Thursday, 24 April 2008

Britannia Day - 18 June and two TV ideas

St Andrew's Day - 30 November

St David's Day - 1 March

St George's Day - 23 April

30 + 1 + 23 = 54 divided by 3 = 18

11 + 3 + 4 = 18 divided by 3 = 6, ie the sixth month

By this formula I have arrived at the British National Day, with an auspicious and pleasing number on a day likely to be warm and sunny.  It is also the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo and therefore even more excellently auspicious.

TV Idea No 1

The appeal of a beauty contest called Britannia the Beautiful open to all races of aspiring Britannias who will wear little else but the Union Jack would be great, I think.

Voting would be by SMS.

TV Idea No 2

An alternative Britannia in a Burqa could be just the thing to display the personalities of single British women of all races and religions not considered to be conventionally attractive. Single men would make offers of marriage only after their questions have been answered to their satisfaction. These women would of course also have a list of questions for the men about their prospects, property and ambitions.

It would be a bit like Blind Date but with the contestants in burqas. This would be when deportment, wit, learning and personality would come into its own ....

Only when an offer has been made and accepted would the burqa be taken off to reveal the features of the woman concerned.

I am quite happy to host this show if asked, in case any TV people looking for new ideas for game shows and TV competitions are interested.

If they do not think me suitable perhaps Terry Wogan or Michael Parkinson could do it.

Questions and Answers about Me, Myself and I

When were you happiest?

When I was last deeply in love.

What is your greatest fear?

My own cowardice.

What is your earliest memory?

Of deciding whether or not to cut myself with a sharp object, expecting it to hurt, doing it anyway, and crying when it hurt. I was an Empiricist then at 5 or 6. Now I am a Rationalist.

Which living person do you most admire?

Mishal Husain - who is as clever as she is beautful.

Barach Obama for his audacity.

What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?


What is the trait you most deplore in others?

Irrational cowardice, preferring to remain ignorant because they would rather not upset themselves.

What was your most embarrassing moment?

There have been so many I have lost count and repressed those memories.

Aside from a property, what’s the most expensive thing you’ve ever bought?

A camera.

What is your most treasured possession?

My tools of communication, memory and reference – computer, TV, camera, mobile, books

Where would you like to live?

Anywhere that feels like home.

Who would play you in the film of your life?

She probably hasn’t been born yet.

What is your most unappealing habit?


What is your favourite smell?

Curry cooking, the best kind

What is your favourite word?


What is your favourite book?

Flatland by Edwin Abbott

What would you most like to wear to a fancy dress party?

A beard or perhaps a burqa.

Cat or dog?


What is your guiltiest pleasure?

Admiring myself

To whom would you like to say sorry, and why?

To my parents for being a worry to them and being less than they had hoped.

Which living person do you most despise, and why?

David Cameron, for his smarmy convictionlessness.

Which words or phrase do you most overuse?


What has been your biggest disappointment?


If you could go back in time, when would you go?

When Moses parted the Red Sea.

How do you relax?

TV, talking, reading, writing, thinking, which is also “work”.

What song you would you liked played at your funeral?

Je ne regrette rien

What is the most important lesson life has taught you?

That we are our own worst enemy, and that the enemy within is more intractable than the visible enemy. The Muslims talk about “the greater jihad”, ie the greater struggle (with onesef).

Tell us a joke

A couple and their 11 year old daughter with her friend are sitting down to dinner. Daughter asks mother what it is. Mother says it is venison. Daughter asks what venison is. Mother coyly says it is something Daddy occasionally calls her. Daughter thinks for a moment, turns to her friend and says: “I wouldn’t eat it if I were you. It’s a f*cking c*nt.”

St George's Day in Trafalgar Square - BNP mayoral candidate as St George

How mongrelised we are now, everyone and everywhere! The sight of a British Nationalist wearing the flag of St George as sarong just like a Malay, as I saw him heading towards All Bar One in Leicester Square with his companions after the BNP procession in Trafalgar Square, was bemusing to say the least. There was even a skinhead who more typifies the mental image of a National Fronter or British nationalist most people have of the “Far Right” - but he was perfectly pleasant when I asked him to turn his head so that his tattoos could be photographed to greater advantage.

My crystal ball is not giving me a clear picture as to whether British nationalism is a force for good or evil, but it has been awakened and will no longer be quiet, as the increased support for the BNP is showing and will continue to show. It will have to be managed very carefully by those within the party and those of us outside it who find quite a few of their policies appealing. At any rate it will have the effect of making politics a little more interesting, which must be a Good Thing, as I run an opinion-polling direct democracy website - that runs on a paradox of unity and diversity. (Yes, it is a virtal one-party state that I run as my very own fiefdom. All are compelled to think independently ...)

British Nationalism is a misnomer and nonsense if it equates nationality with race, surely? There is a difference between race and nation. One is how you look, the other is where you think you belong, what you do and how you think. Nation transcends race - being a concept, while race is just a set of physical characteristics - they are not mutually interchangeable, as the BNP apparently believe.

The unexpectedness of an Afro-Caribbean who wanted to be in on the picture was a delicious irony. I do not know if he knew with whom he was being photographed, but Richard Barnbrook was obviously delighted at this unexpected turn of events.

The BNP mayoral candidate as St George on a white charger was a crowd-pleaser, though it was quite a small crowd. When it merged with the over-priced British Food Festival in Trafalgar Square it was in effect swallowed up, so to speak. A jousting competition in St James’s Park with the mayoral candidates as contestants would have been the perfect entertainment on a sunny spring afternoon.

These are the ones I took.
Photos taken by David Hoffman, a professional photographer, can be found at:

Tuesday, 22 April 2008

How a BNP canvasser might approach a Muslim householder


BNP canvasser knocks on Muslim householder. Door opens.
BNP: Good day, Madam/Sir. I am sorry to interrupt your prayers but I wonder if I could canvass your opinion on a number of issues.

Muslim: What do you want?

BNP: We were wondering what you feel about paying for the London Olympics. Are you pleased to pay as a Londoner to host it or would you prefer that the Olympics is held in Athens where we feel it really belongs, permanently? We would invite Athens to host the 2012 Olympics too, if they want. We find that most Londoners like this idea and wonder if you do too.

We know that you know we don't like you and you don't like us, but we are only canvassing your second vote.

How would you feel about voting for a party that would not have invaded Iraq if it had been in power or propped up Israel unconditionally, if it had been in power? You must know that quite a few of us at the BNP cannot decide whether we dislike Jews or Muslims more and would have left the Middle East well alone.

While you dislike us and think we want you out, may we remind you using your second vote on us on 1 May is quite safe?

Remember, the Labour Party which you are supposed to trust was the one who invaded Iraq and are even now plotting to enact more police state anti-terrorist legislation. We at the BNP have not messed up anyone's country and just want to be left alone, as you probably do.

I suppose you know that what would most upset the government is for us to do even better than they fear?

How would you feel about upsetting the government by using your second vote to vote BNP? A BNP mayor cannot repatriate anyone. And did you know we are offering to pay £50,000 - yes £50,000! - per ethnic to go home? We are not just proposing to chuck you out like Idi Amin did, you know.

Another issue is this, what do you feel about immigration? Do you share our concerns or are you just happy to have more people coming in?

Can you really not understand why white working class people might feel threatened and want to join the BNP?

Can you honestly say that if you were born white working class you yourself would not join the BNP?

If you can bring yourself to use your second vote as we hope you will, it would be great if you would let us know that you have done so and indeed tell others that you are proposing to do this. It is, haha, a bit like suicide voting without actually committing suicide, you know! If you do, we will give you free membership for a year and put your name down as a Martyr in the cause of upsetting and alarming our warmongering ruling classes.

You have nothing to lose anyway. You can vote for Ken who wants you to have your supermosque in Newham (or even Brian Paddick if you are tired of Ken) AND you can also vote for us to upset and alarm our ruling class! Talk about having your cake and eating it!

Oh, and the only anti-Muslim thing we have in our London manifesto is the banning of the niqab in public places and prevent more mosques being built - you already have plenty and are in any case still able to turn empty churches into mosques. I hope you can see that this is in the interests of the prevention of crime and terrorism. You are probably aware that criminals do disguise themselves as Muslim women in burqas. You also already know that the sight of women dressed as black crows just creates fear and loathing like nothing else and reminds people about what they see as the Muslim threat. As you can see, it is for your protection too.

We hope you will give this option your serious Islamic consideration and discuss it with your mosque elders.

Well, thank you for your listening, Mr/Ms Muslim Voter. I am sorry to have disturbed your prayers and hope you will consider using your second vote on the BNP, if you do indeed wish to upset our ruling classes, who are after all the ones who have invaded Muslim lands, who now limit the free speech of your imams, and occasionally raid your houses and shoot non-terrorist Muslims for no good reason, like those brothers in Forest Gate who grew a beard.

Lecture by Sean Gabb, Director of the Libertarian Alliance - "Islam - our enemy?"

Vote: Should the BNP also canvass the London Muslim's second vote for 1 May?

Monday, 21 April 2008

London Muslims "suicide voting" for the BNP?

My recommendation on how to make the best use of your second vote, ie to vote for Ken and BNP, is based on the fact that they are both anti-establishment and AGAINST INVADING IRAQ FROM THE START, which is good enough for me, and perhaps for any Muslims reading this.

Personally, I do not see why Islam could not become the happy medium between capitalism red in tooth and claw and an overweening nanny state, the happy compromise between a male-dominated society and the over-feminised society we have become, mutatis mutandis.


If so, they may wish to read this with particular attention.

If the BNP do well, they will be keen on doing even better.

If they become keen on maximising their support, they would have to consider lifting their colour bar, if to do so would significantly increase membership and win over those who are currently in UKIP and voting for UKIP.

The local elections last year (or was it the year before?) revealed that the BNP commanded 14% of the vote. UKIP had 12% and the LibDems 28%. If UKIP and the BNP merged and became a party that no longer operated a colour bar or wished for the repatriation of non-white citizens, they would very probably receive around 26% of the vote, if not much more, AND BE IN A POSITION TO INFLUENCE EVENTS.

If support for UKIP collapses after the BNP modernises itself, then the voter would at last have ONLY ONE Eurosceptic party with which to demand a referendum, rather than the current vote-splitting choice of two. (Unless there is a revolution, the BNP will have to play by the rules of the current system, and there is no imminent danger of a BNP government in any case.)

If the UK leaves the EU as a result of a referendum, then there is a chance Britain will once again become a sovereign nation state operating commonsense government, rather than remaining part of the EU, led by a discredited and ineffectual out-of-touch liberal elite, who are too dishonest and disorganised to tackle the urgent problems facing us now.


Because they were against invading Iraq from the beginning. Anyone who was at the anti-war demo in Hyde Park 2003, as I was, will know that the BNP marched with the Muslims, Jesse Jackson, Ken Livingstone and assorted groups, including the Socialist Workers' Party against the Iraq invasion.

Had there been a BNP government it would not have invaded Iraq - not in the national interest and "none of our business", you see!

Neither would a BNP government have supported the Israeli government unconditionally at the expense of the Palestinians. Many in the BNP cannot decide between whom they dislike more - Jews or Muslims. Therefore a BNP government would have been isolationist and non-interventionist.

What is important is that Boris (who voted for the war and has made Islamophobic comments) does not become mayor.

Muslims can safely vote for Ken and BNP because

(1) both were against the Iraq invasion

(2) both are anti-establishment (Ken is supposedly Labour but that is only because they know any rival Labour candidate would be a dead duck, as Frank Dobson was in 2000 -Ken had 40% of the vote, Dobson around 12%)

(3) it will upset and frighten all those of our ruling classes who pursue insane foreign policies that do no one any good

Any Muslims who can bring themselves to do what might be described as "suicide voting" should have the courage to declare his intentions and let it be known that this is what they have done, by posting a comment here and joining where there is a poll on precisely this issue.
Vote: Should Londoners vote BNP on 1 May 2008 to upset and alarm our ruling classes?

Remember, it was Tory and Labour who voted to invade Iraq and are even now planning to curtail our liberties further by using this "war" on terrorism as an excuse.

Think about it. Is the enemy of your enemy your friend? Is the government and its opposition your "friend" when it operates an insane foreign policy that is bad for all Britons and even now won't admit it?

Is the BNP really your enemy when it has committed no atrocity or messed up anyone's country? OK, they don't like you, but are you that surprised when they have seen their part of the country changed out of all recognition within such a short space of time?

Are you so sure you wouldn't join BNP if you happened to be working class and indigenous?

No? Then consider the evil already done by Labour and Tory (who voted for the war) whom you are supposed to trust. Compare and contrast that to the probability of the evil that might befall you if you used your protest vote in the way that would most upset the Tory and Labour warmongers (and those who would acquiesce with their war-mongering).

There is only one way to stay safe, be brave and make a point - vote Ken and BNP!

Sunday, 20 April 2008

The most rousing rendition of Jerusalem I have heard


It is now abundantly clear why the Dean of Southwark Cathedral Colin Slee has decided to ban Jerusalem.

It was not because it suddenly came upon him that “those feet in ancient times” which might have walked upon England's Mountains green” belonged to Nazi stormtroopers, but because the BNP have adopted it as their anthem, which they sing before meetings.

As a non-white member of the press invited to attend their East London meeting on 19 April, I must say that it was the most rousing rendition of Jerusalem I have ever had the pleasure of hearing. A soprano voice filled the chorus, and it sent a shiver down my spine. I said as much to the genteel lady in lilac whose voice it was afterwards and she modestly responded that it was nice to know that she had managed to keep her voice. (Some may be keen to point out parallels to the rousing rendition of “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” sung by an earnest Aryan soldier in “Cabaret”, but I am already aware of it.)

Others may wonder how I comported myself, but it just did not occur to do anything else than to stand up, join in and rather enjoy the unusual experience.


Jeffrey Marshall, the London Assembly candidate from East London, introduced himself and mentioned white locals being attacked and intimidated by Muslim gangs and no-go areas. It is for the police to deal with these incidents firmly and fairly and not the fault of peaceable Muslims if the police are reluctant to deal with multi-racial thugs because they fear accusations of racism and demotion.

The race hate legislation does little to help but everything to muddy the waters. If it is illegal to assault anyone, then it is absolutely illegal. Making it an aggravating factor to assault someone on the grounds of their religion or race only creates a sense of grievance and a headache for prosecutors and enforcers, creating a greater potential for crime, disorder and racial and religious resentment.

But will our ruling classes listen, or continue to shut their ears?


Nick Griffin the leader was there to rally the troops for their mayoral campaign.40 years ago tomorrow, he began, Enoch Powell made his famous Rivers of Blood speech. Trevor Phillips has, from the Midland Hotel in Birmingham where Powell made his speech, both agreed and disagreed with the gist of what was said. It has been said by some that Powell in fact equipped the liberals with the means to operate a conspiracy of silence, where anyone complaining about immigration would be accused of racism. The consequences of the "black man having the whip hand" had already predicted been in the 50s, and is dealt with in the latest issue of Identity by John Bean, when the implications of the British Nationality Act 1949 were being examined, but it was Powell's colourful language that gave the issue its incendiary properties.


Perhaps it is not so much Powell's incendiary words but the moral cowardice of the mainstream parties (and those who are too afraid of being accused of racism) that we should blame. It cannot be hard to imagine that there must be a Powell-equivalent in every Western nation now complaining about foreigners, who was also ignored at the time.


That they were ignored was because it only affected the working classes, and in any case it suited the governments of all hues to sweep under the carpet the awful truth that it is the addiction to the welfare state that makes our secret addiction to cheap foreign labour inevitable.While everyone complains about foreigners from time to time, the situation is most acute in countries where decades of progressive "education" has produced generations of school-leavers who are undisciplined, innumerate, illiterate and unfit for work.

Of course, sorting this out is outside the remit of the short-termist mind-set of those currently in charge, who will always have more urgent matters to deal with, such as how to stay in power by not offending anyone or doing anything much.

The English, Griffin continued, are invisible in East London, the biggest ethnic minority in their own city.

Once, when there were grammar schools, the indigenous working classes of East London might have bettered themselves, but now they are almost without exception condemned to low-pay jobs and obliged to compete with yet more newcomers for jobs, housing and benefits.Because of the demographic changes, the prospects of electoral success are against the BNP in East London but are looking good elsewhere, for it has been noted that many, in Hampstead, Highgate, Kingston, Richmond – the posh people formerly indifferent to the lot of the lower orders - are now supporting the BNP for saying things that none of the other parties dare to say.


The media now appear insatiable in their appetite to discuss immigration, particularly the broadcast media who are doing TV trailers which he says “Dr Goebbels could not have done any better”.

One was of a white man’s face serving as a "white board" being gradually over-written in a variety of foreign languages. Another was of a peaceful British bulldog in a pleasant English park having his territory invaded, urinated and defecated on by non-bulldog breeds, followed by an orgiastic doggy free-for-all that would only produce mongrels.

Nazi propaganda of Jews being portrayed as scurrying rats was nothing compared to this, he said.


Something has shifted, he declared. The BNP now appear to be the political centre. Gordon Brown has proclaimed the wisdom of “British jobs for British workers”. David Blunkett has described Britain as a “huge coiled spring of racial tension”.

He wondered how Muslims and immigrants must now feel. [To be honest, it did not occur to me to even feel threatened, just glad that the subject is finally being given the airing it deserves. As for the Muslims, it must now be water off a duck’s back to them by now. After all, they have been the victims of unwanted attention ever since 9/11 2001. The ones I know about are genuinely concerned about the future of religious freedom in this country, aware as they are that there may well be a significant minority who probably want to ban Islam, Muslims and mosques.]

We will know things are really wrong when the foreigners go, before being invited to leave by the BNP. In this scenario, food riots rather than race riots will be more likely.
Griffin then pointed out that he had been correct in predicting 18 months before 7/7 2005 that the bombers would come from Bradford.


The liberal media are now practising a form of perestroika, he continued, of glasnost and reform from within, by more honestly debating immigration, but they have now got a tiger by the tail. The UAF “United Against Fascism” – whom Griffin described as “government-sponsored thugs” who use violence to intimidate the BNP no longer use their more unpleasant methods of intimidation, but government ministers still hold meetings with them.

Within 3 years, he predicted British cities will be on fire from Glasgow to London, Liverpool to Hull, and it will not be long before we have “peace” walls, such as those in Londonderry and Belfast, to keep different communities from each other’s throats.

[Protestants and Catholics are the same race in the sense that they are not racially distinct in appearance, and the situation in Northern Ireland has improved rather than deteriorated. I also like to think that problems can be sorted out in time by good policing and sensible laws that are not tainted by the inequalities and confusion created by political correctness.]


On the subject of gerrymandering, Griffin commented that it is disproportionate for Dame Shirley Porter to be fined £40 million for moving about 40 yuppies into council flats. A clearer case of gerrymandering would be Operation Black Vote which has been going on for longer and used up more of taxpayers’ money.

He concluded by saying that the BNP are “the right party in the right place at the right time” to enthusiastic applause.I did not applaud because I felt it would compromise my journalistic integrity, nor did I contribute to the collection, but I felt, somehow, that I should have, because I had enjoyed the "entertainment" they had laid on.It may be wondered if one can produce rational and consistent reasons to be not anti-Muslim, pro-BNP, pro-Ken and anti-Boris, but I hope I have managed to do this.


The option of casting a second vote of course makes it perfectly possible to vote Ken and BNP, in order to punish our ruling classes who have been sweeping the problem of immigration under the carpet until now, when the media in its wisdom sees fit to raise the issue.


Doing anything about immigration would of course require the approval of the EU because we are now its vassal state and require its permission to have our own immigration policy. No doubt this is something our ruling classes would also like to stay under the carpet. They have after all conspired to deny us a referendum on this matter on the EU Constitution AKA the Lisbon Treaty.


Boris has already said he doesn't want the second vote BNP supporters were proposing to give him. The Tory candidate, has pronounced Islam “the most viciously sectarian of all religions in its heartlessness towards unbelievers” (which pleases BNP supporters), unlike Ken who has been making all the right noises as far as the Muslims are concerned. That he at least could see the folly of invading Iraq, unlike Boris, continues to stand in his favour as far as I am concerned.

What a fool is Boris to look a gift horse in the mouth - another reason why the bungling and warmongering buffoon does not deserve to win!
for their report of the meeting
Vote: Should Londoners vote BNP on 1 May 2008 to upset and alarm our ruling classes?

Friday, 18 April 2008

Balancing Safety and Recklessness on 1 May 2008

Ken or the BNP candidate Richard Barnbrook? Or both? (There is the option of a second vote.)

How should Londoners vote? According to whom they think will probably win, like a punter betting on a horse? (In this case, it has to be for "our" Ken, a smooth operator with his super-sensitive political antennae. He did not want to invade Iraq, unlike Bungling Boris, who voted for the invasion. Ken was right about the IRA, surfing on the crest of Political Correctness and anti-car Environmentalism as he does. Ken at least knows to suck up to the Chinese and Muslims whose powers are waxing, whether we like it or not, and to abandon Uncle Sam whose powers are waning. The US will no doubt be wanting to have a bit of quiet to deal with the effects of the credit crunch and reap the whirlwind that Greenspan has sown. Ken for Foreign Secretary? We could do worse!)

Or, should Londoners vote for what would upset our ruling classes MOST? (In that case, The Protest Party of Londoners can only be the BNP, to cause maximum alarm to our ruling classes!)

What would YOU want to do, as a Londoner? "Win" a "bet", or upset the ruling classes?

The option of voting for the kind of policies you really want, eg lower taxes, lower crime, controlling immigration etc does NOT exist in our political system, as you must already know. We are now just reduced to choosing someone we think we could like and trust, when they are mostly fools, knaves and no-hopers. Well, maybe we should now start thinking about what we would like to DO, for a change, and the sort of message we want to send our ruling classes.

Now that our democratic “choice” has been reduced to these two stark choices, could it now be time to question the political system under which we are governed?

Vote: Should Londoners vote BNP on 1 May 2008 to upset and alarm our ruling classes?

Wednesday, 16 April 2008

London elections - 1 May 2008 - Ken or BNP? or both?

Press conference for the BNP campaign in the London Elections - manifesto launch

As an operator of an opinion-polling direct democracy politics website, the looming London elections pose something of a dilemma for me.

On what criteria should I base my vote on and recommend my members to vote? As a Londoner? A British citizen? A political strategist? As someone hoping to attract attention to her politics website (whose purpose is to demonstrate the practicability of direct democracy and government by referenda, because we now have the technology, even if not the political will)?

Should I just vote for the party or candidate I know will probably win, like a punter betting on a horse?


In that case it will be Ken for being a ruthless political operator well-armed with low cunning, and who seems to have a crystal ball that tells him which way the wind is blowing. After all, he knew not to invade Iraq, unlike Boris who voted for the war but now disingenuously claims he was misled and that a Conservative government would have dealt with everything a lot better. Ken was right about the IRA, wasn’t he? The fact that he got away with calling a Jewish reporter a Nazi in these rigorously PC times makes me warm to him. That he is a serial seducer with numberless illegitimate children does not put me off him either.)

Or should I vote for the candidate or the party with the best manifesto? Of course, I have been around for long enough now to know that governments do not strictly adhere to what they promise to do in their manifestoes and have many reasons and excuses why they cannot or will not do as they have stated they would. The Lisbon Treaty, previously called the EU Constitution, comes to mind.

Even if it is all lies, it is still gratifying to be given promises we want to hear, however transient the pleasure and hollow the result.

By this criterion at any rate, the BNP manifesto refreshes the parts others cannot reach.

While it is true they have a problem with mosques and Muslims, and would prevent more mosques from being built, I imagine there are probably enough mosques around to serve Muslim Londoners. An indefinite (and by implication temporary) prohibition would not unduly inconvenience or aggrieve Muslims too much, I hope.

While it is true that I have a problem with the BNP’s racist membership policy, I like to think of myself as open-minded and tolerant about others’ foibles. The BNP continue to deny that their colour bar is racist and claim that the existence of other organisations based on race, eg the Black Police Officers Association, justifies the position they have taken: they simply want to exclusively represent the interests of the indigenous and proletarian Briton, because the Labour Party no longer does.

It would probably be a good thing for them if they made up their mind what they want to be: a political party or an all-white club. The former could in theory wield power, the latter merely keep out unwanted members.

Not being allowed to join a party or a club is the converse of freedom of association and I gladly acknowledge that they have every right to exclude whoever they like, for real freedom of association can only logically mean the freedom to include oneself, provided that the group of people you want to join do not wish to exclude you.

Friendly persuasion is the only honourable course left for those who do not wish to remain excluded, not threats of lawsuits and coercion.

It is their implication that a non-Caucasian British citizen could never be a British national or a British nationalist that I find somewhat divisive and disturbing, but they should nevertheless be entitled to their opinion.

Uncontrolled immigration concerns British citizens of all races, and there has long been a conspiracy of silence being operated by the media and the ruling classes. White Britons are immediately branded racist or fascist for daring to complain. Non-white Britons who complain would be invited to ask to go look at themselves in the mirror and ask how they can legitimately complain about the entry of others to this country looking like them, when they themselves are immigrants too. Would they like to join the BNP, who wouldn’t have them anyway? – is frequently added for good measure.

Eastern Europeans coming in to take the bread out of British mouths was the long-awaited catalyst in the immigration debate, for they are white but are just as resented or welcomed by indigenous and non-indigenous Britons depending on their economic status. If you are a hirer of labour you would be delighted by the increased supply of cheaper and more willing labour. If you are a member of the labour force and a competing claimant of the welfare state, then naturally you would not be quite so pleased at the new competition.

We are all brothers under the skin, it has been said. But let us not forget that Cain murdered Abel when he perceived that his interests were being threatened. If we all had a doppel-ganger who would have access to all the love, sex, money, housing, welfare benefits that was previously exclusively ours, I have no doubt that we would take very firm steps to deal with this terrible twin.

The BNP gives voters the opportunity to give political expression to this understandable human reaction.

I fear however that I will get into terrible trouble for doing the equivalent of saying the emperor has no clothes, or that the earth is round and moves around the sun.

The incredulity and outrage of my detractors will soar to stratospheric heights when they discover that I, who am not and could not be a member of the BNP under its current membership rules, am recommending that Londoners and disgruntled voters of whatever colour, use the BNP mayoral candidate as a repository of their protest vote.

For their manifesto alone they deserve our vote, if we are voting according to whose promises we prefer to hear. It is stuffed full of ideas that will have Londoners nodding their head in agreement. Their proposal to invite Athens to host the 2012 Olympics instead of London, and thereafter to PERMANENTLY host them is delightful and delicious to the Londoner to who does not care who runs fastest or jumps highest and would rather not pay for the inconvenience of hosting it.

Their motoring policy is perfectly sensible, consisting of removing bus lanes, widening roads, eliminating bottlenecks, building the new Thames Gateway Bridge in East London, making the first hour of parking free and residents’ parking permits free. Their irresistibly populist proposal to remove unnecessary road humps and scrap the Congestion Charge must have most motorists cheering, surely?

For public transport, they would scrap the bendy bus and restore the Routemaster, reintroduce conductors on all double deckers, extend the tube’s operation until 2am, and introduce patrolling guards.

On air travel, building a new airport in the Thames Estuary seems a proposal of symmetrical commonsense, unlike the unbalanced scheme to build yet another runway at Heathrow.

Banning the veil from public buildings and transport is another excellent idea, now that we are aware that male criminals use burqas as a disguise. It would even be good for Muslim women too, for they must know how differently they are treated when they wear the veil and when they do not, and how much fear and loathing is aroused by the sight of “black crows” walking amongst us. Perhaps some of them do so in order to annoy us, like those who like to go about with body piercings and tattoos that almost defiantly invite dislike. The right of people who feel they need to express their identity through going around looking odd or outlandish should be submerged in the pursuit of public safety and the prevention and discouragement of crime and terrorism.

In addition, a BNP mayor would get the police to “direct their energies at catching real criminals and would scrap all Ken Livingstone’s politically correct directives to the Met, and with them, the plethora of irritating ‘ethnic liaison officers’ and ‘gender outreach workers’ and the like. Police officers must be allowed to get on with their job unhindered, without fear or favour, and of operating colour-blind policing.”

On the question of economic development and education, “London’s businesses need a well-educated labour force, particularly with high quality vocational skills rather than worthless (supposedly academic) qualifications. To this end, a BNP mayor would encourage apprenticeships as an alternative to university education" where appropriate.

There are no grounds on which any reasonable person could possibly object to these proposals. That they emanate from the BNP should give all thoughtful Londoners pause for thought and ask themselves how they are going to sensibly and effectively exercise their woefully limited political options on 1 May 2008.

Londoners could vote for any other protest party (and dilute their protest in this way) but it would not quite have the same satisfying sensation of having alarmed our ruling classes, who seem to think they can treat us like fools and children forever.

An alternative receptacle of your protest vote is UKIP of course, if you fear and loathe the BNP and also happen to be a bit of Eurosceptic. Unfortunately, Gerard Batten’s manifesto is rather thin and unimaginative. The non-racist credentials of the UKIP may be found reassuring to some, but it has to be remembered that UKIP’s main paymasters are in fact the EU, for they have 9 MEPs. (Work out the total salary and allowances an MEP might receive, multiply by 9, ie €84,000 a year salary, €185,952 worth of parliamentary assistance allowance per MEP, plus travel and other allowances, and you will have a rough calculation of the extent to which UKIP is in the pocket of the EU.) UKIP now support the principle of subsidiarity – which means that a Member State agrees that the EU have a power to return to the Member State the control of what was formerly theirs to control. By acknowledging that the EU has this right, UKIP implicitly admit that they have given up this right.

UKIP might as well now be calling themselves “EUKIP”.

It seems the BNP are thinking of going the same way in order to obtain funding and make contacts, but I warn against this, for they will dissipate their energies in just the same way as UKIP are doing, and should instead take a leaf out of the Sinn Fein handbook: of not conceding anything in principle that would detract from their ultimate goal - it is for this reason that they will not and cannot swear allegiance to the Queen.

Operating in this country, the analogy of fish in ponds comes to mind. Daunting but not utterly hopeless.

Operating within the EU as MEPs, the analogy of being a mere teeth on a cog in an EU factory comes to mind.

Britain needs to travel light in the short to medium term, to be able to easily change gear in different terrains as well as slow down and speed up whenever necessary. Being part of a European Superstate means the equivalent of being on a supertanker that takes too long to change course, in shallow water and stormy weather. Not only is it a waste of time and energy, it could well be deadly.

The final and most interesting question for me is this:

Being a member of an ethnic minority, am I a turkey voting for Christmas when I recommend all Londoners of all races to consider voting BNP, were they minded to vote for a protest party?

Perhaps, but since it is only a mayoral election, and it is not within the remit of a London mayor to repatriate anyone as they would like to. (The BNP propose to pay £50,000 per repatriatee to "go home", and this may well be tempting enough to make some dishonest whites black up in order to claim this sum, before emigrating to their place in the sun.)

On balance, it seems quite safe on this occasion to use the BNP as a means of showing our displeasure with our ruling classes and the liberal elite.

I suppose it is the voter equivalent of "suicide bombing" or cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Muslim readers should bear in mind that the BNP were present at the anti-war march in Hyde Park, 2003. Had there been a BNP government, it would not have invaded Iraq.

The BNP would presumably have no interest in propping up Israel or supporting the US policy of doing so or doing Uncle Sam's bidding at whatever cost, because its stance is isolationist and nationalist.

This being so, Al Qaeda would have particular reason to want to bomb the UK .

This being so, there would be no "War Against Terrorism".

That being so, there would be no excuse for the government to continue to take away our liberties using the "War" Against Terrorism as an excuse.

We should all know that war is only properly war when declared against another sovereign country with a borders and an army in a fixed location.

The war against terrorism is a metaphor, a demon conjured out of the shambles that is British foreign policy and what passes for British diplomacy these days. The idea of a shifting battleground that is both nowhere and everywhere will only encourage the paranoia that would make its fear self-fulfilling.

The weighing of relative evils is indeed a difficult process, but I believe I have done the groundwork on the balance of safety. I am undecided on whether to vote Ken as my first choice, and Richard Barnbrook as my second. Or vice versa, depending on how reckless I am feeling on 1 May.

Monday, 14 April 2008

OK for Buddhists and Hindus to be theocratic but not Muslims?

This was found at

The poster was someone called "whatever" with no further details. His thoughtful comments follow.

The granting of the Olympics to the Chinese must have been a God-send to the "civilised" world. It was a passport to "western civilisation" to penetrate the Great Wall of China and inflict some "civilised" damage.
Because of this, the Olympics have been hijacked by the US and other “civilised” nations. The Olympics are no longer anything to do with sport and competition anymore.

Thanks to the “civilised world” the Olympic Torch now burns hatred, scores political goals and encourages terrorism in China.

In all this, as a Muslim, I notice that the Tibetan fanatic terrorists burnt a mosque in the recent rioting. It was an article posted by few news sites.

I also note that the US, Britain and Europe is encouraging the Tibetan fanatic Papal human God Dalai Lama to spread discontent, riots and even terrorism in China and Chinese territories. This method of attacking China through dissident groups by financial and logistical US (British and European) support surely has not gone unnoticed by those little people in China.

So there is one thing that doesn't quite make sense. The US, Britain and Europe complain of a terrorism that is linked to the religion of Islam in the respective countries yet promote and condone terrorism in China and Chinese territories through a so called human god???

Which brings me back to another point that links in with Tibet/China. If what is happening there is due to the territorial ambitions and national identity of Tibetan Exiles, then is it not possible that the terrorism in Britain, US and Europe (Br,US,E) is equally being orchestrated by foreign powers who have been interfered with by Br,US,E. The point being that we are not seeing Islamic Terrorism here in the "civilised world" but rather a new form of warfare between nations.

The classification of the warfare/terrorism taking place in Br,US,E is conveniently classified as Islamic Terrorism so that it calls for vigilance against 80% of nations with a grudge against Br,US,E.

Will the Chinese now retaliate with this new kind of warfare and use the fact that the US and Britain have no respect for human rights (water-boarding, detention of suspects on whims for as long as is deemed fit, demonisation of minorities, killing prisoners of war etc, etc.) to say that Br,US,E should shut up and respect their own people and human rights before they feel the need to criticize others.

Lateran Treaty-like solution for Dalai Lama and the Chinese Government


"Italy recognised Papal sovereignty over 480,000 square metres of Vatican Palace, with 1500 inhabitants, Castelgandolfo Palace and maybe some monasteries scattered around Rome. In exchange Pope (Vatican City State) recognised all the rest of Rome as Capital of Italy and all its inhabitants as Italians. The Pope finally gave up all claim on the rest of the Papal States and their millions of people conquered by Italy in 1860 and 1870, in exchange for vast sums of compensation in cash and Italian government bonds. The Concordat established Catholicism as religion of state but tolerance for all other religions. Religious marriage recognised and school religious education compulsory, using Catholic textbooks. If the Dalai did a deal like that with the Chinese, all he would get would be Potiala Palace and some monasteries. Chinese could maybe accept Buddhism as official religion of Tibet but Tibet would lose its status as an autonomous region."

[Research by Andrew Slade]

Thursday, 10 April 2008

Fantasy Statement by Chinese Government on Tibet

"While the Chinese government is aware that Western nations are concerned about their ability to maintain their economic dominance of the world and feel threatened and resentful of China's economic success, it is nevertheless taken aback by the hypocrisy, hostility and malice that has emanated from the forces of disorder in their societies, and their opportunistic denunciations of the Chinese government by their political leaders.

The Chinese government will continue to receive critical comments from certain Western nations about its human rights record with forbearance, while remaining silent about the human rights of those in Iraq, to go about their day-to-day affairs without fear of death, which have been virtually extinguished through a regrettable and now generally regretted invasion. China, despite its so-called "humans rights abuses", has invaded no foreign country and imposed no "regime change" on the leaders of sovereign nations it disapproves of.

It seems that many of those who are violently demonstrating are not Tibetans but troublemakers not in paid employment relying on state benefits to fund their attendance at weekday demonstrations against the progress of the Olympic torch.

Many are in complete ignorance of the issues involved and see it as an opportunity to disrupt a soft target for their own amusement, with little likelihood of condign punishment by the police, who will only detain them briefly before sending them on their way.

The Chinese government concedes that how other nations wish to govern their increasingly disorderly populace is a matter for them, and only wishes others would allow China the same right to run its own affairs, particularly when it does not affect them and when they do not understand and cannot be bothered to digest the details of a long and complicated history of Chinese-Tibetan relations.

Perhaps if doing so were a condition of participation in these disruptive acts, these anti-China demonstrations would just melt away like snow in summer?

That the Dalai Lama is not in Tibet to represent the Tibetans is the greatest part of the problem. The Chinese government unequivocably declares its intention to guarantee the Dalai Lama's safety in Tibet and his right to select his successor in accordance with both the best interests of -

(1) the Tibetans whom he represents; and
(2) the Chinese people on whose behalf he would be guiding Tibet,

to be given equal consideration.

The Buddhist equivalent of the Vatican City is being considered to accommodate him on his return. It is envisaged that the Dalai Lama will have spiritual authority while allowing the Chinese government to deal with the day-to-day administration of Tibet.

It seems that such an accommodation would be the fairest and most workable solution.

Perhaps the reason he will not return is simply this: he will be expected to deal with resident Tibetans and their grievances on his return. Remaining in exile undoubtedly lends him the distance with which to appear wise, moderate and glamorous to his supporters while discharging him of the responsibility of dealing with the real problems of governing a mutinous people who are having difficulties coming to terms with the modern world, because of their less advanced cultural traditions and their primitive superstitions.

It is the stated intention of the Chinese government to deal honourably and more effectively with the grievances of the Tibetans, with the co-operation and assistance of the Dalai Lama, and for this reason he is asked to now return to his people and be accountable both to them and the government of China.

If anything good should come out of these disruptions, let the return of the Dalai Lama to his homeland be the surprising and glad outcome.

Let it not be said and seen that the government of a progressive and modern China cannot be constructive and conciliatory!

The world now awaits the response of the Dalai Lama."

Friday, 4 April 2008

decline and fall of Maths teaching in Britain

1. Teaching Maths In 1970 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for £100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

2. Teaching Maths In 1980 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for £100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or £80. What is his profit?

3. Teaching Maths In 1990 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for £100. His cost of production is £80. Did he make a profit?

4. Teaching Maths In 2000 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for £100. His cost of production is £80 and his profit is £20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Maths In 2007 A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of £20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers. )

Thursday, 3 April 2008

Replacing the Archbishop of Canterbury with an Arch-Philosopher?

To disestablish the Church would mean that this country no longer has a state religion. At the moment the state religion is the Church of England which, as we all know, was established by Henry VIII to remove England from Papal control and influence.

By doing so, he intended that no monarch who is a Catholic would ever legitimately reign over England.

What of the reign of Bloody Mary? The only explanation is that Henry's last will and testament, which was made on the basis of blood relationship, gender and seniority of his various children by his various wives, omitted to take into account the fact that his eldest daughter, born of Catherine of Aragon, Catholic through and through, would become Queen when his sickly son Edward died young.

No doubt the one who drafted Henry's will would have lost his head had Henry been alive to accuse and find him guilty of professional negligence. After Mary died the succession passed to Elizabeth. If she had any inclination towards Catholicism, she in her wisdom knew it would no longer be politic to be open about them after her sister's Catholic reign had so traumatised the country.

If you disestablish the Church, then it means that those who become monarchs can be free to embrace any religion they please WITHOUT making it the state religion. In my opinion it would be a good thing, precisely because you never know which religion a monarch might embrace and give the British periodic opportunities to discuss the relative merits of different religions. Catholicism? Islam? Mormonism? Buddhism? Who knows? But it would be a private matter and vary from monarch to monarch.

If Prime Ministers who wield real power are allowed to have freedom of faith, then I see no reason why a constitutional monarch with no political power should not be allowed to do so.

Because of this, the objections raised against a Catholic succession no longer apply.

Since it is Prime Ministers who hold power, I would be more in favour of an Arch-Philosopher (who should be preferably an atheist in order that they have the requisite intellectual flexibility and can be more easily seen as non-partisan) to serve as the Conscience of the Prime Minister. As a species, it is in fact Prime Ministers who are most in need of an Official Conscience of flesh and blood that is rooted in philosophy rather than a child-like belief in an invisible magic friend.

It has been pointed out by the Buddha that belief in God is but another form of attachment, which, as all Buddhists know, is the root of all suffering. The goal of being a Buddhist is to achieve enlightenment. Enlightenment, as we all know, equips those who have it with an indifference to suffering and death without the need to believe in the existence of God.

As a nod to Plato's recommendation that society should be ruled by Philosopher Kings, an Arch-Philosopher would be just the thing to replace the ineffectual and redundant position that is currently the Archbishop's. After all, it is not the constitutional monarch that is in need of a spiritual adviser, but the Prime Minister who is in need of a moral guide and a philosophical adviser!