Category Archives: extremism

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? 


“Fight the Good Fight with all thy might!"


Fight the Good Fight with all thy might!


I am a strong believer in the idea that we owe it to ourselves and to our English Cause to use all appropriate tools and opportunities etc. that are open to us to advance the Cause and also to defend ourselves from opponents.

One of the things that is altogether too obvious is that the police have come down hard on Right-wing, nationalistic, patriotic protesters even when they are being basically law-abiding. This is in the context to their treatment of Left-wing, anti-racist, anti-FA, Hope not Hate types and other multi-culturalist campaigners. My suspicion has been that not only is there a degree of bias, as people have often maintained, but also there has been insufficient action on our side to use all available opportunities to counter-attack or to get in a pre-emptive attack on opponents.

One example is the Government’s new “Prevent” strategy, which has been sold to the public as being part of an anti-terrorism campaign. Most people, who only skim read news stories and do not pay close attention to what is going on, may still think “Prevent” is focussed solely on Islamist terrorists and troublemakers.

Let me tell you now unequivocally that it isn’t! 

You don’t need to be an English nationalist for this to apply to you. It will be enough for you to be a traditional Conservative!

So let’s see whether, as far as the Government is concerned, YOU are an “EXTREMIST”?

The Government has been busy developing a wholly partisan definition of “Britishness” and/of “British values”.
 

Those who do not read these things carefully, may think that their values because they are traditional and that they are historically British that they would qualify as part of “Britishness”. 

Let me tell you now – no they don’t necessarily!

Here is the Government definition of “Britishness” and of “British” values. They only apply in England so read it carefully!

I have highlighted the bit that you need to pay particular attention in bold and underlined.

“The Department for (English only) Education has … published guidance on promoting British values in schools to ensure young people leave school …

The guidance aims to help both independent and state-maintained schools understand their responsibilities in this area. All have a duty to ‘actively promote’ the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. These values were first set out by the government in the ‘Prevent’ strategy in 2011.

Until now schools have been required to ‘respect’ these values, but as a result of changes brought in earlier in the year all schools must now have a clear strategy for embedding these values and show how their work with pupils has been effective in doing so. In a letter to the Education Select Committee in March, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools Lord Nash explained the changes were designed to “tighten up the standards on pupil welfare to improve safeguarding, and the standards on spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils to strengthen the barriers to extremism”.

Ofsted and the independent inspectorates now take the work of schools in this area into account during inspections.

Publishing the guidance today, Lord Nash said:

A key part of our plan for education is to ensure children become valuable and fully rounded members of society who treat others with respect and tolerance, regardless of background.

We want every school to promote the basic British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance for those of different faiths and beliefs.

This ensures young people understand the importance of respect and leave school fully prepared for life in modern Britain.

Examples of the understanding and knowledge pupils are expected to learn include:
an understanding of how citizens can influence decision-making through the democratic process
an understanding that the freedom to hold other faiths and beliefs is protected in law
an acceptance that people having different faiths or beliefs to oneself (or having none) should be accepted and tolerated, and should not be the cause of prejudicial or discriminatory behaviour
an understanding of the importance of identifying and combatting discrimination

Examples of actions schools can take to promote British values are to:
include in suitable parts of the curriculum – as appropriate for the age of pupils – material on the strengths, advantages and disadvantages of democracy, and how democracy and the law works in Britain, in contrast to other forms of government in other countries
ensure all pupils within the school have a voice that is listened to, and demonstrate how democracy works by actively promoting democratic processes such as a school council whose members are voted for by the pupils
use opportunities such as general or local elections to hold mock elections to promote fundamental British values and provide pupils with the opportunity to learn how to argue and defend points of view
consider the role of extra-curricular activity, including any run directly by pupils, in promoting fundamental British values

The government today also published its interim response to a consultation of the revised Independent Schools Standards (ISS). The revised standards cover independent schools, academies and free schools, ensuring they – along with local authority-maintained schools – must promote British values.”

(Here is the link to the source >>> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/guidance-on-promoting-british-values-in-schools-published

If you are not absolutely certain that I have got this right, check it out on the link.

On the other hand if you have read the definitions carefully, ask yourself if you agree with EVERY aspect of that definition being applied only in England? If you don’t then you are what the Government is trying to redefine as an “Extremist”.
 
What about if, for example, you are a serious and practising Christian and you believe Jesus’ statement in the Gospel of St John, Chapter 14, Verse 6:- “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”?  If so then you are an “Extremist” and your values are not the British Government’s “British values”!

Since these values are the litmus test, here in England, as to whether or not you are an “Extremist” that means that so far as the system is concerned you are an “Extremist” and the “Prevent” strategy is there to disrupt you, your life and your associations.

You might ask how does all this relate to what I said in the beginning, that we are not doing enough to use what is available to us? Well the point is that it is not only us who would not necessarily support every last bit of the Government’s definition of multi-culti “Britishness”, but also the Left don’t support it either.

There is a case that I have recently been advising in 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 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.

I could of course give many other examples of where we need to make sure that we do pull our weight, but I am sure you get the point! But don’t be put off by any official discouragement! 

Remember the parable of the unjust Judge in the Gospel of St Luke, Chapter 18, Verse 6:-  
“There was in a city a judge, which feared not God, neither regarded man: And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him, saying, Avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for a while: but afterward he said within himself, Though I fear not God, nor regard man; Yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me. And the Lord said, Hear what the unjust judge saith.”

James Keir Hardie, Labour lovie or anti-immigration hard man?

James Keir Hardie, Labour lovie or anti-immigration hard man?


Gordon Brown recently did a BBC Radio 4 documentary with much fanfare about one of the principal founders of the Labour Party, James Keir Hardie. Gordon Brown says that fellow Scot Keir Hardie is his hero and inspiration but his narrative had a Soviet style airbrushing out of Keir Hardie’s views on immigration. Here is a link to the programme >>> ? BBC Radio 4 – Keir Hardie: Labour’s First Leader

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b068xnly

Here is an unexpurgated sample of some of Mr Keir Hardie’s views on immigrants:-


Speaking of the incoming Polish (actually Lithuanians) miners, he said “their habits are very filthy, six or seven males occupying a one-roomed house, and having women to cook for them”

As early as 1887 the Ayrshire Miners Union led by Keir Hardie demanded their removal on the grounds that “their presence is a menace to the health and morality of the place and is, besides, being used to reduce the already too low wages earned by the workmen”.

In his evidence to the 1899 House of Commons Select Committee on emigration and immigration, he argued that the Scots resented immigrants greatly and that they would want a total immigration ban. When it was pointed out to him that more people left Scotland than entered it, he replied:

“It would be much better for Scotland if those 1,500 (Scots emigrants) were compelled to remain there and let the foreigners be kept out… Dr Johnson said God made Scotland for Scotchmen, and I would keep it so”.

He suggested that the employment of foreigners by British employers should be prohibited, unless they were political exiles or had fled from religious persecution or if they came from countries where the wage rates were the same as in Britain.

Writing in his paper the Miner, he stated that: “For this second time in their history, Messrs. Merry and Cunninghame have introduced a number of Russian Poles to Glengarnock Ironworks. What object they have in doing so is beyond human ken unless it is, as stated by a speaker at Irvine, to teach men how to live on garlic and oil, or introduce the Black Death, so as to get rid of the surplus labourers.

I wonder if Keir Hardie’s views would now qualify as “British Values” as redefined by this “Conservative” Government now that ‘Extremism’ is to be redefined as any opposition to the Establishment’s revisionist “British values” eg compulsory “respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11897355/Laws-against-extremism-risk-criminalising-us-all.html

What do you think?

MY SPEECH AT THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2015 ENGLISH DEMOCRATS’ CONFERENCE

MY SPEECH AT THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2015 ENGLISH DEMOCRATS’ CONFERENCE


Ladies and Gentlemen I am delighted to welcome you to our Annual General Meeting and Autumn Conference here in Leicester.

There has been a little dispute between me and Steve Uncles as to the numbering of this conference. We launched at a General Meeting of Members at Imperial College in August 2002, which I am counting as our first General Meeting. Whereas Steve wants to start our count with the next Annual General Meeting on September 2003. But whether you count this as our thirteenth or fourteenth Annual General Meeting and, of course, we have also had Spring meetings for almost all of those years, we are nevertheless a party which has been established long enough for even our slapdash and complacent British Establishment to have fully recognised our existence. For example when the issue of English Votes for English Laws was being debated in the House of Commons, before the Summer recess, we were mentioned as the principal campaigners for an English Parliament.

Not only have we established ourselves over these years and made an enormous contribution to keeping the English flag flying politically, having distributed well over 30 million leaflets and appeared on television, radio and in newspapers on innumerable occasions, with several Party Election Broadcasts, but also there are a number of us who were present at that first meeting who are still active in the Party.

Ladies and gentlemen over the course of the last year the scene for English nationalism has been in some ways improving. I think this is particularly so since we last met at the Spring conference in York, as since then we have seen the continuing surge of support for the Scottish National Party in Scotland which has been transformed politically with Scottish National Party MPs winning 56 out of 59 Scottish parliamentary seats with an unprecedented almost clean sweep, leaving the British Establishment and Unionist parties only clinging on with one seat each. It looks quite likely that a similar clear out may occur in the Scottish Parliament elections next May! This surge bodes well for a similar nationalist surge here in England.

Breaking off there, did you see the clash between UKIP’s Suzanne Evans and Alex Salmond on Newsnight a few weeks ago? Suzanne Evans used the expression ‘Regional Assembly Elections’ to describe the Scottish Parliament elections. This was a remark which had Alex Salmond literally gibbering and spluttering furiously that Scotland wasn’t a Region but a “Nation”. It was hilarious!

But Ladies and Gentlemen seriously let’s make sure that we are here to tell idiotic Unionists like Suzanne Evans that England isn’t a series of Regions – England is a Nation! What do you say Ladies and Gentlemen? Is England a series of Regions? Is England a Nation like Scotland? 

Ladies and Gentlemen you may be interested to know that a while before the Scottish referendum, at the time when Douglas Carswell was about to stand in Clacton, having left the Conservative Party to join UKIP, I had a meeting with the Conservative’s election guru, the so called Wizard of Oz, Lynton Crosby, and I briefed him about the English question.

Ladies and Gentlemen I make no apology for doing so as I think it is important for the English Democrats and for The English nationalist campaign to work with anyone who may help to further our Cause. I think that is a lesson that could usefully and forcibly be pointed to the Scottish National Party and to Plaid Cymru, neither of whom are willing to work with any English organisation, not just the English Democrats, but also, for example, the Campaign for an English Parliament because they are simply blinded by their hatred of the English. Despite this neither of them could hope to achieve what they say they want to achieve without support in England for independence.

Anyway Lynton Crosby, being Australian, wasn’t aware particularly of the distinction between English and British, nor was he aware of the rising support for English National Identity, as shown in the 2011 Census, in which, I am sure you need no reminding, over 32 million people, that is 60.4% of the entire population of England stated that they were English-only and not British. A fact which British Establishment spokesmen and politicians are very keen to play down, so much so there is even talk of pulling the rug from under the Office of National Statistics because they even dared to ask that question!

Anyway after our meeting, Lynton Crosby went away and did some opinion poll and focus group research which showed, he reported to me, that we would get great support if we could once marshall the resources to campaign on a more or less level playing field with the richer parties. He also confirmed rising support for English issues and of a rising English political demand for recognition, also a rising concern amongst English people that the Scottish National Party might go into coalition with Labour and so be able extract even more unfair advantages for Scotland from a Labour led coalition government to be paid for by us English.

I think my conversation with Lynton Crosby and his subsequent research was very important. He has recently confirmed this in a televised interview in Australia, in which he confirmed that their polling and focus group research was what I was expecting and that it therefore showed figures that Englishness was potentially an important factor.

It was for this reason that David Cameron, a man whom I would remind everyone, had never previously shown any interest in the English question and, indeed was on record as saying that he was going to ‘fight little Englanders wherever he found them’, suddenly came out on the morning after the Scottish Referendum with his suggestion of English Votes for English Laws!

EVEL was then put into the Conservative Election Manifesto and there was much public talk about what the English nation wanted in the way of a new constitutional settlement – much to the horror of Labour and Liberal Democrats and almost all the British nationalist media!

During the General Election campaign the English Question was often discussed and the Conservatives made big headway with the threat that the Scottish National Party might get undue influence in a coalition Labour Government.

Every time that was mentioned, not only was Labour’s vote undermined in Scotland with more people deciding to vote SNP in order to get such a result, but in England people were increasingly hesitant about voting for Labour with that as a possible outcome.

Indeed where I live, in a rock solid Conservative constituency, whose MP is Eric Pickles, Eric actually got a higher vote in terms of the numbers of people who voted for him than he had previously obtained because people, like my local sub-postmaster, Mick, voted for him. Mick told me that he had been getting increasingly worried about the SNP threat and when he actually got into the voting booth, despite the fact that he and his family had always been Labour and he had been a Trade Unionist, he just couldn’t bring himself to vote Labour and so he voted Conservative!

Ladies and gentlemen the significance is that for the first time in his life that man voted not according to his family tribal political tradition and custom, but he voted as an English patriot and in what he saw as the interests of England.

Of course those like Mick that voted Conservative in such a way are going to find that the Conservatives let them down and that English Votes for English Laws is a completely inadequate and frankly bogus proposal which does very little to settle the English Question. Also of course, it doesn’t even touch the Executive side of the English Question and is only a bit of tinkering with the Representational side.

In discussing matters with Lynton Crosby I also pointed out to him that UKIP had a weakness on the English Question. Although UKIP depends for much of its support upon people who are basically English nationalists, according to the research that has been done by the Institute for Public Policy and Research. The IPPR, in their papers on the rising sense of English political identity, had clearly identified that many of UKIPs supporters were English nationalists.

Nevertheless UKIP’s leaders, especially Nigel Farage, are old style British nationalists (with many of their funders being City Brit/Scots) and consequently were almost certain not to satisfy the English nationalist calls for an English Parliament and for proper representation for England and were not even likely to have a separate manifesto for England! Lynton Crosby was very surprised about this and went and did his research which confirmed it.

In the event, as many of you will know, UKIP lived up to my prediction exactly. They produced a British manifesto which barely mentioned England or the English. They then went on to produce specific Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish manifestos, but nothing specifically for England.

This was despite the Campaign for an English Parliament specifically lobbying them and directly lobbying Suzanne Evans. She point blank refused to have any English manifesto.

Having been forewarned, the Conservatives were then ready to triangulate UKIP by launching a specifically English manifesto, which although it was a thin document, confirmed peoples’ views that the Conservatives were the big party that was most interested in English nationalist questions in the General Election.

In the event, as Lynton Crosby indicated in his televised interview, the English Question may well have been the issue which tipped the Conservatives into an outright majority in the House of Commons (albeit on the back of course of only 26% of the electorates’ votes!). It may also have been the issue which halved UKIP’s representation in Parliament. If they had gone full throttle for English nationalism I think they would have won quite a few of those seats where they came second.

Instead UKIP were over confident that they were going to win many seats, so much so that Nigel Farage had not even prepared a speech to give at his count in Thanet in the event that he failed to win the seat.

It is also why, with his usual weakness for ill-thought-out grandstanding, that he announced that he was standing down with immediate effect as Leader of UKIP and appointing Suzanne Evans, as the temporary Leader, who wasn’t, he misguidedly thought, as dangerous to his position as Paul Nuttall would have been, who as their Deputy Leader ought to have been the person to lead in the interim.

It was only when Nigel Farage spoke to Suzanne Evans and she refused to confirm that she would stand down, so that he could be re-elected at their conference next weekend, that he started the whole ridiculous scenario of trying to un-resign.

I don’t think of Belgium politicians as being usually particularly funny but the Belgium ex-Prime Minister and MEP, Guy Verhofstadt, got it absolutely right when he said:- “He is a man of his word. Nigel Farage has sent a letter to Nigel Farage saying “I resign”, and Nigel Farage has responded to Nigel Farage saying “I refuse” … That’s the way it works there”. Ladies and Gentlemen what about that?

In fact I gather that at UKIP’s next NEC meeting, Nigel Farage told them that they must refuse to accept his resignation and he then refused to leave the room whilst they discussed it.

I am afraid that UKIP’s leadership has been left with its credibility badly damaged. With the Conservatives becoming ever more clearly committed to an In/Out Leave or Remain referendum on EU membership by the end of 2017 UKIP’s purpose is coming to an end. Ladies and Gentlemen I predict that, when we have had that EU referendum, whether we are in or we are out, UKIP will be finished as its one and only purpose will have ended.

We on the other hand, whilst we are of course strongly interested in England coming out of the EU, nevertheless we have an overriding objective and indeed mind-set of being English Nationalists seeking what is in the best interests of the English Nation in respect of any given problem.

It is for this reason that we are today launching our own English nationalist referendum group to leave both of the Unions. We offer two bites of the cherry, not only the referendum on the EU, but also dissolution of the UK which automatically puts us outside the EU.

There is also what has happened to Labour. For those of what they refer to as the “white working class”, but who mostly think of themselves as “English”, who were already concerned that Labour cares about everybody more than they have found it by electing the anti-English Jeremy Corbyn. We have also seen the whole strength of the Far-Left throughout the UK turn out and vote for him. The number is 251,417. That isn’t such a big number, less than the number who voted for us in the 2009 EU election when we got 279,801!

Ladies and Gentlemen whilst there are therefore various reasons for English nationalists to feel optimistic about the future, there are of course various reasons to be concerned and issues to campaign against. One of which is the flood of immigration that we are being subjected to in England.

An extraordinary amount of sentimental nonsense is written and spoken about what “Britain” should do about these problems. Whilst it is true that David Cameron and William Hague have made the situation worse by causing the collapse of the Libyan State. The dramatic scenes that we have seen of migrants in unseaworthy vessels on the Mediterranean have often set out from the anarchic civil war zone that was Libya. In the main however the crisis has little or nothing to do with the United Kingdom.

As a small country on the periphery of the European continent with a living standard which is already quite low down the pecking order of “the developed world” (and sliding!) there isn’t realistically anything that this country could do to completely sort out what is likely to be an ever growing problem; as the population of the world spirals well out of the ability of the earth’s natural resources to provide adequate lifestyles, let alone comfortable lifestyles for its ever vaster human population.

Within the UK the vast majority of migrants (and a disproportionate proportion) prefer to stay in England and are both not willing to be dispersed into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but also are made very unwelcome by local people. It is the English who have been peculiarly tolerant towards immigrants over the last 50 years in which more migrants (and a larger proportion of population) have come here than in the entire previous history of England.

Last year alone the official statistics said that we took in 330,000 migrants. Given the inadequate collection of statistics of those coming in and going out of the country these figures should be viewed with extreme scepticism. The true figure may well be more than double the official one!

It is in the interests of the Government and the State generally to down play the size of immigration as the people of England become ever more concerned that this whole issue is being grossly mishandled by our so-called leaders.

Discussion of the number of Eastern Europeans that have come has been framed by a figure of 600,000 Poles being regularly touted. In fact this figure only represents those Poles that have signed up for employed status with an employee national insurance number. The Polish Government does keep statistics of whose going in and going out of their country and where they are going to and they think that we have over 1.5 million Poles here.

It is worth bearing in mind that the Government of the day claimed, when they opened our borders to Eastern European immigration, that only 13,000 Eastern Europeans would come. Now officials talk disingenuously as if the claimed 600,000 Poles was the equivalent to the 13,000. Actually if the official figures are out to the extent which seems to be the case with Poles, then you can probably add another one million other Eastern Europeans here!

Some years ago one of the main supermarket chains published their estimate of the total population on the basis of the amount of food eaten. They estimated that there was at least another 10 million people in the United Kingdom over and above those officially thought to be here. A similar discrepancy emerges if the amount of effluent produced by the population is considered.

If all the calls for “Britain” to do something were answered, then the county’s infrastructure would simply be unable to cope. I think it is no exaggeration to say that it is already creaking at the seams. There is also the question of our peoples’ living standards, their access to jobs and their facilities and our culture and our countryside.

Just as a reality check, 330,000 people coming in in a year requires a building programme equivalent to building nearly two Colchesters just to house one year’s migration. It is also more than a new Doncaster or a new Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Then there is the 8 million migrants that the Government has now admitted are here. This means that a new Greater London must be built and, given the migrants’ preference for England, that is going to be built in England. Such levels of migration are totally “unsustainable”.

So when British politicians say that we should take more migrants, whether they be refugees or economic migrants or EU citizens, bear in mind that they are asking us all to treat the UK State as if it were in fact a private charity rather than an organisation the purpose of which is to look after the interests of our Nation and our People.

My answer to those who would like to see something done for migrants, is that those people should do it themselves out of their own money and using their own time and effort.

The English are already by far the most charitable people on Earth so go and do it yourselves but don’t expect to use the State, the taxpayer and our fellow citizens’ futures to subsidise your consciences!

Ladies and Gentlemen also there is the question of Regionalisation which has again reared its ugly head with George Osborne’s proposals to try to produce different levels of Regionalisation in different parts of England. Although this is clearly a threat, as it is part of the British Establishment’s agenda to try and break up England, which is, of course, the very threat that is one of the reasons why English Democrats think that the only way in which England can be properly looked after in the future, and protected, is by Independence. Nevertheless this has been done very much on a very top-down basis, rather than as a result of a democratic mandate.

This can be seen most clearly in Manchester, which only recently voted in a referendum not to have a Metro Mayor, but it is now in the process of having to create one in readiness for elections in perhaps two year’s time.

It is for that reason, the lack of democratic mandate for the break-up of England, that I am not as worried about this wave of attempted Regionalisation, as I must say I was ten years ago now with Labour’s proposals for referenda and regional assemblies. That would have been much more difficult to reverse once people had voted in a referendum for Regionalisation.

Interestingly the IPPR research shows that there is virtually no support for any form of Regionalisation in England outside, of course, the British political class. Regionalisation is however a threat that we need to constantly bear in mind and fight against. The main point to make however is that any local government reorganisation is not “Devolution” like what has happened in Scotland and Wales, instead it is merely “Decentralisation”.

Ladies and Gentlemen I am pleased therefore not only to welcome you to this 13th or 14th Conference or Annual General Meeting, but also to say that I think our Cause is making good progress. Over the coming year we have some interesting challenges, not only, of course, probably the EU referendum, but also some significant elections. In particular the Police Commissioner elections on the 5th May 2016.

I would remind everyone that these are elections that we have previously done quite well in, having spent next to nothing on it. Our total spend across all five county forces that we previously stood in was less than £1,000 on campaigning, but we still saved every deposit, getting over 5% of the vote and we also came second in South Yorkshire. Ladies and Gentlemen make no mistake these are important elections that give a position of actual power and decision making to the Police Commissioner. I think it is an opportunity for us to focus on something where we could make a real difference if we got our people elected and could change the way that the Police in England behave.

This is perhaps particularly important when the Government is starting to turn its anti-terrorism strategy, known as CONTEST, against those of us that they consider to be “extremists” because the word “extremist” is now to be used against anyone who opposes the status quo. Those of you who are nurses, doctors, teachers, social workers and police will know that this is a new target for the Government.

To show how far they are prepared to go, consider the fact that recently a “Conservative” MP, the unmarried Mark Spencer. The MP for Sherwood surprised many of those who had not been 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”. In my view such a comment could never have been made by anybody who had any belief in civil liberty, whatever their views on gay marriage.

So Ladies and Gentlemen I hope that we English Democrats will all leave here re-enforced and with a new determination and resolve to fight for England and the English Nation and against our enemies, whether they be Islamist, EU’ish, Regionalist, Scottish or British!

As part of that process we have got important resolutions for you to decide today whether to adopt for our Party and also some interesting speakers and presentations for you this afternoon.

Thank you very much Ladies and Gentlemen.

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”!