Saturday, May 15, 2004

Why Blair fixed the poll date. 

Someone recently said this to me about the forthcoming European Elections:

"Vote for UKIP, BNP or anybody else you fancy. But for God's sake don't vote for any part of the Con/Lab/Lib fake "One Party with 3 Names" ! You are simply signing your own and Britain's death warrant by so doing! Better still, do not vote in the fake "Euro" elections at all. They are completely illegal and have only the effect of giving the "EU" crime syndicate a thin verneer of fake electoral legitimacy. They have no electoral authority even to exist."


He is absolutely right. I won't be voting in the EU Election either. The problem is that Blair has deliberately set the date so that it coincides with the London GLA Elections and the local elections, which means that I shall now have to explain at the polling station that I do not want a ballot paper for the European Elections yet wish to vote in the Greater London Authority elections. Many people who previously would have stayed at home on the EU Election day will not make that distinction. Given that the public usually votes Liberal or "Conservative" as a protest we could see many Tories and Liberal Democrats elected on June 10th, but on a much higher turnout (due to the combining of polls). Put another way this means that the poll will be seen as an endorsement for the parliamentary opposition parties, and for the EU Electoral process. If we see gains for the BNP, UKIP, English Democrats (parties who wish to leave the EU) etc on a low turnout we shall have the best of both worlds, but the more people that vote, the better the percentage for the "old gang" will be (unless we have a political earthquake!).

Friday, May 14, 2004

The Green Party - why we oppose them 

The Green Party is probably no longer worth bothering with by anyone to the right of Dennis Skinner. Today's Green Party really should be struck off the list of environmental organisations and tossed into the rubbish bin of the far left alongside organisations like the Socialist Alliance and the ANL.

The Green Party of today is much closer to a conventional liberal lefty party than it is to the Green Party of 1989 and draws its support from a totally different section of the population - most of which are now former members of left wing, gay rights, and political correctness groups. In fact the Green Party places the environment on the back burner and focusses more on issues like fighting racism and promoting gay rights than anything else. They want to totally dismantle our immigration barriers and make Britain a haven for bogus asylum seekers despite all the opposition from the general public. The Green Party and the mainstream environmental activist movement are very separate and apart from each other with most environmental activists having little in common with the Green Party and seeing it as an organisation filled with ageing hippies, gay rights activists, car haters, feminists, cannabis addicts, and former communists and Trotskyists. The fact that the Green Party fails to tackle the destruction of Britain's countryside and green belt from demand for housing due to immigration and anyone who dares to question whether this mass immigration is desirable is immediately labelled as a racist really does make the Green Party a sad joke.

Information provided by Green Party members states that the Green vote could well fall and they could lose their MEP for the south east region but will probably win an MEP for London. Also, the party's 1960's look and feel is offputting for the younger generation and party bosses are very concerned about the decline in membership in the under 30 age group. Various scraps of info from research carried out by the Green Party state that young people are unimpressed by it and find it uncool and to associate oneself with the Green Party is like walking around in public wearing flared trousers.

(This excellent posting comes courtesy of "Riaz", a leading patriotic campaigner)

UKIP Election Broadcast (May 12th 2004) 

Whilst I would admit that the UKIP party political broadcast had its faults, I would still say that it is the best that they have produced (despite the terrible corny opening sequence featuring comic sketches of continental stereotypes). There were a number of ethnic minorities featured, all speaking out against immigration, and it has to be said that for some in the patriotic movement they cannot do right, for if they rant on about anti-racist policies they are wrong, but they are also condemned for opposing immigration!!

The idea of having numerous non-whites in all future election broadcasts would be dubious tokenism to say the least, but if they are opposing further immigration (whether by diktat of UKIP leader Roger Knapman or of their own accord) it is a step in the right direction. It reminds me of Jean-Marie Le Pen's Front National, where coloured French join to oppose further immigration.

I would say that a UKIP black supporter is worth a thousand of "Lord" John Taylor (the black candidate who lost the Cheltenham seat for the Tories and was rewarded with a peerage), who is perhaps the most extreme anti-white politically correct politician in the country. I read the other day that he was in charge of the selection procedure for the Tory European Election candidates. God help them!!!


Thursday, May 13, 2004

Against nationalisation of vice 

I have been thinking of backing Frank Maloney (UKIP Candidate) for London Mayor on June 10th, but I was very concerned when I read about his plan to legalise brothels, should be be elected. This is the kind of social liberalism which we should fight against. It smacks of "managerial" politics, whereby morality plays no part, the emphasis being upon damage limitation and controlling vice.

Where next? We already have a national lottery. Will Cannabis be the next item on the agenda, with the drugs being re-packaged and sold in drug cafes owned and run by the Greater London Authority, the profits being ploughed back into "good causes"? This represents the nationalisation of vice. It is part of the value-neutral society where very few things (apart from being "judgemental"; "homophobic"; "racist" etc) are seen as being wholly unnacceptable by the liberal elite.

This concept of "victimless crimes" goes against our tradition as a Christian country. We need to retain the legal support which allows parents to tell their children that something is against the law (drugs, prostitution etc) and therefore is wrong. Decriminalisation means that people can simply turn around and say "well, there's no
law against it is there?"

Monday, May 10, 2004

Why the Tories let the left off the hook.. 

The Tories will never fight fire with fire, and that is one of their main problems. If Michael Howard puts even a fraction of the venom towards the Labour and Liberal parties that he displayed towards the BNP it will pay dividends, but there seems to be an unwritten rule between the main three parties that they should go easy on each other, compared to the small parties.

This consensus exists because:

a) They have to co-exist in the House of Commons, work together on private members' bills, and pair together for votes.

b) Their political platforms are not radically different.
They also know that excessive pressure on their opponents would possibly inflict mortal damage upon one of the traditional parties, leaving an opportunity for a new party to crop up and take their place on the political spectrum. The main parties each require each other to remain in business. That's why they were horrified by the Green Party's success in the 1989 Euro Elections, and why all three ganged up together to halt any advance by the Greens.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?