Monday, 25 April 2011


With the local elections now less than a fortnight away I get this horrible sick feeling that Labour will bounce back into the lime light.The coalition government is extremely unpopular at the moment with support for the Lib Dems and the Tories taking a turn for the worse.So who will people turn to?Will they come to their senses and vote on mass for a sensible party like UKIP that would send a message to the LIB/LAB/CON that we've all had enough of bankrolling the EU and having an open door policy on mass immigration or will they do what they always do and vote Labour???I would love to think that people will wake up and show some common sense and vote for the only sensible alternative at the moment which is UKIP but I think they will be incredibly stupid and will fall back into the arms of Labour.

It just beggars belief doesn't it ?After everything Labour has done to this country.Why would any sane rational human being go out again and vote for a bunch of retards like Labour? Do people not take any notice of what goes on?Do people live in a bubble?Answers on a postcard please.

Before you go to the ballot box on May 5th stop and ask yourself a few questions.

Do you really want your tax being used to fund countries like Pakistan or India?

Do you really want to carry on bankrolling the EU to the tune of billions every year?

Do you really want to support parties that advocate an open door policy on mass immigration?

Do you really want to keep sending our shrinking armed forces to fight illegal pointless wars?

Do you really want to carry on being taxed till the pips squeak?

Do you really want to carry on paying for idle bastards to live off the welfare state?

Do you really want England to end up as a third world Islamic Republic?

If you answered NO to any of these questions then what ever you do do not vote for a mainstream party!The LIB/LAB/CON will offer you nothing different.They are all committed to the EU,Mass immigration,High taxation and foreign aid.They have proved over and over again that they can't be trusted!


Saturday, 23 April 2011

I am an Englishman!

Enoch Powell-The rivers of blood speech

Here is a transcript of the full Rivers of blood speech made by Powell in Birmingham 1968.After reading this I felt a shiver go down my spine!Enoch was absolutely spot on!If only the establishment would have listened to Enoch all those years ago.Everything he predicted in that speech has come true.I think we are heading towards the abyss! England is on the way towards a third world islamic state and only a revolution will be able to turn England's fortunes around!

The greatest politician since the second world war!

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature. One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing. Hence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future. Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: ‘if only’, they love to think, ‘if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen’. Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical. At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it, deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.
A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalized industries. After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: ‘If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country’. I made some deprecatory reply, to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: ‘I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in fifteen or twenty years time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.’
I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation? The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow-Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that this country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.
In fifteen or twenty years, on present trends, there will be in this country 3½ million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to Parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s office. There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000; but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by different sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.
As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 those born here would constitute the majority. It is this fact above all which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimized lie several parliaments ahead.
The natural and rational first question for a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: ‘how can its dimensions be reduced?’ Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence. The significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is one per cent or 10 per cent. The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.
It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependents, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiances whom they have never seen. Let no one suppose that the flow of dependents will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependents per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country – and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay. I stress the words ‘for settlement’. This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. These are not, and never have been, immigrants.
I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so. Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration. Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous grants and assistance would choose either to return to their countries of origin or go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent. Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects for the future.
It can be no part of any policy that existing families should be kept divided; but there are two directions in which families can be reunited, and if our former and present immigration laws have brought about the division of families, albeit voluntary or semi-voluntary, we ought to be prepared to arrange for them to be reunited in their countries of origin. In short, suspension of immigration and encouragement of re-emigration hang together, logically and humanly, as two aspects of the same approach.
The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr. Heath has put it, we will have no ‘first-class citizens’ and ‘second-class citizens’. This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendants should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to inquisition as to his reasons and motives for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.
There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it ‘against discrimination’, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately, with the bedclothes pulled right over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong. The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the kind before Parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.
Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American negro. The negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service. Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants – and they were drawbacks which did not, and do not, make admission into Britain by hook or by crook appear less than desirable – arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.
But while to the immigrant entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country. They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. On top of this, they now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by Act of Parliament: a law, which cannot, and is not intended, to operate to protect them or redress their grievances, is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.
In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk either penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine. I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me. She did give her name and address, which I have detached from the letter which I am about to read. She was writing from Northumberland about something which is happening at this moment in my own constituency.
‘Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.
The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7 a.m. by two negroes who wanted to use her phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying her rates, she has less than £2 per week. She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were negroes, the girl said ‘racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country’. So she went home.
The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house – at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letterbox. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. ‘Racialist’, they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.’
The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word ‘integration’. To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members. Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult, though over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction. But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one to boot.
We are on the verge of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate. Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press of 17th February [1968], are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a Minister in the Government. ‘The Sikh community’s campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.’ All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.
For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organize to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow-citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

Tuesday, 19 April 2011


As well as voting in local elections on May 5th we now have the opportunity to vote in a referendum to change our voting system from the old First Past the Post system to the Alternative Vote system.Many people including various celebrities are hailing AV as some exciting new concept that will make our voting system more democratic and more accountable to the people.Well don't get too excited cause AV aint all  it's cracked up to be in fact it's a lousy offering from the coalition government to keep the LibDems happy.The voting referendum was offered to Nick Clegg as part of a sweetner to join the coalition government.Of course the Lib Dems preferred to have Proportional Representation but have settled with a lousy piece meal offering in the form of AV.The tories will never offer Proportional Representation to a referendum because this would mean TRUE democracy to the British people.It would mean every political persuasion across the spectrum would have a voice and proper representation.It would also mean for the very first time in history other parties  would have to work together in Westminster with the established LIB/LAB/CON parties.

The First Past The Post system has been used in Britain for over well over a 100 years and ever since the second world war we've only ever known Labour or Conservative governments.The system works by one person one vote ,the candidate with the most votes gets elected.It's very simple and easy to understand.
AV is not so straight forward and can come across as a little confusing.The voter is handed a ballot sheet with a list of candidates and places his/her vote in order of preference for each of the candidates listed until they either run out of candidates or don't care too much for the rest of the line up.On the first round of voting if the a candidate wins over a 50% majority then the winning candidate is duly elected.If there is no candidate with over 50% clear majority then the candidate with the lowest vote count is eliminated and a second round of voting commences.The previous votes for second preference candidates are redistributed and this process is repeated until a winner emerges.This process is not only lengthy but very costly to implement.It is estimated that AV would cost £250 million!A very large sum of money for a system that won't deliver real democracy!
The main benefactors from AV would be the Liberal Democrats and the biggest losers would be the smaller parties like UKIP or the BNP.A mock election was recently trialled on BBC Radio 5 Live and the BNP was knocked out in the first round and UKIP was knocked out in the third round.Supporters in both the Yes and No camps have been using the BNP as a bogeyman to scare people.The true reality is the BNP suffer badly under both voting systems,so to use this as a means of winning support is severely misleading!   

Here is the 2010 General election results under First Past The Post

Con    Lab   LibDem  SNP   PC  Green  UKIP  BNP
307     258      57          6       3        1         0         0

2010 General Election results under AV

Con    Lab   LibDem  SNP   PC  Green  UKIP  BNP
281     262      79          5       3        1         0         0

As you can see from the results above AV would return more MPs for the LibDem's.

The referendum we really should be having is a vote for Proportional Representation.This would give a better representation in parliament of all political persuasions.
Let's now take a look at what our parliament would look like if the 2010 General Election was conducted under the PR voting system

Con    Lab   LibDem  SNP   PC  Green  UKIP  BNP
235     189      150        11      4       7         20     12

Proportional representation is far more advantageous towards smaller parties and gives a more balanced parliament with all views represented.MP's would have to work a lot harder and would be forced to make alliances with smaller parties to get bills voted through.Instead of tactical voting to keep Labour out,people could for the very first time vote for what they really believe in.The wasted vote would become a thing of the past!

So what should we do on May 5th?Do we vote yes to AV in the hope that it could be a spring board to PR.Do we vote no and keep First Past the Post because it's better the devil you know or do you abstain altogether as the outcome will make no difference to who holds the reins of power. 

Friday, 15 April 2011


Our inept waste of space premier David Cameron reckons he's going to clamp down on immigration and sort the mess out once and for all.The premier claims there has been far too much immigration over recent years that has put massive strains on our communities and services.Immigration has had a negative impact on the British people making them feel disjointed and strangers in their own land.So why has he finally decided to speak up on this highly contentious issue? Well that's pretty obvious really's local election time on May 5th and Davey boy is after your vote!

Davey boy wants your vote on May 5th!Don't be fooled by this devious trickster!

People are quite rightly extremely angry with the coalition government and the governments popularity ratings are nose diving.So Cameron needs to press the right buttons and make you think he listens and he cares.Don't be fooled by this charlatan all he wants is your vote because he knows the Conservative vote along with the LibDems risks being wiped out.Immigration is always in the top six political issues.It is an issue that deeply concerns a lot of people.Many people have seen their neighbourhoods changed completely beyond recognition by mass immigration.What where once harmonious communities have now been turned into mini third world ghettoes.I can honestly say that some towns and cities in England look more like backwaters of Pakistan or Bangladesh.This is a development that has appeared on the landscape over a period of 50 years.The tories can never be trusted on mass immigration.In the early 70's Heath said he would stop mass immigration and so too did Thatcher in 79 when she said people felt like they where being swamped.Ever since it's got progressively worse especially since 97 when Labour came to power.Blair and co swung the gates wide open and encouraged the whole world to come to the land of milk and honey.

The proportion of the population born overseas almost doubled in two decades to more than 11%.Three million foreigners joined the population during Labours rule.This could well be a lot higher due to the black economy.

I'm afraid all this talk of getting tough is just empty rhetoric that will amount to nothing.I've heard this said so many times by the Tories and they never ever put words into action.How on earth will he ever be able to control immigration while we are members of the EU?Can you imagine the lawsuits and the lawyers eagerly challenging every deportation because they know that they will get backing from the human rights courts in Strasbourg.The only way we can really stop immigration is by leaving the EU and tearing up the human rights act.Two destructive elements that have been major obstacles in  our nations right to defend Britain from mass immigration.This will never come about by voting Tory or any of the other failed parties in Westminster.I would suggest the best chance we have of ending this nightmare is by voting UKIP.They are the only euro sceptic party with enough support to get a foot in the door at Westminster.They propose a complete ban on immigration for at least five years.

Enoch Powell warned the nation of the dangers of mass immigration 40 years ago in his famous speech  "The rivers of blood."

If anything positive is to come out of Cameron's speech it is the opportunity for people to start openly discussing this issue rationally without fear of being labelled a rascist.It's high time that our politicians started talking about immigration and listening to the people.