Category Archives: british values

HOW BRITISH POLITICS IS FAILING

The web based comment blog “Unherd” hosts interesting contributions from politically minded commentators.  The one below is interesting.

It is a recent contribution from Peter Kellner.  Peter Kellner is the Blairite Director of YouGov, the internet based opinion pollsters.  His opinion on the interpretation of statistics is well worth considering.  So when Peter Kellner says:- “I wouldn’t bet a great deal against changes that could be immense, and which not everyone will like”, we should take notice.  Also, as he is an enemy of English Nationalism and he is fearful of the consequences – so that should be encouraging too!  

Here is Peter Kellner’s article:-

HOW BRITISH POLITICS IS FAILING

Something odd, and possibly dangerous, is eating away at the fabric of British politics. Brexit, of course, has much to do with it, but the consequences could be with us long after the current crisis is resolved, one way or another. 

Signs of the malaise can be clearly seen in an exclusive survey for UnHerdconducted by Deltapoll. It shows a remarkable lack of faith in both main party leaders, not just by voters generally but by high proportions of their own voters. Loyalties are being tested as never before.  

In the past, one party leader has occasionally had a shaky reputation among their own supporters on one or two characteristics. In the early 1980s, many Labour voters thought Michael Foot was weak; towards the end of her premiership, many Tories considered Margaret Thatcher out of touch. But I have never seen so many supporters of both parties simultaneously hold such low opinions of their own leaders across the board.  

The responses of all voters shows that both leaders have strongly negative ratings on all counts. That is unusual enough. But when we look at the figures, showing how Conservative voters view Theresa May, and the figures, showing how Labour voters view Jeremy Corbyn, the scale of the drama becomes clear. The positive scores for May range from 57% of Conservative supporters who say she is strong, down to 40% who back her on Brexit. Her average score among Tory voters is 45%. Labour voters give Corbyn positive scores ranging from 64 to 38%; his average is 50%. Among all voters, the averages are, of course, even worse: May 26%, Corbyn 28%. 

To put these figures in context, a successful leader would expect average scores of around 80% among their party’s own voters and 40% among the general public. For both leaders to fall so far short of these figures should set off alarm bells in both parties. 

Here, though, is the paradox. Precisely because both leaders have terrible ratings, the scale of the problem is less obvious than it would be if only one was doing badly. In that case (as when Foot led Labour and towards the end of Thatcher’s premiership), their party would have support well below 30% in the polls and facing a landslide defeat. Instead, nothing much seems to have changed since the 2017 election. An average of recent polls shows the two parties still close together, and with almost as many supporters as 18 months ago. The high commands in both parties, though plainly struggling over Brexit, see no wider reason to panic. 

In truth, they should be terrified. For the poll shows that the disenchantment with the main parties and their leaders has spread throughout Britain. Within Westminster, it is rare to find any backbench Labour or Conservative MP who, giving their candid views in private, will say their leader is any good or that their party is in anything other than deep trouble. But some hope this despair is a feature of the Westminster bubble, and that real voters away from London have not changed their views of politicians and parties that much. 

In fact, it is increasingly hard to avoid the conclusion that millions of voters Left and Right are losing faith in the people who either govern us today or aspire to do so in the future. 

Which brings us to the possible long-term consequences of current public attitudes. In any country with a different electoral system, the chances are that support for both Labour and the Conservatives would have crashed by now. Across Europe, countries with more proportional voting systems have seen the traditional big parties slump in recent years – even with leaders less widely derided than Britain’s.  

Here, first-past-the-post creates a huge barrier to entry. Elsewhere, small parties ranging from the Greens to the far right have obtained a foothold in their parliaments with as little as 5% support, and then managed to increase their credibility. Here, they can’t. In 1983, the Liberal/SDP Alliance won 26% and only 23 seats; in 2015 Ukip’s 14% gave them just a single seat.  

The party that might have benefited from the Tory and Labour travails is the Liberal Democrats. But they paid a heavy price for their role in the 2010-15 coalition government. While their support has picked up a little in recent months, they are still scarred by decisions they took almost a decade ago. 

It is, of course, possible that when the Brexit drama has played out, normal service will resume. Perhaps May and Corbyn will both be replaced by leaders who have greater personal appeal to the electorate. 

I am not so sure. My reason is that May and Corbyn’s truly awful ratings do not flow solely from their personal attributes. Both lead deeply divided parties, and these divisions are unlikely to disappear anytime soon. The faultlines will remain: inward-looking nationalism versus outward-looking enterprise with the Tories; ambitious socialism versus progressive capitalism with Labour. A leader that combined the strategic ability of Napoleon with the genius of Einstein and the moral courage of Mandela would still struggle to win public approval if they could not reunite their parties. The Deltapoll figures providence symptoms of a deeper crisis. 

In short, both main parties are more fragile and less stable than for many decades. First-past-the-post could save both Labour and the Conservatives from the consequences of their current divisions. But it is no longer ridiculous to image a different future. Once the adhesive glue of our electoral system starts to crack, things can change with bewildering speed. A century ago, amid the stresses of post-First-World-War Britain and the divisions within the Liberal Party, realignment happened quickly. Labour climbed from fourth place in 1918 to government in 1924.  

Will Brexit end up having the same glue-cracking effect? And if it does, will the beneficiaries be existing herbivores such as the Liberal Democrats and the Greens; or some new centre party created by disenchanted Labour and Tory moderates; or carnivores on the outer fringes of Right and Left? Is the century-long dominance of Britain’s Parliament by competing forces on the centre Right and centre Left about to end? 

Ask me again in 10 years’ time and I shall tell you. Meanwhile I wouldn’t bet a great deal against changes that could be immense, and which not everyone will like. 

Here is the link to the original article>>>https://unherd.com/2019/01/how-british-politics-is-failing/

THOSE IN POWER DEFINE THE MEANING OF “EXTREMISM”

THOSE IN POWER DEFINE THE MEANING OF “EXTREMISM”
I noticed in the Guardian on the 23rd January edition an article by Peter Walker, the Political Correspondent, entitled
“New national security unit set up to tackle fake news in UK”.
The key extracts are:-
“The government is to set up a dedicated national security unit to tackle fake news and disinformation, Downing Street has said.  The prime minister’s spokesman said.
One specific area agreed as needing new resources by the national security council as part of the NSCR is the spread of fake news, he said.
“We are living in an era of fake news and competing narratives. The government will respond with more and better use of national security communications to tackle these interconnected, complex challenges.
“To do this we will build on existing capabilities by creating a dedicated national security communications unit. This will be tasked with combating disinformation by state actors and others.”
The unit will “more systematically deter our adversaries and help us deliver on national security priorities”, he added, saying there was as yet no information on where it would be based or who would staff it.”
Here is a link to the original article >>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/23/new-national-security-unit-will-tackle-spread-of-fake-news-in-uk 
It is worth noting that Oxford Dictionary’s definition of “extremism” is:– “The holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism”.
Anyone who is not a fully signed up multiculturalist or, to quote the Judicial Appointments Commission (on the requirement for judicial office in our cartel democracy), a person “who can demonstrate a life -long commitment to equality and diversity” should bear in mind what I explained in one of my previous articles called “Fight the Good Fight with all thy might” (here is the link >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/fight-good-fight-with-all-thy-might.html) when I pointed out that now even a scripturally based Christian has been re-defined by the British Government as an “extremist”!
Also the expression of any view at odds with the official one is likely to be classed as “offensive” just like the Electoral Commission calling our slogan “England worth fighting for” offensive.  (click here for my article on that called “UK’s Electoral Commission rules that “England worth fighting for!” is OFFENSIVE!” >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/uks-electoral-commission-rules-that.html)
This means of course that we are now truly in a political landscape where it can rightly be called out saying what John Tyndall did years ago, that:-
“The first lesson is to realise that it is our lack of power not our so-called “extremism” that is the big deterrent and anyway what is “extremism”? 
At different times across history extremism has meant different things. 
So what has changed since then?  Has the truth changed?  Is what was true then no longer true now?  No.  What has changed is power.  Power then was in different hands and that is what we are up against.  Those who have the power today…. they are able to determine what is mainstream and respectable and what is extreme.  
We have to understand that “extremism” is a meaningless term.  It is entirely what the current makers of public opinion decide it will be.  No more, no less. 
Our activity must be geared to the winning of power.  That still has to be said to some people… They are crusaders for the truth but they don’t relate it to necessities of winning power.  It cannot be said enough. 
‘Power is what must be won.’
First just a little bit of power, then more power and finally complete power. 
Activity geared to anything else is a waste of time. 
But we one day will be answerable to our grandchildren and our grandchildren are going to say to us when that great time of decision came what did you do?  Did you give in or did you fight? 
Are we going to say to them well the struggle was too severe.  The odds were too strong. Perhaps we left it a bit too late.  We hadn’t a chance and therefore we lost our country, we lost our nationhood? 
Or will we be able to say to them with pride and honour I was one of those who fought and there were more and more who came and fought with me.  I went off into the streets and worked and struggled for our Cause.  We stood firm like the men at the Alamo, like the men at Rourke’s Drift, like the men at Blood River.  We fought to the bitter end and we won!”
For original click here >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlNtIMAdvLk
So it is worth bearing in mind that what is meant by the word “offensive” is also changing.
In the English Democrats Judicial Review Case in which we were judicially reviewing the Electoral Commission’s removal of our long registered description saying ‘England worth fighting for!’ They claimed this is now offensive.  Evidence was produced of the Electoral Commission’s thinking which read as follows:-
“LE: I would retain all the descriptions except the ‘fighting for’ one.  They all advocate support for England, which is itself exclusionist (ie, it excludes other parts of the UK).  But favouring one part of the UK is an established policy position that parties can and do hold, not just in relation to England.  If the slogans referred to the English I would be more concerned, as that is a distinction based on race.  I don’t think you can read ‘English’ into ‘England’ in this instance.  In my view the phrase “worth fighting for” is commonly used and understood in a non-violent context.  Phrased like ‘ideas worth fighting for’ or ‘relationships worth fighting for’ are common (try a Google search), and would not be read to mean physically fighting for them.  If this description was seen in the context of all the others, I think it would be reasonably clear its intention was non-violent.  Seen on its own, however, as it could be on the ballot paper, I think that it is arguable that the only way to ‘fight for England’ is a violent or militaristic way.  Seen on its own, I think it can be viewed as offensive in the context of this by-election.  It’s the potential for that to happen which leads me to conclude that we should remove it.”
So it now appears that it is okay to say as one slogan does which is still registered with the Electoral Commission ‘Fighting for Wales’ and of course the Scottish Party is allowed to ‘Fight for Scotland’, but the English are not allowed to be “exclusionary”!
I produced evidence in court of the Oxford Dictionary’s meaning of ‘offensive’ which is defined as follows:-
ADJECTIVE
1.  Causing someone to feel resentful, upset, or annoyed.
‘the allegations made are deeply offensive to us’
‘offensive language’
1.1 (of a sight or smell) disgusting; repulsive.
‘an offensive odour’
2. attributive Actively aggressive; attacking.
‘offensive operations against the insurgents’
2.1 (of a weapon) meant for use in attack.
‘he is also accused of possessing an offensive weapon’
2.2North American Relating to the team in possession of the ball or puck in a game.
‘Shell was an outstanding offensive tackle during his 15 years with the Raiders’
But clearly the Establishment wishes to be able to re-define what it considers to be “offensive” rather than taking account of what ordinary people think or even what the Oxford Dictionary says that the word means!  As per George Orwell’s 1984 “War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength!”
Welcome to the Age of “Cartel Democracy” in the UK where even our English language has been co-opted into the Cartel Parties determination to dominate us all and extinguish English nationhood.  Who is willing to let them win without a fight? 


Are we heading for defeat in the war against Islamism?

Are we heading for defeat in the war against Islamism?


The Ancient Chinese Philosopher of Conflict, Sun Tzu, was the author of a famous treatise called the “Art of War”. One of his sayings is:- “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat”.

This saying repays thought in all situations of conflict but is certainly very true of the “war” against ISIS.

At the moment “Western” Governments have no strategy at all for dealing with ISIS and, indeed, haven’t even got round to understanding the basics about the enemy!

Here is one of the more sensible articles that I have read recently about this official wilful ignorance:-

Paris attacks: Is ‘radicalisation’ really the problem?


Big Question: Associating such atrocities as those committed in Paris with radicalisation reinforces the idea of ‘jihadi cool’. Isil are ultra-traditionalists, not radicals

Much of the condemnation following the attacks in Paris reflects the shock and disbelief that Western governments have in understanding the cultic appeal of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

President Barack Obama spoke of the ‘outrageous attempt to terrorise innocent civilians’, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed her solidarity with the French people, proclaiming that ‘we will fight against those who have carried out such an unfathomable act against you’.

But there is a problem here. Understandable though such declarations are, the acts perpetrated by Isil are not, in themselves, unfathomable. It is the manner of official rhetoric, media analysis, and much academic commentary that often obscures an understanding of the threat. And the most misleading word in public commentary is the term radicalisation.

The stream of young Muslims who reject their host nations and travel to Syria in order to throw in their lot with the Islamic State in all its manifest brutality exercises western nations. Much of the concern about what is happening within certain Muslim communities is expressed as a problem of ‘radicalisation’.

In the wake of the atrocities in Paris, radicalisation is again cast as the central issue. A Guardian report following the attacks highlighted France’s ‘struggles to tackle radicalisation among its Muslim community’. The report noted that nearly half of the estimated 3000 Muslims from Europe to have travelled to the Middle East to participate in jihad are French.

Meanwhile, it was reported in Britain that counter-terrorism sources fear some 450 ‘radicalised’ Britons have returned from Syria and could perpetrate similar attacks to those witnessed in France. The Director of the Office for Security and Counter-terrorism, Charles Farr, states in this respect that Isil’s radical dogma is ‘a form of ideological grooming’.

Yet, what does this term radicalisation mean? Is this term an accurate description of the process that leads a young western Muslim to jihad? Words matter. An adequate response needs accurate diagnosis.

George Orwell observed that ‘the slovenliness of our language makes it easier to have foolish thoughts’. If the threat is to be countered effectively then at the very least one has to be sure that the political terminology one uses truthfully describes the actual nature of the problem. Orwell noted that ‘political chaos’ results from the ‘decay of language’ and ends up in prevailing orthodoxies that ‘conceal and prevent thought’.

This is precisely what has happened with the misuse of the term radicalisation. Radicalism, in fact, has precise origins, entering modern usage in the nineteenth century in the context of political and economic reform and social progress. It

was those secular, liberal, utilitarian reformers associated with Jeremy Bentham and James Mill (John Stuart’s father) who devised the modern understanding of radical. It stood for a programme of rational, constitutional, social and economic reform.

Radicalism as an ideology dismissed religion as irrational superstition and sought political reform along secular, capitalist and progressive democratic lines.

The one thing we can easily discern about Islamic State and its message is that it is does not do democracy or secular modernity. Therefore, it is not radical and it does not engage in radicalisation. Thus, fulfilling Orwell’s prophecy, distorted meaning ends up obscuring and preventing thought.

Rather than being radicalised, young western Muslims are attracted to what a more religious age than our own recognised as enthusiasm, zealotry or fanaticism. Any analysis of jihadism’s self-confirming zealotry suggests that those who are labelled as radicalised are not radicals at all. Ideological radicalism, properly understood, requires a clear break from traditional religion of whatever form in order to achieve a pluralist secular modernity.

Modern day jihadists are, then, the antithesis of radical. Their worldview is fashioned by a scriptural literalism based on the message of the Prophet Mohammed and the hadith of his rightly guided successors from the Seventh Century. It is this that inspires the thought and practice of Islamic State and its followers who look to the past to build tomorrow’s religious utopia purified by ultra-violence. They are ultra-traditionalists, not radicals.

This ultra-traditionalism guides every action in the present. Today’s jihadi is an enthusiast (not a radical) as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as one who is ‘possessed by a god’, or in ‘receipt of divine communication’. No matter how deluded their actions seem to modern attitudes, through their enthusiasm they engage directly in a divine mission to re-create the caliphate. This renders them immune to community sensitive ‘de-radicalisation’ programmes promoted by western governments because there is nothing radical in jihadist self-understanding.

The distorted rhetoric of radicalisation is, though, far more damaging than merely offending semantic sensibilities because associating such atrocities as those committed in Paris with radicalisation reinforces the idea of ‘jihadi cool’.

For to be radical means in some sense to be ‘street smart’. Contemporary Islamists are adept social entrepreneurs who understand this only too well.

Islamic State and its media outlets release over 90,000 social media posts a day. That’s nearly 33 million a year. The appeal of social media is clear. There are no gatekeepers. Messages posted from one remote or hidden location are

immediately transmitted to the hip pocket of anyone with a smart phone. An audience counted in millions.

Social media is the command and control network of fanatical Islamism. It is used to brand the Isil product, literally, to promulgate the message and recruit online. Segueing off the L’Oreal advert, for instance, a recent Islamist recruitment message targeting young western women runs ‘Cover Girl, No. Covered Girl, Yes. Because, you’re worth it.’

Western radicalisation rhetoric further distorts the threat because it implies that those Muslim youngsters inclined to join the jihad are merely deluded naïfs who don’t really mean what they say and do, when of course they only too clearly do as their willingness to kill and be killed for the cause demonstrates.

In effect, much public commentary about ‘radicalisation’ removes human agency from those who seek participation in the jihad because they have ‘unfathomably’ been pumped full of ideological steroids and brainwashed by unscrupulous preachers of hate who groom their prey. The simpler but harsher truth is that they have been attracted by a message of jihadi cool in which western governments have been indirectly responsible for fostering.

While Isil offers jihadi cool messaging, governments merely respond with insipid pieties about cohesion achieved through culturally sensitive and misdirected ‘de-radicalisation’ initiatives that have proved expensive and ineffective.

In this context, it is worth asking, before engaging any more academics and bureaucratic agencies in taxpayer funded programmes, what precisely does the counter-terrorism community understand by ‘radicalism’ and ‘radicalisation’?

An answer to this question may reveal that we in the west have been only too successful in brainwashing ourselves.

Here is the link to the original of this article>>>
Paris attacks: Is ‘radicalisation’ really the problem? – Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11997784/Paris-attacks-Is-radicalisation-really-the-problem.html

What do you think?

British counter-terrorism strategy to be used to enforce political correctness

British counter-terrorism strategy to be used to enforce political correctness

Recently a “Conservative” MP, the unmarried Mark Spencer, surprised many of those who are not paying attention to direction of travel of British politics by enthusiastically endorsing the idea that “Extremist Disruption Orders” should be used against any teacher (and shortly, no doubt, any public speaker) that dares to teach traditional Christian morality by indicating disapproval of “gay marriage”. 

It therefore suddenly became apparent to some of the newspaper reading public that the focus in combating “extremism” was shifting from what most members of the public had thought was the objective, which is to deal with the Jihadist threat from fundamentalist Muslims, to one where the Government was in fact focusing on crushing opposition to political correctness by using blatant and increasingly heavy handed Police State tactics.

For those prepared to do a little bit of research it is worth considering the elements of “CONTEST” which is the rather silly jargonistic name that the government has given to its “Counter Terrorism Strategy”.

“CONTEST” and its agenda is part of the reason why the police are now so busy, that in the words of the Head of the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC), Chief Constable Sara Thornton, that police should no longer be expected by the public to turn out for burglaries!

Instead of doing what the public would want our police to do, which is tackling old-fashioned crime and criminals, instead they are being used as part of the UK State’s enforcement of radical secularism, political correctness, multi-culturalism and diversity. That is the reason why so many people who have often merely made unpleasant or over-the-top remarks on Facebook are being treated more seriously than burglars.

One of the core elements of “CONTEST”, is “PREVENT”. Here is what the Government says “PREVENT” is about:-

“The Prevent strategy:
responds to the ideological challenge we face from terrorism and aspects of extremism, and the threat we face from those who promote these views provides practical help to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism and ensure they are given appropriate advice and support works with a wide range of sectors (including education, criminal justice, faith, charities, online and health) where there are risks of radicalisation that we need to deal with

The strategy covers all forms of terrorism, including far right extremism and some aspects of non-violent extremism. However, we prioritise our work according to the risks we face. For instance, following the death of soldier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, the Prime Minister is leading a task force on tackling extremism and radicalisation. The special committee, which includes senior members of the cabinet and security chiefs, builds on the Prevent strategy.

The Home Office works with local authorities, a wide range of government departments, and community organisations to deliver the Prevent strategy. The police also play a significant role in Prevent, in much the same way as they do when taking a preventative approach to other crimes.

We use a range of measures to challenge extremism in the UK, including:
where necessary, we have prevented apologists for terrorism and extremism from travelling to this country
giving guidance to local authorities and institutions to understand the threat from extremism and the statutory powers available to them to challenge extremist speakers
funding a specialist police unit which works to remove online content that breaches terrorist legislation
supporting community based campaigns and activity which can effectively rebut terrorist and extremist propaganda and offer alternative views to our most vulnerable target audiences – in this context we work with a range of civil society organisations
supporting people who are at risk of being drawn into terrorist activity through the Channel process, which involves several agencies working together to give individuals access to services such as health and education, specialist mentoring and diversionary activities – more information on Channel can be found in the Channel Guidance and Channel Vulnerability Assessment”

Click here for the full article:- CONTEST, the government’s counter-terrorism strategy.

It should also be noted that ‘Extremism’ is now defined…. “as vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values”. The “Fundamental British Values” are being defined as “democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs“. It is the state enforcement of the last clause which is at odds with traditional values and traditional English Liberty.

In this new wort should perhaps therefore not be surprising that NHS workers for example are reporting that they have been forced to attend seminars on “PREVENT” with the entire focus of their being expected to deal with is the threat of “Far-Right extremists” such as the EDL. In refocusing “PREVENT” on attacking the EDL and, no doubt, shortly any expression of Englishness, the authorities are in full conformity with the way that various EU bodies have been urging that these counter attacks should be deployed across the whole of the EU against those with “Right-wing” views.

It is a salutary thought to remember that the first “terrorists” were in fact the “Left-wing” French revolutionaries using the coercive powers of the State to transform France through La Terreur! No doubt soon “Fundamental British Values” will be the revolutionary “declaration of the Rights of Man”!

THE IMPERIALISTIC ROOTS OF MULTI-CULTURALISM

Back in the Day!

THE IMPERIALISTIC ROOTS OF MULTI-CULTURALISM
It is an ironic fact that multi-culturalism as a device for managing disparate and disjointed populations is not entirely a post-war, Left-Liberal concept. 

My own family have some roots in British Malaya when what is now Malaysia and Singapore were part of the British Empire and I was born there in the British Military Hospital Kinrara, Kuala Lumpur.

Before the war British Malaya was politically run by British colonial officials on an imperialist multi-culturalist basis just like many other “colonies” throughout the Empire.

In colonial Malaya there were various ethnicities. There were the native Indians who lived quite primitive lives in the jungle and who either animist or Christian. There was also a dominant population of Malays who were originally Indonesian colonists and pirates, who are predominantly Muslim and whose leaders were the various “Sultans”. Then there were the Chinese who, during the 19th and 20th centuries, given all the various misfortunes of China, came as settlers. They were very hard-working, upwardly mobile, vying to be professionals or business people (legitimate or triad) and settlers to clear and farm the jungle lands.

Then there were also the British ourselves who brought over, from India, the Tamils to work, in particular, in the tea plantations and we also brought over Sikhs to act especially as police and security guards.

All these communities were kept in a degree of antagonism and separately, allowing British officials to deal with “community leaders”. The Communities were encouraged in multi-culturalist ideas of “community cohesion” and of maintaining their own separate ways as part of an imperialist agenda to divide and rule; which is of course an imperialist doctrine which goes at least as far back as ancient Rome (“divide et impera”).

British officials found this multiculturalist arrangement very convenient, as all the various groups were concerned about the encroachments of the others. This enabled British administrators to seem interested in maintaining the other concerns of each of the groups, whilst ensuring that the general population couldn’t combine to demand independence.

I think it likely that this situation would have continued quite possibly up until today if it hadn’t been for the Japanese invasion and the subsequent attempts by Chinese communists under Mao Tse Tung to destabilise the post-war arrangements.

I think it may well prove to be the case once all the files are opened that we will see that the more recent doctrines of multi-culturalism originated partly through Whitehall officials dusting off these old Colonial Office policies and re-badging them! Wouldn’t that be an irony? 

We make this Point in our manifesto:-

3.16 England and Multi-Culturalism

3.16.1 It is a fact that during the past forty years people of many different cultures have come to live in England. Our country is in that sense a multi-cultural society. However, multi-Culturalism is an ideology which suggests that a mix of many cultures in one society is desirable and that it is the duty of government to actively encourage cultural diversity within the state. Further, it suggests that all cultures should be treated as equal. A logical extension of this is that all languages, histories and law codes should be treated equally. This is clearly impossible in a unified country. All ethnic groups should be free to promote their own culture and identity but the public culture of England should be that of the indigenous English. This position is consistent with the rights of indigenous nations everywhere.

UKIP FAILS THE ENGLISH TEST

UKIP FAILS THE ENGLISH TEST


When Nigel Farage got re-elected as Leader of UKIP there was a distinct move in UKIP, for a time, to portray itself as being, at least to some extent, an English nationalist party. 

Given the various dirty tricks and other activities that were going on with UKIP at the time against us, it seemed obvious to the English Democrats’ National Council that these moves were just designed to undermine the English Democrats, rather than a genuine change of heart.

Over the years since we have had various people say to us that UKIP is an English nationalist party and try to persuade us that we should therefore join forces.

It is obvious from looking at Twitter, Facebook and the internet generally that there are a great many others out there who had also thought of UKIP as being an English nationalist party.

During the course of this General Election the scales should have fallen from all those peoples’ eyes as UKIP has shown itself to be very clearly not an English nationalist party. Nigel Farage has even expressly denied being an English nationalist (and, indeed, even a British nationalist, no doubt to the somewhat surprise of his British nationalist members!).

Not only has Nigel Farage’s new UKIP (British) manifesto very limited mention of England or the English, but their slogan in this election was “Believe in Britain”. Also despite clear commitments in the past to produce an English manifesto it has not been produced. In stark contrast they did launch a Scottish-only manifesto. Last, but not least, we have had a series of very clear remarks from others in the leadership of UKIP that they are British Unionists and not about English nationalism at all.

Probably the clearest example is the comments of David Coburn MEP, who before he became elected as an MEP had for many years been UKIP’s principal organiser in London. Click here for a link to YouTube where we have recorded his very clear answer as to where UKIP’s national loyalties lie >>> https://youtu.be/QSuT0JjgSjY

In fact, of course, nobody should have been surprised, the answer was always in UKip’s name! I wonder if people would have understood that more easily if they had called themselves BRITKIP?

What do you think?

THE 50th ANNIVERSARY OF SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL’S STATE FUNERAL


THE 50th ANNIVERSARY OF SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL’S STATE FUNERAL


Peter Hitchens has written a superb nostalgic piece in the Mail on Sunday which I couldn’t better, so I have re-posted it below.

I can however add a personal element, which is that my Father, then a Captain, was one of the Officers of Churchill’s old regiment, the 4th Queen’s Own Hussars, who carried his medals, orders and decorations in the funeral procession. My Father is shown in the centre of the above picture above the coffin and immediately on the left of one of the heralds.

The one thing (but rather an important omission) that is missing from Peter Hitchens’ article is the conclusion to be drawn from his final comments. He is right that Britain isn’t that country now but he doesn’t mention that it now serves no useful purpose for the English Nation. It is high time to be rid of it and for England to re-emerge from its choking embrace!

Here is Peter Hitchen’s article:-

So uniquely British, but funeral tells a tale of a different country

What a strange thing it is to see my own memories harden into history, and what is, for me, a vivid and living experience, turn into a blurred and fading piece of film.

Half a century ago, at my strict-regime boarding school on the edge of Dartmoor, we were let off our normal Saturday morning lessons of Latin grammar, French vocabulary, rivers and capitals of South America, mostly taught by fierce, bristling gents with military or Naval ranks.

Instead, we were instructed to sit in rows on hard chairs as the school’s one small black-and-white TV was hoisted on to a high shelf. And for three utterly memorable hours we watched in silence as the funeral of Sir Winston Churchill passed slowly through London.

Outside (and no opportunity was normally missed to make us go outside) it was a freezing day of steely skies and pitiless winds, no small matter if you were forced to wear short trousers, as we all were.

Inside, in the comparative warmth, most of us were, I think, mesmerised, so that we forgot we were watching on a screen not much bigger than a breadboard. I certainly saw and remembered the event as a huge panorama.

Afterwards, we knew, quite simply, that something important had passed from the earth for ever, and that our small country was diminished and bereft.

Nobody who came afterwards would be as we had been before we watched it. By comparison, the assassination of President Kennedy is nothing in my recollections.

Last week, I managed to watch a rare, hard-to-find recording of Sir Winston’s funeral. It is the wrong shape for a modern TV screen, and sometimes the picture swims or blurs.

It is, of course, in black and white, but that only increases the feeling that you are watching something impossibly long ago.

The London of January 1965 is almost as distant from me now as the outbreak of the First World War was from us then. Most of the people who appear in the film are now dead, or impossibly old.

The actual procession looks, at many moments, like one of those jerky old films from the Austro-Hungarian empire that they show to illustrate how hopelessly old-fashioned the pre-1914 world is.

Bluejackets in the sort of uniforms they wore at Jutland pull the gun carriage on which the heavy coffin rests (a tradition in state funerals since the Army’s horses kicked over the traces at Queen Victoria’s obsequies, and sailors ran forward to take over the task).

The cortege moves at a mesmerisingly slow pace, swaying strangely to the music of a dozen military bands, thumping out dirges – occasionally interrupted by those uniquely British parade-ground yells, echoing for miles in the freezing air, as sergeant-majors keep their men in line.

The male members of the Churchill family walk behind the coffin, wearing what must surely be the last black silk top hats seen in London, like a Bolshevik caricature of greedy capitalists.

Lady Churchill, vastly veiled in black, rides in an enormous, sombre coach (lent by the Royal Family, but not from their better-known fleet of gilded carriages).

The coachman riding atop it is cloaked and muffled like something out of the Pickwick Papers, reaching back into a past that some of those present would still just have remembered.

From even further back come the Heralds of the College of Arms, most of them ancient men on sticks, looking a little like animated playing cards in their medieval tabards.

A huge drum horse, loaded with war-drums, leads the bands as its ancestor must have done at Blenheim and Waterloo.

The dead man’s orders and medals, borne on cushions, are carried behind him and arrayed by his coffin when it reaches St Paul’s Cathedral, where it is greeted by a man holding up the City of London’s mighty, ancient, black Sword of Mourning.

It is all so old that it was archaic in 1965, and I doubt it could be done now with a straight face. Yet it would have been as normal in Winston Churchill’s youth as it is outlandish now.

The sense of a last moment of something that is passing is emphasised by the figure of the Queen, not as she is now, but a woman coming to the end of her youth, worn by cares and powerfully moved by the heavy panoply and drapery of death on display.

Beside her, Prince Charles is still an awkward schoolboy.

But in one way the most moving faces are those in the crowds – of men and women then young, now pensioners, and above all, those of the soldiers in the bearer party who struggle, with increasing strain and tension, to lift, carry and lay down the weight of the lead-lined oaken coffin.

These are the days before pizza, milkshakes and sugary drinks fattened and blurred all our features into a bland and puffy sameness.

They look so British, in a hollow, hungry, wartime way, that it almost breaks the heart to see them.

The country they and I grew up in has entirely ceased to exist.


Here is a link to the original Article>>> PETER HITCHENS: So uniquely British, but funeral tells a tale of a different country | Daily Mail Online

Is the British Education Establishment conspiring to indoctrinate pro-immigration, multi-culturalist values into English children?


Is the British Education Establishment conspiring to indoctrinate pro-immigration, multi-culturalist values into English children?


I have posed the above title for this article as a question, but I think that once the question is asked the article answers the question affirmatively. As the English legal profession would have responded to such a question for centuries with the Latin phrase:- “res ipsa loquitur” – the thing speaks for itself!

What do you think?

Here is the article:-

Pupils to learn about immigration in new history GCSE


The OCR exam board unveils plans for a new history GCSE that will include a module on 2,000 years of immigration, from the Romans up to 21st century arrivals from Syria

Teenagers will be able to learn about the impact of immigration on Britain over the last 2,000 years under plans for a new history GCSE, it was announced today.

For the first time, a history module will be introduced covering new arrivals to the UK from the Romans up to modern day migrants such as those from Syria and eastern Europe.

The proposals – drawn up by one of the country’s leading exam boards – will assess the reasons for immigration, the experience of new entrants and the impact on the indigenous population.

The OCR board insisted pupils would find large numbers of parallels to the modern day, saying they would be “surprised to learn” that the black population of London may have numbered up to 15,000 in the 1750s and that at least 10 languages were used across medieval England.

Under plans, “Migration into Britain” will be included as part of an optional extended study theme, which will make up around 20 per cent of a new GCSE course being introduced in 2016.

OCR’s GCSE in history is currently the most popular version in the country, with more than 93,000 teenagers sitting it last year, the exam board said.

It is hoped the move will “reinvigorate interest in GCSE history” following claims from historical experts that rising numbers of schools were barring pupils from taking the subject beyond the age of 14.

The move is made as immigration continues to dominate the political agenda in the run up to the election. Last week, David Cameron promised the introduction of tough new rules on access to welfare benefits for migrants entering Britain from the EU.

But the government has insisted that the number of pupils sitting GCSEs in history had increased in recent years, with almost four-in-10 teenagers taking an exam in the subject in 2014.

Mike Goddard, the exam board’s head of history, said: “Migration is an ideal history topic for GCSE students to study, allowing them to consider fundamental historical concepts such as continuity, change and significance, rooted in the major events of England’s history.

“Doing this through the lens of the movement of diverse groups of people has the added benefit of contemporary relevance and will make for a rigorous, stimulating and enjoyable course.”

He said it would require pupils to explore and understand “the constant shifts in the British population”. This included the impact of invaders such as the Romans and the Vikings, the effect of the Empire on India and the West Indies and people coming to Britain to flee persecution including the Huguenots, Jews and, more recently, the Syrians.

The Government has already set out proposals to overhaul GCSEs will more rigorous subject content and a greater emphasis on exams as opposed to coursework.

Under the changes, new history exams require pupils to study a wider range of historical periods, a greater emphasis on British history and at least one extended project.

OCR is currently developing two new GCSEs in response to the reforms. One will focus on the “modern world” and the second will put more emphasis on a range of historical periods. As part of the courses, pupils will have the option of taking a dissertation-style project in the monarch, war and society or immigration.

The proposed new GCSEs will be submitted to the government next year and will be taught from 2016, subject to approval from Ofqual, the exams regulator.

Mr Goddard said: “Migration has been a constant and, in many important ways, a defining feature of our history. Tracking it thematically over time makes for a complex and fascinating study, will build on recent academic research, and will reveal many new and enlightening aspects of our past.”

Here is the link to the original>>> Pupils to learn about immigration in new history GCSE – Telegraph

MY INTERVIEW ON RUSSIA TODAY ABOUT THE OFFICIAL MULTI-CULTURALIST POLICY IN ENGLISH SCHOOLS TEACHING "BRITISH VALUES"

INTERVIEW FOR NEWS FEATURE ON RUSSIA TODAY ABOUT THE OFFICIAL MULTI-CULTURALIST POLICY IN ENGLISH SCHOOLS TO TEACH BRITISHNESS


Early on Thursday, 20th November, I was quietly fuming to myself about the article which had appeared in the papers about a primary school in Lincolnshire being marked down by Ofsted for being too English. The phone then rang and I was invited to come to Russia Today’s studios at Millbank Tower to be on this News to talk about it. Naturally I was happy to do so and the YouTube of my interview is below. Before you look at that interview though do read the article:-

Rural school is denied top grade by Ofsted inspectors because it’s ‘too English’ and not diverse enough

 A high-performing primary school has missed out on Ofsted’s top grade after being judged too English.

Pupils at the rural primary lacked ‘first-hand experience of the diverse make-up of modern British society’, declared the watchdog.

However, around 97 per cent of the population in the town to which the school belongs are white.

Ofsted refused it an ‘outstanding’ rating and graded it ‘good’ instead.

It said the school was failing to do enough to ensure pupils understand the ‘cultural diversity of modern British society’ and experience ‘first-hand interaction with counterparts from different backgrounds’.

But parents complained Middle Rasen Primary in Market Rasen was being punished for factors outside its control and had effectively been told it was ‘too English’.

The row is the latest controversy over new rules on teaching ‘British values’ introduced in the wake of the Trojan Horse scandal, in which Muslim extremists tried to infiltrate schools in Birmingham.

Schools are required to ‘actively promote’ British values such as democracy, tolerance, mutual respect, individual liberty and the rule of law.

However the rules – and Ofsted’s enforcement of them – have brought criticism from some schools and faith groups. A Christian school in Reading says it was warned it could face closure for failing to invite imams and other religious leaders to take assemblies.

In another case, a Roman Catholic school in East Anglia was marked down for failing to do enough to ‘teach students about the dangers of extremism and radicalisation’, although the report was later withdrawn.

The 104-pupil Middle Rasen Primary, in the town of Market Rasen on the edge of the Lincolnshire wolds, was inspected last month.

Ofsted praised it for high standards of teaching and leadership and the courteous and enthusiastic behaviour of pupils. But the inspector said: ‘The large majority of pupils are White British. Very few are from other ethnic groups, and currently no pupils speak English as an additional language.’

It said the school should ‘extend pupils’ understanding of the cultural diversity of modern British society by creating opportunities for them to have first-hand interaction with their counterparts from different backgrounds’.

Yesterday parents attacked the Ofsted decision. Mother-of-two Kirsty Egen, 29, said: ‘I think it’s ridiculous. It’s a brilliant school.

‘Why would the school spend time on trying to teach the children how to integrate with people who aren’t even there? It seems very vindictive to just mark them down for something they cannot change.’

Jodie Miller, 35, whose daughter Dylann, six, attends the school added: ‘We are a small rural community, there just aren’t many children here from different backgrounds.’

Julia Weeks, 47, who has a son of ten at the school, said: ‘To mark a school down for something they cannot control is crackers. If there were more people from ethnic minorities around then maybe you could have a complaint, but there just aren’t.’ Father-of-one Benjamin Bannan, 33, added: ‘It’s outrageous that a British school can he punished for being too British.’

Head teacher Melonie Brunton said the school was now looking to partner with an inner-city school in an effort to comply with Ofsted’s recommendation.

‘Ofsted are very keen on British values,’ she said. ‘We were very pleased to have got the very positive comments. We are a rural Lincolnshire school and that is always going to be an issue.’

Ofsted said: ‘We judged this school to be good across all areas, including teaching quality and pupils’ behaviour. All schools must teach pupils about fundamental British values.’

Father-of-one Benjamin Bannan, 33, added: ‘Its outrageous that a British school can be punished for being too British. It just doesn’t make sense at all.

‘We would welcome people from different cultures with open arms I’m sure – but there just aren’t any ethnic minorities around here.’

Ms Brunton said the school would look to look to partner with an inner-city school to develop their understanding of multicultural issues.

She said: ‘We would have liked to be ‘outstanding’ but we were very pleased to have got the very positive comments.

‘We all worked really hard – everybody, the staff and the pupils have worked hard.

‘I think the problem is that we are a rural Lincolnshire school and that is always going to be an issue. I agree that we could do more and we are trying to get a partnership with an inner city school.’

The head said school trips usually involve visits to the countryside, such as farms and zoos.

But they recently had a trip to Derby, which included a mosque visit as well as touring the Rolls-Royce factory.

She added: ‘We try to do things but not enough. I felt the Ofsted comments were a backlash against the Birmingham Trojan Horse issue and Ofsted are very keen on British values.’

Reverend Charles Patrick, who was head of the governors at the time of the report, added: ‘There is always more that you can do and maybe now we look at twinning the school with ones from other minority areas or something like that.

‘But this is a rural area, like 80 per cent of the country, we don’t have many non white residents. Perhaps it would be a different matter if we were in the middle of London or Manchester or something.’

Tory MP for Gainsborough Sir Edward Leigh said: ‘This is political correctness gone mad.

‘Middle Rasen Primary School is an outstanding school by any standards, and Melonie Brunton is a brilliant headteacher – I back the school and its head one-hundred percent.

‘Just last week I wrote to Nicky Morgan, the Education Secretary, objecting strenuously to the new so-called ‘equality’ regulations she is implementing in schools.

‘Conservatives have always stood for freeing our schools from the deadening hand of state-enforced orthodoxy.

‘Why there has been such a massive U-turn under Nicky Morgan is inexplicable to me.

‘Multiculturalism is an irrelevance in Lincolnshire with its low number of ethnic minorities, who are already welcomed and well-integrated into our local communities, as they should be.’

A spokesman for Ofsted reiterated that it was not the only factor in depriving the school of its ‘outstanding’ rating.

He said: ‘We judged this school to be good across all areas including leadership and management, teaching quality, and pupils’ behaviour and safety.

‘All schools must teach pupils about fundamental British values including mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.

‘That way they will be prepared for the future wherever they go.’

Click here for the original of the article >>> Middle Rasen Primary School denied top grade by Ofsted as it’s ‘too English’ | Daily Mail Online

Now here is the link to my interview with Russia Today – click here >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6MSh487lKQ

What do you think?