David Cameron pursues Labour's "Democracy Crusade", How many British lives will be lost this time?

I welcome the news today that EU leaders rebuffed Cameron's plans to create an internationally enforced no fly zone against Libya.
The Prime Minister warned Europe that  more must be done, which could include bombing Libyan air fields. This  in Cameron's words is needed to stop Gaddafi rampaging against his own people. Now I am not in support of President Gaddafi, as we all know he was a huge arms supplier to the IRA. But when Cameron states that he is rampaging against his own people,  we expect to see your average citizen armed with a placard or at the most a stone. Which was the scene in Egypt and the like recently, but in Libya the " people" are armed with anti-aircraft guns and in one picture that I have seen even a tank. Rather than this being a campaign against the Libyan people, is it  rather a campaign against a rebel group trying to usurp the leader and administration of an independent sovereign state.

The intervention against Cameron's sabre rattling was led by Labour peer Lady Ashton ( ex-CND treasurer and communist), who you may remember was in the headlines in November 2009 when Tony Blair was attempting to become President of the EU Council. When the EU resoundingly resisted Blair's intentions,  Gordon Brown had to "reluctantly" accept the British only receiving the position of  High Representative for EU foreign affairs and security policy given to Lady Ashton ( in which she was woefully under qualified).
There are probably two main reasons that she objected to her own government's proposals. The first being that Lady Ashton and the Labour Party would not want David Cameron to be portrayed as the western saviour of the Libyan people, which in light of what her aide described as " headline grabbing desperation"by Cameron, would seem to be a prime reason.
The second reason is also that as representative of the Labour government which in the last decade has had it's fair share of sabre rattling in the apparent crusade of democracy (in which it sadly Labour denied to its own people i.e referendums on the Lisbon treaty and whether Britain wanted mass colonization) she is fully aware of what catastrophic mistakes these democracy crusades are.
But even if Cameron's proposals were actually acted upon by the EU, what exactly could the EU as a military force actually do? As can be seen from the dismal effort in Afghanistan by the main EU military powers (except Britain), they are very reluctant to put their own personnel's lives at risk or to contemplate the use of their very expensive equipment. Therefore Cameron can try as much has he likes to convince the EU to agree to a no fly zone but militarily rather than morally the EU could not agree to a no fly zone or to enforce it. The EU military body can only be propelled by America, so as usual EU moralist's must wait upon the decisions of the American's as to whether they will flex their military muscle.
This also goes to show how monumentally short sighted it was and is for the ConLib regime to slaughter our armed forces in the cutbacks to fund foreign aid.

There are three options available to interventionists:-
1) Apply trade sanctions, which must also include the west banning oil imports from Libya
2) Military intervention
3) Allowing the peoples of Libya to decide their own destiny and to achieve it on their own

The sanctions against Iraq during the Saddam era proves that trade sanctions will not oust a leader, and the west can not suspend it's addiction to oil.Therefore this should not be an option, as it can only really harm the Libyan people. It also makes western crusaders look hypocritical " You are a human rights abuser and we dont like you, but we want your oil".
Military intervention is only an option if America decides it is, this will depend on how much time it will take for them to get their resources in place so they can extract oil ( their main motivation).
The only option that i can see that could be successful is to let Libya decide it's own fate. If the people truly wish to overthrow their dictator they will succeed in the end, Gaddafi could never really regain control even if the rebels are crushed. Rebel areas will never be able to effectively administered again , because without doubt there will be a protracted guerrilla campaign until he is overthrown.
This article was written to promote the opinion that the west's reaction to the Libyan crisis is not concerned with the human rights of those poor people but ultimately about gaining access to Libyan oil. The west knows that a new revolutionary government would be easier to control and manipulate than a dictorial regime, which explains why the UK has sent in diplomats with the SAS. This is to foster that manipulation at the embryonic stages of this revolutionary movement.
Another point i wish to make concerns the sheer hypocrisy of David Cameron. As many of you know Cameron is one of the founding members of the UAF, which as a militant extremist organisation uses physical violence against the BNP which is a legitimate political party. If that is not enough, the BNP also faces active state subversion of our party, be it through tax payer funded infiltrators or government quangos to destroy the party. David Cameron and the Foreign office actively condemn and indeed invade countries that use violence and state intimidation against political parties and deny the people a voice, but that is exactly what the British state is doing here now.
If in the future a nationalist rebel group sought to overthrow our repressive socialist state, would the likes of Cameron simply say yes lets allow them peacefully to overthrow our undemocratic political system? One would doubt that, as already we the BNP a legitimate political have had everything thrown at us to destroy us other than sending in the army to kill us off.
David Cameron should devote his time to repairing our failed democratic system, supposedly the envy of the world, but is in fact no better than a third world banana state.

Nick Griffin gave this statement:
‘It’s beyond madness,’ said Mr. Griffin, talking to journalists in Brussels. ‘It’s up to the Libyans to decide whether they want to be ruled by an elderly kleptomaniac sex addict or by the Islamists who will emerge as the strongest force among the rebels. But either way, regime change in Libya is not worth the bones of one single British soldier or airman.

‘For Cameron to fantasise about imposing a no-fly zone on Libya while simultaneously slashing the RAF is particularly crazy. With a ConDem closure of RAF Leuchars and Kinloss, the stark reality is that the only air force David Cameron is going to destroy is Britain’s.

‘If Cameron and his American puppet-masters do invade Libya, the British National Party will immediately launch a high-profile high-street campaign to focus popular rejection of such warmongering lunacy, and against the crippling Oil Shock fuel prices that will get even worse if the US further enrages the Arab world by openly trying to steal their oil


http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/%E2%80%98have-they-learned-nothing-afghanistan%E2%80%99

Schools of hate

A panarama investigation revealed that children as young as 6 were being indoctrinated into believing that jewish people are planning to take over the world. Some were also told that some jews were turned into pigs and apes, and all non muslims would burn in hell fire.
The claims are made in textbooks following the Saudi national curriculum and are being taught to thousands of children. These so called schools escape OFSTED inspection because they are taught voluntary at weekends.
The Saudi students club and schools network that operates the schools refused to comment on whether the books had been removed.
The education secretary Michael Grove stated that it was inappropriate to teach anti-semitism and homophobia.
The most offensive thing about this story to me is the fact that these so called schools are being labelled as British schools. The educational system in this country should have nothing to do with that disgusting, backward desert religion.
These schools shut be shut down immediately, but as usual our politicians sit on the fencepost by criticising Anti-semitism and homophobia in general rather than on the religion that espouses such things.

The end to welfare dependency in sight? Or are the Tories just using diluted BNP policies

At the core of the BNP's welfare policy is the belief that benefits are  meant to be the state's obligation to support those who are genuinely not in a position to support themselves.This is a guiding principle that will ensure that the system will remain just and humane.

Britain faces a 192 billion Pounds a year bill for social security, with estimated cost of fraud at around 5 billion Pounds a year.

Labour's 13 year rule as led to socialist state induced welfare dependency, that as led to an idle nation. Ask any Polish immigrant why s/he is here, and s/he will tell you that British people are too lazy to work. I know this for a fact, after meeting many eastern European farm labourers, who have all said this. I have tried to argue the case for the British worker, but have sadly come to the same conclusion. The state has deliberately created welfare dependency to make it more profitable for British workers to stay in bed than go to work. Therefore if British workers wont work, the economy then needs immigrant workers to fill the void. Therefore maintaining the myth that the multicultural state is beneficial to Britain.

The existence of welfare dependency culture is evident from the fact that 6 million people live in homes where no one person works.

The BNP's policy on workfare not welfare, is the only way this country can destroy this dependency culture.
The principle is simple, those who receive support also incur obligations. People who genuinely want to work will be provided with the training to get them back into employment.If you receive benefits, you have to provide voluntary work for so many hours week. This should provide renewed motivation, to work rather than to be idle.This policy is about re-educating people to believe that you get money and self esteem from doing an honest days work for decent pay rather than waking up one morning and expecting the state to pay for your existence, just because you were born a British citizen.

There will be only one category for welfare entitlement, those who genuinely deserve it or have earned it. Those who can work but refuse to do so, must face the consequences of their own actions

The  the workfare not welfare program as proven to be extremely successful in America, Australia and even in India

It is equally important that the burden of foreign scroungers be dealt with effectively. These so called asylum seekers, travel through Europe just to get to soft touch Britain, when they have travelled through numerous safe states. This practise must be stopped and one of the ways is to refuse benefits to asylum seeker's who have bypassed numerous safe states just to get here to rape our generosity.

The reason i have written this article, is because of the conservatives new right wing posturing over benefits. Which is ultimately to please increasingly unhappy conservative activists who are sick of Cameron's disgusting new labour socialist conservatism.
The new three strikes and your off benefits rule, has already been shown to be completely useless. Originally DWP officials stated that if you broke the new rule, the claimants benefits would be cut off. The DWP has now back tracked on this, saying that any penalty would depend on how much money the claimant has got, whether they had a family to support and the seriousness of the welfare abuse. This will allow fraudsters to be prosecuted but still claim some benefits, so in total just a complete waste of tax payers money.

new measures to cut fraud and reform the welfare system include:-
- A new national welfare investigation service ( yet another layer of bureaucracy and waste)
- a mobile task force of investigators who can swoop on hot spots of benefits abuse
- sharing data from public and private agencies to track professional fraudsters
- extra powers to seize assets of benefit cheats

Lord Freud said that " when people are convicted we will get back the money we are owed, introduce tough punishments". Now this statement is a load of rubbish if a person is receives benefits in the first place, they must either have no employment or earn below an income band to get additional welfare payouts. In affect any money that has to be paid back in the event of a conviction for fraud will come from welfare payments that the fraudster will still be receiving. The state will not get anything back, it will actually lose money, in fees for prosecution ( courts fees and legal aid) and employment of state officials to investigate the fraud.

It is yet another increase in the big brother state, spying on the activities of people on benefits rather than changing welfare attitudes.
Ultimately the new system will fail, because welfare dependant culture will carry on, fraudsters will just up their game trying to not to get caught out.
That's why the BNP policy on workfare is the only viable option, it will change the culture of dependency and idleness. combined with the BNP's economic policy ( developing British industry and making the country as self sufficient as possible) their will be work for British people, decent work not just flipping burgers.

Budgets for voluntary groups in Ashfield are to be slashed

Nottinghamshire County council have written to voluntary and community groups in Nottinghamshire to inform them their funding will be dramatically reduced.

Funding from the county council account for as much as 70% of community groups budgets. The austerity measures have been brought in to place as the council struggles to save up to a hundred and fifty million pounds over the next three years. 

Alan Lloyd, chief executive of Mansfield CVS (Community and Voluntary Services), says the cuts will have a ‘debilitating’ effect on the voluntary sector but the county council could not be blamed.

“I have worked with the county council for 15 years and have always found it a strong supporter of the voluntary sector,” he said.

“Unfortunately the council has found itself in this position but ordinary people will feel the effects.”

The CVS is expecting to see its funding cut by up to 70 per cent across the board, which will reduce the amount of work it can do with the unemployed, the elderly and other vulnerable groups.

“The need for these services is going up but the resources for them is going down,” Mr Lloyd said.

“But we have to make the best of it. The voluntary sector is very resilient and we will hopefully get back to where we were in two to three years or so.”

These latest cutbacks come on top of proposed mass redundancies reported in August. Up to 3000 redundancies were reported to being made by the county council in August.

But at the same time the County council employed Greg Michael, with a hundred and ten thousand pound salary, to advise on cost cutting measures.

How can the conservatives bring about their idea of the big society, volunteers replacing paid employees providing essential services, when the volunteer groups can no longer afford to survive?

It is apparent now more than ever that the three main parties cannot be trusted to run our country.  The constant cycle of Labour taking this country into recession, the conservatives then slashing everything to it's knees cannot be repeated forever.

Its time now for the citizens of Ashfield to wake up, and see that there as to be a change from the old gang parties. They have to vote BNP, to secure a better future for their children.

Islamic face veil part of the British way of life

The Think tank report by Civitas, concludes that the Islamic face veil is a part of being British, and should be celebrated in the same way as the crucifix.

The author of the report, Alveena Malik (not surprisingly a faith advisor to the previous bloody labour government) notes that the test for whether a religious symbol is whether it is practical.

The report "Women, Islam and western liberalism"  goes on to announce that Britain needs to avoid the direction of the rest of Europe in denouncing face veils and fully support face veil. And that to wear a religious symbols is a fundamental human right. The religious symbol would fail if it prevented the person from performing their public civic duties.

Most people in this country are completely against face veils, because it does oppress women. I imagine most western women want to ban it, because they fear the tide of islamification forcing the veil upon them also.
 My opinion if the veil is that is oppressive not just to the women ( and male terrorists) that wear them, but that it is also oppressive to people who have to see it. It makes the average person weary, if not intimidated by the darth vaderesque outfit.It also makes me sad to be English, in that most of the wider society want the veil banned, but our pathetic liberal politicians just cant find the courage to do anything that might offend.
And if it were down to them, western civilisation would be lost to this medieval desert religion.
The conservative government should therefore propose a referendum on the veil, and should abide by the wishes of the people. Or go even further than that and ask the electorate to decide on whether they support immigration, whether they want immigrants in our country at all?  If this had happened in 1948 many of the problems of the late 20th century and to the present day could have been avoided, for example no 7/7 London  bombings, this country would not then have had apparently "British", home grown muslim terrorists.

Islamic Radicals Infiltrate the Labour Party

The labour Party is in meltdown in Tower Hamlets where the party's attempt to prevent its own former council leader,Luftur Rahman, becoming elected mayor of the east London borough on the 21st October virtually guarantees his triumph in the polls.


Luftur has become an embarrassment to the labour party because of his alleged links to the jihad loving fundamentalist Islamic forum of Europe, which pulls the strings at the East London Mosque. This was reported by the channel 4 Dispatches programme back in February.


The Islamic forum of Europe which believes in jihad and Sharia law, and wants turn Europe and Britain into Islamic states, has placed sympathisers into elected offices. They claim correctly that they can  mass mobilise Muslim voters to vote for their preferred candidates and parties


In February it was reported in the Daily Telegraph that the then labour minister for the environment Jim Fitzpatrick, stated that the Islamic forum of Europe had become a secret group within the labour party and other political parties.
“They are acting almost as an entryist organisation, placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether it’s at local government level or national level,” he said.

“They are completely at odds with Labour’s programme, with our support for secularism.”

Mr Fitzpatrick, the MP for Poplar and Canning Town, said the IFE had infiltrated and “corrupted” his party in east London in the same way that the far-Left Militant Tendency did in the 1980s. Leaked Labour lists show a 110 per cent rise in party membership in one constituency in two years.

In a six-month investigation by this newspaper and Channel 4’s Dispatches, involving weeks of covert filming by the programme’s reporters:

• IFE activists boasted to the undercover reporters that they had already “consolidated … a lot of influence and power” over Tower Hamlets, a London borough council with a £1 billion budget.
• We have established that the group and its allies were awarded more than £10 million of taxpayers’ money, much of it from government funds designed to “prevent violent extremism”.
• IFE leaders were recorded expressing opposition to democracy, support for sharia law or mocking black people. The IFE organised meetings with extremists, including Taliban allies, a man named by the US government as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and a man under investigation by the FBI for his links to the September 11 attacks.
• Moderate Muslims in London told how the IFE and its allies were enforcing their hardline views on the rest of the local community, curbing behaviour they deemed “un-Islamic”. The owner of a dating agency received a threatening email from an IFE activist, warning her to close it.
• George Galloway, a London MP, admitted in recordings obtained by this newspaper that his surprise victory in the 2005 election owed more to the IFE “than it would be wise – for them – for me to say, adding that they played a “decisive role” in his triumph at the polls.

The IFE has particularly close links to Tower Hamlets council. Seven serving and former councillors said Lutfur Rahman, he is also gained his position from support from the IFE.

Some said they were canvassed by a senior IFE official on his behalf. After Mr Rahman was elected, a man with close links to the group, Lutfur Ali, was appointed assistant chief executive of the council with responsibility for grant funding.

This was despite a chequered employment record, a misleading CV and a negative report from the headhunters appointed to consider the candidates. The council’s white chief executive was subsequently forced from his post.

While Luftur was council leader research has shown that mysterious grants were given to IFE supporting groups, whilst funding for other secularist groups was stopped or cut.


An incident which caused much outrage was the abandonment of funding for the heritage trail along the famous Brick Lane area. The funds were then transferred to build the controversial "hijab  sculpture", which angered many local residents, who saw it as further islamification of their country.


Because of dispatches program, Luftur was ousted as Labour group and council leader. He then put his name forward for nomination as the party's mayoral candidate and labour have removed twice already from their candidate lists. Luftur went to court to remain on the list and then romped home in a poll of local party members. Labour's national executive committee then dumped him as candidate. Then Luftur declared himself as an independent, similar to Red Ken Livingstone in 2000 in the London mayoral election.


Luftur's replacement as council leader, Helal Abbas has little democratic legitimacy with only 157 votes from local membership he came third to Luftur's 433 votes. In second place was John Biggs with 251 votes who unlike Abbas comes with no embarrassing baggage. But was passed over allegedly because he was WHITE!!!


Abbas a former bankrupt, is notorious for lining his own pockets. Back in 2003 he awarded himself a 49% rise in allowances, how civic minded of him. 


It appears from this article, that extreme left wing communists within the Labour Party want to get into the political bed with extreme Islam. This is a short sighted tool for exploiting the muslim vote.
Extreme Islam is at complete odds with communism. In the middle east, state's have used Islamic fundamentalism to combat the rise of communism within the state. This is because of fundamentalism in itself rejects democracy and equality, which is what communism is supposed to achieve ( theoretically but generally just totalitarianism ). The two cannot operate with each other. Communism requires that the working classes be united, the Islamic state will not let the people unite independently outside of Islamic institutions. True equality can never be achieved also because women and infidels have second class citizens within Islam.
Therefore at some point when the communists and the fundamentalists have extracted all that they need from each other, there will be inevitable blood shed as two the cannot exist together in the long term.

A group of eminent Chinese Communist Party veterans is calling for an end to the country's wide-ranging restrictions on free speech.




The call comes just days after the government reacted angrily to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to imprisoned dissident Liu Xiaobo.



In an open letter posted online, the retired officials state that although China's 1982 constitution guarantees freedom of speech, the right is constrained by laws and regulations that should be scrapped.



"This kind of false democracy of affirming in principle and denying in actuality is a scandal in the history of democracy," said the letter, which was dated Monday and widely distributed by e-mail.



Wang Yongcheng, a retired professor at Shanghai's Jiaotong University who signed the letter, said it had been inspired by the recent arrest of a journalist who wrote about corruption in the resettlement of farmers for a dam project.



"We want to spur action toward governing the country according to law," Wang said.



"If the constitution is violated, the government will lack legitimacy. The people must assert and exercise their legitimate rights," he said.



Coming on top of Liu's Nobel Prize, the letter further spotlights China's tight restrictions on freedom of speech and other civil rights, although Wang said the two events were not directly related.



Work on the letter began several days before the prize was awarded, and drafters decided against including a reference to Liu out of concern the government would block its circulation.



Liu, a 54-year-old literary critic, is now in the second year of an 11-year prison term after being convicted of inciting subversion over his role in writing an influential 2008 manifesto for political reform.