Expatriate South Africans have matched through London today to protest against the levels of crime back in Soth Africa, including the in excess of 3,100 white farmers who have been murdered since the end of Apartheid.
From yesterday's Mirror Football Leicester defender Wayne Brown has been forced into making a grovelling apology - after voting BNP at the General Election.
Brown was suspended by the Foxes for their play-off games with Cardiff following a stormy row with team-mate Lloyd Dyer and coach Chris Powell.
The 32-year-old revealed he had voted for BNP last week and was involved in a heated clash with Dyer after training.
And former England international Powell also confronted Brown before team-mates pulled them apart.
Leicester boss Nigel Pearson took swift action by suspending the centre-half for the two legs against the Bluebirds.
And Brown was hauled in for a meeting after Wednesday’s agonising defeat and told to apologise to the squad.
Have we not learned from history? have we so soon forgotten where else in Europe people were forced to publicly apologise for their thoughts, and indeed were punished for them?
I have been asked to write for VDARE.COM’s mostly American readership about the British general election of May 6 2010. In trying to do this, I am at a double disadvantage. First, most Americans naturally know little about Britain. Second, this is a drama unfolding by the hour. Whatever I write now (Sunday evening, May 9) will be out of date shortly.
I will arrange my comments under three headings: How the System Works in General: How the System Worked on This Occasion; What the Meaning of All This Might be for Liberty and Tradition.
1. How the System Works in General
The House of Commons is the central body of British government. It is made up of 650 Members, including the Speaker. Each Member of Parliament [MP] represents one geographical district of roughly equal population, called a "constituency". He is elected by the "first past the post system", which means that the winner of the seat needs to gain a majority of one over any other candidate. In other words, it is elected on the same basis as the U.S. House of Representatives—which, however, shares power with the U.S. Senate and the President.
Theoretically, this election process can lead to overall outcomes in which one of the main parties gains a majority of the total votes cast, but another wins a majority of seats in the House of Commons. This happens rarely in Britain. But over the last half-century or so, the British political party system has fragmented to a much greater degree than has happened in the U.S. (yet). As a result, it has become common for a party to get a small majority in overall votes cast, but a large Commons majority. Thus in the last general election, Labour won 356 seats and a substantial Commons majority with 36.9 per cent of the vote—which, on a turnout of 61.3 per cent, meant that it won with just over 22 per cent of the total possible vote.
A further consequence of this system: small parties are effectively blocked from the House of Commons. For example, in the 2010 general election, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) got around a million votes and the British National Party (BNP) got over half a million votes. (Both are fiercely opposed to immigration). But these were votes picked up across the country as a whole. Because neither party won a majority of the vote in one specific constituency, neither party has any seats in the House of Commons.
Indeed, even the smallest of the three main parties is at a disadvantage. In the 2010 general election, the Liberal Democrats won 23 per cent of the votes cast and got 57 seats, while Labour won 29 per cent, and got 258 seats.
There are about a dozen nationalists from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—referred to in Britain as the "Celtic" fringe. Otherwise, every seat is held by the three main parties—Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat.
For all they squabble over secondary issues, these are what may be called parties of the Regime—they are committed to the present order of things.
Whatever the democratic legitimacy of the outcome, the party that wins an overall majority of seats in the House of Commons is allowed to form the Government. That is, the leader of the largest party becomes Prime Minister, and then appoints all the other Ministers.
And whoever controls the House of Commons has absolutely unlimited power over the life, liberty and property of everyone in the
Britain has no written constitution, no entrenched bill of rights, no counterbalancing institutions. Back in 1776, the British Constitution was regarded as a balance of Crown, Lords and Commons, each able to check the other. Many judges and politicians also believed that there were certain fundamental laws that the courts could uphold against combined attack by Crown, Lords and Commons. This was the template for the American Constitution.
Since then, however, the Lords have lost their blocking veto. The Crown—especially during the reign of "Elizabeth the Useless" (1952-)—has given up all attempt to preserve the Constitution from attack. The courts have accepted the doctrine of the absolute legislative supremacy of Parliament—which means of whoever controls the House of Commons.
In theory, an Act of Parliament—even passed by a majority of one in a Commons where the governing party received perhaps ten per cent of the total possible vote—could order the execution of every man in the country with red hair. It could make it an offence to whistle in the streets of
For a long time, this peculiar doctrine was allowed to do little harm. The House of Commons was dominated by members of the old ruling class, and these made sure to govern as if constrained by an entrenched constitution. By a process of gradual change during the 20th century, however, the old ruling class was displaced first in its personnel and then in its values.
This was a gradual process, and no single year can easily be chosen to mark the transition. Whatever year is chosen, despotic laws can be adduced from before, and successful insistences on the old norms can be adduced from after. But perhaps the two most important dates were the election years of 1979 and 1997.
In the first of these, Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Government was elected at a time of crisis. It believed its agenda of economic and political change should not be limited by any constitutional norm.
In the second, Tony Blair’s Labour Government was elected. It used the precedents set by the Thatcher and Major Governments to carry out a Politically Correct coup d’état.
Since 1997,
Around 5,000 new criminal offences have been created. In the name of "equality" and "anti-racism", government power has been imposed into every area of private life. Call someone a "bloody immigrant", and go to prison. Refuse to accommodate homosexuals in your hotel, and go to prison. Refuse to employ an atheist in your religious school, and be shut down. Smoke in your own business premises, or allow others to smoke, and go to prison. Photograph a police officer while he is breaking the law, and go to prison. Upset a police officer, and be arrested, and have your DNA taken and stored on a database that is shared with several dozen foreign governments. Keep a firearm in your home for self-defence, and go to prison for five years.
Since 1997, habeas corpus has been abolished. We have serious criminal trials without juries. [First trial without jury approved, BBC News, June 18, 2009] The rule against double jeopardy has been abolished. Hearsay and similar fact evidence can be introduced. The police and 20,000 civil servants have the right to conduct warrantless searches of our homes. The police can authorise each other to break into homes to plant listening devices. Despite solid opposition, Labour is about to force to carry biometric identity cards that will give the authorities the ability to spy on—and therefore to control—every aspect of our private lives.
Nobody knows how many Third World immigrants have been encouraged to settle in the country. The official population of the
We know that the great majority of immigrants who have been granted citizenship vote for the Labour Party. There is also much anecdotal evidence—though this is not mentioned in the Main Stream Media—that illegal immigrants and "asylum seekers" are being registered to vote so that they can increase the Labour share of the vote.
Our registration laws date back to a time when nearly everyone in the country was a citizen. Registration to vote was a formality for when someone reached the age of majority or moved house. The law is based on trust—and this trust is easily abused by a little perjury that is then connived at by the pro-Labour administrators who control most of local government.
As a libertarian patriot, I take a less pessimistic view of immigration than other patriots. However, what we presently have is state-sponsored mass-immigration. This has been a deliberate policy of the British ruling class to break up resistance to despotism—recently admitted by Andrew Neather, one of Tony Blair’s speechwriters. When people are sufficiently balkanised, they will suspect each other more than the authorities.
None of the Regime parties will do anything about immigration. It must be said, though, that of the three the Conservatives have dropped the strongest hints that they might.
Oh—and the country has been formally enslaved to the centralised, bureaucratic European Union, which now makes most of the laws not mentioned above. And the country’s foreign policy has become a matter of slavishly assisting in whatever act of imperialism and mass-murder the U.S. Government may see fit to begin. The Iraq and Afghan Wars serve no British interest. They have resulted in perhaps millions of deaths. They were opposed by solid majorities of British opinion. They went ahead nevertheless.
3. How the System Worked on This Occasion
How any main opposition party could fight an election campaign against our Government of unindicted traitors and war criminals, and not win an overall majority of 300, is a cause for astonishment. But that is what the Conservative party has just managed. It got 36 per cent of a 65 per cent turnout—that is, it won just over 23 per cent of the total possible vote.
The Conservatives did emerge as the largest single party in terms both of votes and seats. But of course a party needs 326 seats in the House of Commons to have an overall majority. The Conservatives got 306 seats, making them twenty short of a majority.
The cause of this astonishing failure was the leadership of David Cameron. It would be hard to think of anyone who could not have led the Conservatives to victory after thirteen years of what we have had. The problem is that Mr Cameron is just that person. He refuses to discuss
His disagreements with Labour have not been entirely cosmetic. He and his party are better than Labour on many issues. But these are not issues critical to national survival.
And there is no doubt that several million people who would have voted to save their nation decided it was not worth the effort of voting for a Conservative Government led by someone who looks and tries to sound depressingly like Tony Blair.
Why bother voting for a different man to front the same policies of treason and destruction?
And so no party can be said to have won the election. Here, for the sake of completeness, are the results so far:
| Seats | Change | Vote % | |
| Conservative | 306 | +97 | 36.1 |
| Labour | 258 | -91 | 29.0 |
| Liberal Democrat | 57 | -5 | 23.0 |
It will be seen that, while the Conservatives did not get an overall majority, the Labour Party was badly hit, and the Liberal Democrats lost seats. Nobody won in the usual sense. So far as this is possible within a zero-sum game, they all lost.
______________
Hat Tip: Alamo Guy
Asylum seeking "juveniles"
If anyone was in any doubt, following the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court, that Obama had an unfriendly agenda, will have been disabused of that doubt by the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stephens.
As I write Gordon Brown is just leaving the Palace after handing in his resignation to the Queen, so we have the first Conservative / Liberal coalition government in 70 years. 
A grisly picture of the killing of right-wing leader Eugene Terre'Blanche was painted in court at a bail hearing on Monday.
As an aside to the brave and prolific Rugfish's excellent article at the Green Arrow yesterday, in which he referred to the nightmare facing the Greek public, who, as we may soon find ourselves, face the prospect of decades of hardship in order to repay crippling debts, it is worth mentioning what the Greek government did in January 2007. For, it was then that they made a number of changes to to their already very liberal immigration rules, in order to grant MORE residence permits to foreign workers.
Amongst other things, the new provisions, ominously entitled ‘Entry, residence and social inclusion of third country nationals in Greek territory’, enabled non-EU residents working in a number of (you guessed it) “low paid” occupations, such as nurses and construction workers, to renew their residence permits without having to produce trifling documents such as proof of employment.
The changes also enabled immigrants to purchase additional employment stamps, rather than actually earning them. Accumulating sufficient employment stamps was another requirement of renewing residence/work permits, so this was yet another change designed to make it easier for (low paid) foreign workers to remain in Greece.
In addition, immigrants would in future be able take up positions in regions other than the one where the original residence permit was issued. (Remember, Nick Clegg's promise to ensure immigrants were send immigrants previously non-”enriched” parts of the nation?!!)
The most significant change in the regulations was in relation to illegal immigrants, with regard to whom those drafting the new regulations had noted with horror that under previous regulations “hundreds of thousands of immigrants were not able to obtain residence permits”. To address this lamentable situation, the law would in future merely require illegal immigrants to provide evidence that they had been in the country prior to 31st December 2004 (i.e. for three years) in order to obtain residence status. (What's the word for “amnesty” in Greek?)
Odd they chose the three year gateway, given that those changes were only made three years before Greece found itself in its current predicament.
It doesn't take long for the benefits of immigration to start trickling through does it?
When is it going to occur to the great and good that mass immigration and economic collapse clearly go hand in hand?
Amongst the flotsam left bobbing about after HMS Britain sunk into a hung parliament comes the satisfying news that Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones, the arrogant twit who markets the "Black Farmer" range of sausages, and who refused to attend the hustings in Chippenham unless the BNP candidate was banned, was another of Cameron's special 'A' list of Politically Correct Tory candidates who failed in his attempt to be elected.
Cooked sausages
Duncan HamesI appreciate that everybody is feeling very tired after this bruising campaign and some disappointing headline results. In fact, as you will see later in this message, behind the media's sneers, there is real concern about the progress that we have made in this extraordinarily hard-fought contest.
With the result now in, Britain faces its first "hung parliament" since 1974 and the next Government - if there is to be one and not a new election in a few months' time - will be a coalition of two of the main parties.
Ironically, this provides the British National Party (which spectacularly almost tripled its vote from 2005, jumping from 192,746 to a healthy 563,743 in yesterday's contest) with its best window of opportunity yet.
The kingmaker in any coalition will be the Liberal Democrats under Nick Clegg. Their key demand for participation in a coalition is electoral reform, and in particular the abolition of the current "first-past-the-post" election system. The reason why the Liberal Democrats oppose the first-past-the-post system is that it clearly puts a smaller party (which is what the Liberal Democrats are) at a hugely unfair disadvantage.
The figures tell the story: yesterday the Liberal Democrats won around 23 percent of the vote, but will end up with only 7 percent of the seats in Parliament. The BNP, which polled close to a million votes in June 2009, and over half a million yesterday (despite only fighting half of all the available 650 seats), will end up with no seats at all.
In effect, the first-past-the-post system simply throws millions of votes onto the rubbish heap where they are ignored. As a result, the Liberal Democrats have argued for the introduction of proportional representation (PR) in Britain.
Under a PR system, if a party gets 10 percent of the votes, it gets 10 percent of the seats in Parliament. If it gets 32 percent of the vote, it gets 32 percent of the seats, and so on.
It is an obviously fairer way of allowing all votes cast in an election be reflected in Parliament. In fact, a slightly amended system of PR is used in European Parliamentary elections, which allowed the BNP to win its two seats in that body in June 2009.
If the Liberal Democrats are involved in a coalition with either Labour or Conservatives, it is inevitable that they will set the demand for a PR system as one of the preconditions for their cooperation.
In fact, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg has already made this demand in public - and both Labour and Conservatives have announced their willingness to consider it or, at the very least, hold a referendum on the topic.
What does this mean for the BNP? The tripling of the BNP vote on 6 May has some important implications.
Firstly, where we went head-to-head with UKIP and the Greens, we thrashed them. We outvoted UKIP in 178 seats and they beat us in 123. We outvoted the Greens in 134 seats for the Greens 23. UKIP had a huge budget and their campaign was backed by 13 MEPs, in it must not be forgotten that both UKIP and the Greens enjoy favourable treatment at the hands of the controlled media.
Secondly, while all minority parties were pushed out to the edge by the 'big boys', our vote not only held up but proportionately increased when compared to our June 2009 Euro election results.
When put into perspective, yesterday's result becomes even more interesting:
- In 1983, the BNP fought 54 seats and polled 14,000 votes.
- In 1987, the BNP fought 2 seats and polled 563 votes.
- In 1992, the BNP fought 13 seats and polled 7,000 votes.
- In 1997, the BNP fought 54 seats and polled 35,000 votes.
- In 2001, the BNP fought 33 seats and polled 47,000 votes.
- In 2005, the BNP fought 117 seats and polled 192,746 votes.
- In 2010, the BNP fought 339 seats and polled 563,743 votes.
Based on yesterday's impressive vote totals, the BNP would win in excess of 60 seats in Westminster under a PR system.
Some of the more perceptive Conservative journalists, such as Norman Tebbit, have already realised this as a possibility and have written about it in national newspapers.
In addition, many political commentators have already remarked that, on a night which saw all the smaller parties squeezed - including the Lib-Dems, who lost five seats - the strong showing and turnout of the BNP vote was "a source of great concern."
They have seen how the public hostility towards us is fast disappearing. I felt it on the streets and I'm sure you did too.
Compare this with a few years ago when we endured frequent confrontations and 'screamers'. This election we enjoyed a very friendly response on the streets and no aggravation (apart from the exception of activists from Labour's far left thuggish allies).
I have heard reports from all over the country, and have experienced it for myself, that the 'screamers' who used to pop out of the woodwork in almost every street, have all but completely vanished.
The shift in the public's perception of us now is really very encouraging. Unfortunately in this much hyped General Election, people voted for a change in government and have (some with gritted teeth) reverted back to the old parties.
Our adversaries recognised this probably before us and have done everything to keep us as a small fringe party. Under PR we could easily fill a bus with BNP MPs.
As the coalition negotiations begin, let those who might feel disappointed at the BNP's failure to secure a parliamentary seat yesterday reflect on what might happen in a short while.
The introduction of PR to Britain will dramatically change the face of British politics and propel the BNP into the mainstream political debate once and for all.
Unfortunately, the high turnout generated by the General Election hype meant that we were also squeezed severely in local elections nationwide.
Our vote remained rock solid but the percentages were against us.
Perhaps the most sobering reality we must now face is the demographic disaster unfolding all over the country, but especially in Barking & Dagenham and London generally. The simple fact is this: we have been swamped by immigrants.
Labour is carrying out a policy of gerrymandering through immigration. This has meant the death of the old East End and by the time of the next General Election, London will be completely unassailable, colonised and in truth no longer part of Britain.
We need to develop a new strategy to protect our dispossessed and marginalised people in these 'occupied territories.' As our people are pushed first into political impotence and then into absolute minority status, to continue fighting first-past-the-post elections and securing an ever-dwindling vote is simply a recipe for demoralisation and failure.
We will instead develop a new strategy for these areas, based on civil rights agitation and legal challenges to the authorities whenever they marginalise our white minority.
I know how hard everybody worked and I know there is a positive change in the public's attitude towards the BNP. You must have felt it too. This tended to lead to raised expectations which, while they have not been this time in the ballot box, do truly reflect the undercurrent of ever growing sympathy for our party and our message. We all know the feeling is there and growing.
At the end of the day, we tripled our vote and we can now build on the huge experience we have gained through fighting two national elections in less than a year.
The glaring item lacking in the BNP armoury is our underdeveloped Elections Department. This will now be the focus of a huge overhaul and re-structuring, bringing it into line with the very best and almost futuristic election machines of Labour and the Lib-Dems.
The BNP has the courage and determination and some of the best politically motivated people of all the parties. However, our methods, tactics and electioneering apparatus are basically 20 years out of date.
This was discussed at a leadership meeting in February and while we recognised the urgent need for modernisation, there was no way we could start to reform and modernise before the election.
Through a substantial investment in administration, fundraising and logistics, the BNP possesses a finely tuned administrative regime. As an example of what the administrative staff can do is illustrated by the fact that all of the 8,000 inquiries received centrally in the six weeks of the campaign, have already been sent information packs.
Some 6,000 have already been databased and passed on to the regional organisers so that follow-up work can start immediately. This is a very rapid and efficient turnaround of an absolutely crucial job.
We do however need to acknowledge that there were very serious problems in the campaign, particularly in the Publicity Department. The new team which took over - Clive Jefferson, Alwyn Deacon and all others involved - did a fantastic job under the most difficult of circumstances in rescuing that situation by the skin of our teeth.
Now we need to focus all of our attention and energies in harnessing and utilising the very best in modern electioneering practices. This will start immediately and this month will see the first event in our new training programme being rolled out.
We need to grasp the huge potential in exploiting postal votes, tele-canvassing and other modern methods and techniques. We also need to equip ourselves to perform well in community politics.
Although the Greens were practically wiped out in this election, they still managed to secure their first MP. How did they do this? They invested heavily on the ground by being fully involved in local community politics. This afforded them 'credibility' through an effective presence in community politics. Minority parties can overcome obstacles by producing effective councillors. To do that we need to invest heavily in training for our people who are at the 'coalface '
We are now stronger than ever and have proven ourselves capable of planning, fighting and financing two national election campaigns on the largest scale ever, one after another.
We will now focus on a massive overhaul of our political machinery.
External attacks disguised as internal friction will be a common feature as our political enemies spin their web of lies and deceit designed to prevent us from reaching our true potential. Our enemies' weapons will be disharmony, conflict, misinformation and never-ending legal warfare.
They will not succeed, but we all must remain ever vigilant. If someone tells you a piece of 'shocking' internal gossip which clearly is aimed at undermining the people now working to propel the party forward, then you need to treat such lies with the contempt they deserve. Don't believe, let alone pass on, any such disinformation without telling the target about the allegation and hearing the truth. Our enemies have huge resources at their disposal and will exploit the slightest chink in our armour to inject their poison amongst us.
So let us build on the lessons of the last two years of spectacular growth and advances. We have all worked incredibly hard and I know the price our families pay. Take a break; spend time with your family - because we will have all this to do again in a very short time.
This election has been a shambolic farce for our democracy. However, this is an opportunity for us and now is the time to re-structure, modernise and invest in this party's election machine and that's exactly what we ARE going to do.
Yours sincerely,In terms of the number of votes we received we were in 5th place.
If there is good news to be had from last night it is the fact that the British National Party's share of the vote increased more than any other party other than the Conservatives. However, despite all the work it was nowhere near enough. With 615 of the 650 seats counted, it is clear that the BNP will not be sending any MP's to Parliament after this election.
I highly recommend a set of postings by Mike Smith examining the myths, truths and lies about Apartheid, which can be read at South Africa Sucks by clicking here.
Another innocent victim died last night. 16 year old Nick Pearton lay cradled in his distraught mothers arms after he had been viciously and stabbed stabbed by gang of black youths who had chased him across a park in Sydenham South London, armed with knives and baseball bats.
Over the last few days, as I make my way to or from work, or wonder around Sainsbury’s pushing my trolley, I have been singing a little song to myself. It is a simple little ditty, sung to the tune of the old Cockney pub song “Knees up Mother Brown”.I’m voting BNP
I’m voting BNP
I don’t give a toss what you think
I’m voting BNP
Clegg’s a little teaser
With Tofu in his freezer
I’m voting BNP
Brown’s a total bigot
I’m telling him to fr### it
And voting BNP
_______________________________
Update: Those in constituencies with no BNP candidate should vote in whatever way is required to punish Labour, for Labour must be punished.
