the opposite message. Its ironic that these English Democrat members who share Mckenzie's religious views are so opposed to Islam when their views are in fact very similar, an Islamic system would be right up their street.