Total Visits

Wednesday, 11 October 2017



So now we know! UKIP, I think rather to the surprise of all involved as well as all commentators, has elected the relatively unknown Henry Bolton with just 3,874 votes.

Mr Bolton had been UKIP’s Police Commissioner candidate in Kent, but apart from that his career track record had been in the army and the police and as a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate standing against Philip Hammond. He was also an EU apparatchik. His background is therefore somewhat surprising for the new Leader of UKIP!

Henry Bolton is the fourth Leader that UKIP has had in 18 months. Their chaotic leadership turbulence has undoubtedly contributed to their fragmentation from the highpoint of them being the main key to the ‘Leave’ vote in the EU referendum.

The public generally seems to think that UKIP’s job is done, judging by UKIP’s election results, but having 18 months of leadership turbulence cannot have helped. This can also be seen in the turnout levels in three leadership levels.

The turnout in the leadership election when they elected Diane James on 16th September 2016 was 17,842. The turnout on 28th November 2016 that elected Paul Nuttall was 15,370. The turnout that elected Henry Bolton on the 29th September 2017 was 12,915 votes.

Now the 2,755 members who voted for Anne Marie Walters and the 2,021 UKIP voters that voted for John Rees-Evans both look set to leave the Party along with both of their preferred leadership candidates.

This is not at all surprising given the insults which they have been subjected to by both Nigel Farage and Mr Bolton himself. If all their supporters leave it would be an exodus of 4,776 members.

I generally take it as the best possible measure of active membership within a party that every member of the party who still identifies themselves as a member of the Party and is engaged with the Party will vote in a leadership election. This is particularly so if, as in the case of UKIP, it was a postal ballot. There is little effort for the individual member in ticking a box and returning the form in the envelope provided, so almost all who care will do so.

It follows that shortly the engaged members of UKIP will be down to 8,139 which is below the 10,000 critical mass level required for maintaining a fully functional political party.

At that point UKIP’s only advantage over the English Democrats (with our 4,500 members) will be reduced to the difference in membership subscriptions and manpower and also the fact that they still have MEPs and other elected officials who are no doubt full time activists for the Party and contribute something to its running costs. Naturally most of those will go in mid-2019.

We may then be back to where we were before the UKIP surge in support in 2011/2012, when we generally beat them whenever we came across them especially where there was a reasonably level playing field. We also achieved much better results per pound than they were able to do. That was because the English Democrats were then clearly identified as the only political party standing up for England.

UKIP succeeded in initially pulling the wool over many peoples’ eyes and made them believe that they also stood up for English interests between 2012 and 2016. Now however it has become obvious, after their leadership elections in 2016 and 2017, that UKIP’s Leaders have rejected any pretence that they are interested in England, the English Nation or in English national issues.

The academic who has done most to study the rise of UKIP (and before that of the BNP) is Professor Matthew Goodwin of Kent University Canterbury. What his research shows and what he says himself is that there is space on the political spectrums for, in English politics what he would refer to, being himself of the Left, as a Radical Right party, similar to that of Marine Le Pen’s Front National.

It doesn’t appear from the remarks that Mr Bolton has made so far that he wants UKIP to be that party.

Mr Bolton has declared that he is not against immigration and, for that matter, he is not even against a transition period in the process of us leaving the European Union. He is therefore happy to not only wait to exit the European Union, but also to do so on the basis that Mrs May is currently talking about, that is continuing to make very substantial payments into the EU budget.

Mr Bolton also strongly attacked Anne Marie Walters and her followers as being racists and Nazis and of the BNP tendency.

Since Anne Marie Walters, although she is very much against Islam, does so from the militant Left/Liberal perspective of wishing to protect Gay Rights rather than as an advocate of the preservation of English traditions and traditional morality (which is not perhaps surprising given that she is of Irish origin and a Lesbian), it was clear that Mr Bolton’s intent on making those remarks wasn’t actually to describe Anne Marie Walters politics, but rather merely to smear her (given the Nazi regime’s record was of executing large numbers of homosexuals and others whom they called “degenerates”!).

If I am right and Mr Bolton’s leadership will take UKIP firmly back into the safe territory of British Establishment Politics, then I must say I really cannot see any future role or purpose for them at all.

Saturday, 7 October 2017



One of the bizarre side stories of the “Syrian Refugee Crisis” was the furore about England being required to let in large numbers of “Syrian child refugees” following the sad incident of a little boy’s body being washed up on the beach in Turkey after a failed attempt by his family of trying to get to the Greek Islands.

Anyone who opposed opening our border gates to un-vetted alleged Syrian refugees who were claiming to be children was shouted down and told that they should be allowed in without either any testing or even any attempt to find out whether they were really suitable people to let into our country, or whether they were actually a danger to our country and our people! Some Syrian child refugees were then let in. It was then straightaway pointed out that some of them didn’t even look anything like children!

The serious objection was also raised at the time that they might turn out to be Jihadis. Now, lo and behold, one so-called “Syrian child refugee” turns out to be the Jihadi who attempted mass murder in his failed plot to fully explode the bomb on the Underground which partly went off at Parsons Green Tube Station.

Surely nothing could expose the sheer irresponsible wrong-headedness of all those, including of course the BBC, ITV and Sky, that campaigned for an "open doors" policy on Syrian refugees, let alone the various politicians and miscellaneous so-called celebrities who said that they would take some into their own homes (but actually of course haven’t taken any in themselves at all!).

It seems that many of our country’s leaders have no care either for our country or for the safety of our people. Instead they care only for their multi-culturalist pipe-dream. Any one of sense could tell them that their dream is bound to smash on the harsh rocks of the reality that there are many people whose ideas, culture and tribal blood feuds not only don’t enrich us but actually positively endanger us. 

The fact that the British political system seems incapable of being sensible about such an important issue is yet another marker of how just broken that system is. We need a root and branch reform which replaces the multi-nationalist British State with a proper modern democratic Nation State!

Thursday, 5 October 2017

Interview about how devolution is developing in the UK

Interview about how devolution is developing in the UK

For all those who are interested in the future of the UK there was an important interview on BBC Sunday Politics for Wales on 17th September 2017 with the RT Hon David Jones MP. Mr Jones is the Conservative MP for Clwyd West and is a former Secretary of State for Wales and a former Brexit Minister. The interview was interviewing about the way devolution is developing in the UK:-

I think it would be a good exercise for anyone interested in UK politics to listen to this and to say who in the British Government or in the devolved Governments is standing up for England? 

Here is a video of that interview:-

And here is a full transcript of the interview:-

BBC Inteviewer:-

“During his role as Brexit Minister (David Jones) worked with the Welsh Government. Now Carwyn Jones is unhappy that when powers over devolved areas like agriculture return from Brussels they will initially stay in Westminster rather than pass straight to Cardiff Bay.”

David Jones:-

“Devolution was established after Britain became a member of the European Community and then the European Union, so all the powers that were devolved to the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government were in the context of that European membership. Now we have to replace, for example, the common agriculture policy which is currently exercised at an EU level with something else which I would suggest in the interest of Wales as much as every other part of the UK should be under a UK-wide framework and that is not simply me saying that, that is what in fact the Farming Unions themselves are saying. They acknowledge that we do need a UK-wide framework for devolution.”

BBC Interviewer:-

“But isn’t there a problem there that there was a referendum in 2011. You were in the Wales office at the time which asked the Welsh people who should be responsible for those laws in the devolved areas quite explicitly saying without needing the UK Parliament’s permission and the Welsh people said yes it should be the Assembly. You could argue that you are going against that now.”

David Jones:-

“Well you could argue that but I think it would be wrong because of course that pre-dates the EU Referendum which of course changed the rules of the game completely I think.”

BBC Interviewer:-

“But it is still a devolved field isn’t it? Agriculture for example is still a devolved area?”

David Jones:-

“It is a devolved area and in fact none of the powers that are currently being exercised at the Welsh level will be taken away and indeed the Government has said that probably more powers will pass down and I think that rather again being a dog in the manger it would be really useful if Carwyn Jones would sit down and try to agree with the UK Government where those powers should be divided and where the competencies should lie. That is grown up politics and he actually knows that at the end of the day that is what going to happen anyway.”

BBC Interviewer:-

“You were saying for example on an agricultural framework for the UK that that should be decided at a UK level because otherwise there could be a race to the bottom. You were saying. Why would that happen?”

David Jones:-

“Well because for example in Scotland you might have a different framework developing that would be in Welsh terms unfairly favourable towards Scottish farmers. You have got to remember that the United Kingdom although it is a large economy it is a fairly small geographical area and distortions in the various parts of the UK can have a disproportionate effect upon other parts of the UK. Thankfully we are not proposing anything that doesn’t reflect the current status quo. In other words certain competencies are exercised as a UK level or as a EU level and others are exercised at a local level and the Government has said once the holding pattern has finished it is very probable that the Welsh Government will have more competence but we have got to work out where the correct division of powers lie.”

BBC Interviewer:-

“But no sensible government within the UK, none of the sensible Governments of the UK would want any sort of trade war within the United Kingdom because that is a nobodies interest”

David Jones:-

“I think we have to recognise that the various Governments within the UK are all of a completely different political complexity!”

BBC Interviewer:-

But they want what’s best for each individual country.

David Jones:-

That is exactly the point. For each individual country but not necessarily what is best for the UK as a whole.

So what do you make of that? Who in the British Political Establishment is standing up for English interests?

Wednesday, 4 October 2017



Many of us have now seen the results of the dramatic intervention of the Spanish Prime Minister who ordered the heavily armed Guardia Civil to storm the Catalonian Government Buildings and to arrest ringleaders of the Catalonian Government, who were saying they intended to go ahead with an Independence referendum for Catalonia (since they have been repeatedly democratically elected to hold one!). 

 The Spanish Prime Minster and the State system are claiming that holding an Independence Referendum is illegal, which of course merely goes to show that the Spanish constitution itself is undemocratic.

Memories of the Guardia Civil’s actions when Barcelona was captured by Franco's Spanish Fascists are regularly reawakened by the discovery of more pits of the remains of executed Republicans and Catalonian nationalists.

Now there has been a violent police attempt to suppress the referendum with injuries to about 900 people. Just as telling has been the anti-nationalist and authoritarian statist reaction of the EU which is supporting the Spanish State in suppressing the democratic nationalism of the Catalans.

Meanwhile in the Middle East a further consequence of the Iraq war is played out with the Kurds holding a referendum on independence from Iraq.

The Kurds were one of the victims of the post First World War settlement in the Middle East, since a just settlement would have given them their own Nation State since they were and remain self-evidently a Nation. Since that time they have suffered horribly from being divided partly into the post 1919 countries of Iraq, partly into Iran, partly into Syria and partly into Turkey.

Any nationalist who believes that the natural state of a nation is to rule itself must wish both the Kurds and the Catalonians well in their struggle to become free and independent Nation States.

Here is an article drawn to my attention by a patriot:-


Our patriotic supporter rightly asks me:-

“Why is independence wonderful for Kurdistan, a country in excess of 74,000 square miles, but England is too big at just over 50,000 square miles?”

And so now what was that about England and the English Nation? What about our own Nation State?

Monday, 2 October 2017



The Bible is not only, of course, the holy scripture of Christianity for Christians and the Old Testament for Jews, but it also contains a huge number of deep insights into human nature and the recurring themes of the strengths and weaknesses in our nature, as well as much history. The quotation in my title “there is none so blind as those who will not see” has its roots in the Bible, Book of Jeremiah, chapter 5, verse 21 “Hear now this, oh foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears and hear not.”

The actual formulation that I have used in the heading appears in Jonathan Swift’s “Polite Conversation”. It has the same common-sense connotations about the difficulties of getting people to do or think things that they stubbornly and wilfully refuse to do, as the old English proverb “you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink”.

This article arises as a result of a conversation that I recently had with a teenager, who, like most teenagers in our country, has been subjected to a programme of politically correct “socialisation”, an important purpose of which is social engineering (Aka the National Curriculum!).

I always think it is worth bearing in mind when considering compulsory primary and secondary education that the first State to introduce it was the most militaristic of all historic European states, which was Prussia. The Prussian State introduced compulsory primary and secondary education for all boys to socialise them and to prepare them mentally and physically to become soldiers in the Prussian Army. In short compulsory education is much about a modern state’s socialisation agenda as it is at all about preparing children with the skills needed for work.

In England in many ways the education system has following the introduction of the “National Curriculum” become less effective in preparing children for work while it has become more effective at socialising children in the modern British States’ agenda of multi-culturalism and diversity.

Coming back to my conversation with the teenager, I had the temerity to ask about the background of somebody that the teenager was talking about and, in particular, what country his family had come from.

For all who have asked such a similar question, I am sure you can guess the kind of “stream of consciousness” response that I got!

But I persisted and pointed out that you cannot understand another human-being or sensibly begin to try to understand them unless you take into account politically incorrect questions about their culture, religion and hereditary. We are all, as human-beings, framed by these factors. 

 I would say to try to do so would be a bit like trying to sort out a dietary plan for someone without taking any account of the fact that the person in question is an orthodox Jew! 

In fact, our individual character, particularly when young, operates mostly within these frameworks, rather than being something that is completely separate.

I later had another conversation with a teacher who was saying that what is taught in a multi-ethnic modern school in England is to ignore all such framework questions as culture and religion and hereditary and to be “free from all such prejudices”. My response was to point out that it is itself a sort of prejudice to wilfully close your eyes to the most important parts of any human-beings character. I went on that “political correctness” was not a “freedom” or something that frees people up from things, but on the contrary it is a programme for the encouragement of wilful blindness.

All of which brings me neatly back to my proverb “there are none so blind as those who will not see” which I note in Wiktionary is translated as “understanding cannot be forced on someone who chooses to be ignorant”.

How true, I would reply, especially when that choice is guided by “political correctness”. Also how contrary that type of thinking is to traditional English Further Education which tried to lead young people out of their framework thinking and to encourage them to have “open and enquiring minds”.

To an alarming extent that ideal has now been replaced with all the political correctness and safe spaces of the UK's multi-culturalist diversity agenda!

Saturday, 23 September 2017



On Friday the 15th September there was another Islamist terror attack in England on London’s Underground. The home-made bomb partially went off at Parsons Green Tube Station.

When it was first being reported very shortly after it had happened, there were various pictures and clips which had been filmed on people’s mobile phones put up onto the internet in which you could see what was happening, including the above picture of the bomb.

The initial reports were of people who were in the carriage and who heard it go off who said that it wasn’t a bang, it was a sort of “whoomp”. There was a smell, smoke and some flames. People were desperate to get off the tube train and there was a wild panic to get off the station away from the train in which people were injured in the ensuing stampede.

At first the mainstream media were talking up the possibility that this attack could have been done by “Far-Right Extremists”. As their hopes of that faded there was an increasing unwillingness in the mainstream media, whether it be Sky, ITV or BBC, to report on what type of people were thought to be the perpetrators.

Even though it has since become clear that the people who have been arrested so far are young male Muslim “refugees” it is only recently that it has become crystal clear that the principle suspect is one of the Syrian child refugees that so much fuss was made about to bring them over to England. This was regardless of such and with no attempt to vet whether they were dangerous or not. Well now we know of course that at least some of them are going to prove to be dangerous Jihadists! So much for the effectiveness of our British authorities in showing any interest in looking after our own People!

One thing however that was striking on the day as reporting of the news story progressed on Friday was that, by the 6 o’clock BBC Radio 4 news, the BBC was reporting that the bomb had “exploded”, that there had been a “wall of flame” and that “29 people had been injured”, the obvious implication being, to anybody who didn’t know better, that the people were injured by the bomb, rather than as they actually were by the panic and stampede to escape from the station. The bomb of course did not “explode”. The videos at the time showed that there was not a “wall of flame”, at most the flames were a foot high and perhaps only six inches high.

What better example of fake news could you get than this distortion from the BBC?

The question that then arises is why would they do it? But then you have to think what Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, has been saying in response to Islamist attacks in London. After the car ramming and knife attack on Westminster Bridge he said:-

"Londoners will see an increased police presence today and over the course of the next few days - no reason to be alarmed. One of the things police and all of us need to do is make sure we're as safe as we possibly can be.

"I'm reassured that we are one of the safest global cities in the world, if not the safest global city in the world.

"But we always evolve and review ways to make sure we remain as safe as we possibly can."

After the van rammings and knife attacks on London Bridge and Borough Market he said:-

“Our city is filled with great sorrow and anger tonight but also great resolve and determination because our unity and love for one another will always be stronger than the hate of the extremists.

“This is our city. These are our values and this is our way of life. London will never be broken by terrorism we will step up the fight against extremism and we will defeat the terrorists.”


“I want to reassure all Londoners, and all our visitors, not to be alarmed. Our city remains one of the safest in the world.

“London is the greatest city in the world and we stand together in the face of those who seek to harm us and destroy our way of life.

“We always have and we always will. Londoners will never be cowed by terrorism.”

In stark contrast to these remarks however, after the attack on Muslims near the Finsbury mosque, he said:-

"The Met have deployed extra police to reassure communities, especially those observing Ramadan."

The moral of these quotations seems to be that, whilst Muslims must be protected whatever the cost to taxpayers, the rest of us must simply get used to being attacked by Islamists.

This agenda is confirmed by what he is reported to have said in New York:-

“Living with terror attacks - like the one that hit New York at the weekend - is 'part and parcel of living in a big city'.

'It is a reality I'm afraid that London, New York, other major cities around the world have got to be prepared for these sorts of things.

'That means being vigilant, having a police force that is in touch with communities, it means the security services being ready, but also it means exchanging ideas and best practice.”

In short what people like Sadiq Khan want to happen is that the general population accepts the story that these sorts of Jihadi terror attacks are now simply part and parcel of living in a big city, rather than what they obviously actually are, accordingly to common-sense: Which is the consequence of the British Establishment allowing unrestricted immigration by large numbers of unvetted Muslims, often from very troubled parts of the world, who too often bring their wars and their Jihadi mentality with them!

It should also be noted that when Islamists get involved in suicide bombing or other suicidal terrorist activity, their focus is currently being completely misunderstood by the authorities and, in particular being mis-reported by the mainstream media.

What we have to understand is that a Jihadist deciding to undertake such a mission is thinking of it not in terms of a “suicide mission”, but of a “martyrdom operation”. This explains why the London Bridge terrorists were wearing fake suicide vests. The point of doing so was to make sure that the police wouldn’t try to capture them and instead would shoot them dead!

It should be remembered that the point of a "martyrdom operation" is obviously to be martyred and is therefore done in reliance on the statements in the Koran and the Haddith that he who dies in Jihad will automatically go to Paradise and be rewarded by Allah with celestial virgins in a jewelled palace for eternity!

Jihadists truly believe that this is what will happen to them if they die in Jihad. So if their life has not been lived fully accordingly to Muslim law then they are a person who is more likely to feel that a "martyrdom operation" will get him to paradise, despite his sins, than if he had lived a blameless life.

It therefore makes no sense for commentators to talk about the fact that some pf those Jihadists who commit martyrdom operations have not lived strict Muslim lives!

We need to realise that the killing of unbelievers in a "martyrdom operation" is not the goal of the operation; it is merely the goalposts which enable the goal to be scored. That is getting into Paradise by being killed whilst on Jihad.

No wonder the mainstream media do not want people to understand what is going on because if they did then maybe the demand to end Muslim immigration would rise from its current opinion poll rating of about 47% to a pitch where almost everybody who was not a Muslim would be saying no to any further Muslim immigration!

Friday, 22 September 2017

"No defence for shrinking the military in times of terror"

"No defence for shrinking the military in times of terror"

Sometimes in all the fog of fake news and pointless or downright silly opinion pieces there shines through an article of real insight. Here is a really good example of one such.

It is sober reading for all who want to know the genuine geo-strategic situation of the UK.

It is only by understanding this kind of issue that we can get a real bearing on just how close to collapse the vainglorious post imperial British political system has now come to.

What do think?

Sunday Telegraph 17thSEPTEMBER 2017

General Lord Richards interviewed by Simon Heffer

"No defence for shrinking the military in times of terror"

In one of London’s grandest military clubs, its walls hung with portraits of moustachioed generals and field marshals evoking an age when Britain’s Armed Forces were perhaps the finest in the world, General Lord Richards and I discuss how well the country is defended today. Despite David Richards’s measured tones, it is an unsettling conversation.

He retired as Chief of the Defence Staff, a post he had held for three years, in 2013. Before that, he had been Chief of the General Staff. Lord Richards saw plenty of action. He did three tours of Northern Ireland and commanded the 4th Armoured Brigade in Germany in the 1990s. He served in East Timor and Sierra Leone, where his initiative prevented revolutionaries from overthrowing the capital, Freetown, in 2000.

He then commanded Nato’s rapid reaction force, and the international force in Afghanistan, before becoming Commander-in-Chief, Land Forces. He brought a high level of practical soldiering to the CDS’s job, and it still underpins his thinking.

I ask him whether the world has become more dangerous since he retired. “I think it’s at least as dangerous, and potentially more. I give advice on geostrategy to governments around the world, and if I were to look at Britain, I’d say it’s a particularly dangerous time for a country that’s steering an unknown course post-Brexit and has global pretensions.”

North Korea is one such danger. “I think Kim [Jong-un] has no intention of provoking a war,” he says. “He knows it would be the end of him. But my worry is that he miscalculates, and America is forced to intervene. And the result of a military intervention will, in the short term, be awful. There should be a diplomatic outcome in which Russia – or, more likely, China – is the major influence.”

And what could Britain do? “Very little. This is not something we could any longer become involved in. Even if the new aircraft carrier were up and running, why would we send it all the way over there to add a few planes to the American effort? This is not one for us.

"For Britain, with its Army of 78,000 and its Navy of 20 frigates and destroyers, to have the conceit to think it can fight a war in the Far East is almost laughable. Our practical role should be confined to Nato, Africa and the Middle East. We lost all other capability not in the recent cuts, but in the cuts of the early 1990s, at the end of the Cold War.”

A year after Lord Richards ceased being CDS, he compared Britain’s declining capability to that of a “banana republic”. Now he says: “I exaggerated for effect. We’re certainly not at the banana republic stage. But the runes are not good.

“The nation’s apparent ambitions are not going to be met without putting significant amounts of fresh money into defence. At a time when we are leaving the European Union and there’s much talk of being global, and with a navy that effectively cannot get out more than 12 to 14 destroyers and frigates, even if you look just at the maritime component of military power, things don’t look good. It hardly fits an image of a prosperous Britain with active, vibrant, sizeable Armed Forces that can influence other nations.”

Some of the decisions that cut the Forces were taken on Lord Richards’s watch. “I do feel guilty in that I was part of a process that led to very disappointing outcomes. In 2010, when I took over as CDS, the decisions on the Strategic Defence and Security Review had been taken. Even David Cameron said it hadn’t been very sensible to let another CDS be the major influence on this.

"I should have owned the process. The way I rationalised it was that that country was in a hell of a state. We agreed to a 7.8 per cent cut, but were given all sorts of promises that, come 2015, things would improve: and I think, to be fair to David Cameron, he meant to deliver.

“But there was another cut the following year, and in 2015, while there was in theory a one per cent increase in equipment, overall there was a cut. So the Army today is far smaller than I signed up to as CGS, which I think was 94,000. My successor agreed to a cut to 82,000, and it’s only 78,000 today.”

A plan to use reservists to bolster the numbers has failed. “I’m afraid it hasn’t been able to deliver and never will, because of real combat capability. However proficient they are, a part-time soldier cannot be as effective as someone who’s devoted his life to it and puts on a uniform every day.”

Despite Kim’s instability, he says that “extremism in all its forms, notably jihadism, is the biggest threat. I don’t buy the idea that Russia need be the big threat everyone says it could be. There are regimes – and North Korea is obviously one – that could be pitched into doing things they perhaps don’t intend to. One day you can find yourselves fighting a war you didn’t expect, and I suspect we are neither psychologically nor physically ready for that to happen.”

I press him about Russia. “I think we’ve mishandled Russia since the end of the Cold War. I think good diplomacy, of which military activity is a part, and clear red lines will enable us to have a good relationship. We share many things in common, not least a concern about extremism. Russia doesn’t need to become a threat. In any case, we’re all dependent on America for any effective response to Russian aggression.”

The Libyan intervention also happened under Lord Richards: he says it was prompted by Downing Street saying that “we cannot have a Srebenica on our watch”, referring to massacre of Muslims in Bosnia in 1995. “Bearing in mind we had no plan for what came next, I had the temerity to say: ‘This is an opportunity to pause and negotiate with Gaddaffi.’

"But it had become a regime change operation, and there was a view in Paris and London that we were on a roll and ought to finish the job off. Asking what the plan was then was an inconvenient question. You shouldn’t go to war unless you have a good plan that you are confident in for the day after.”

He adds: “Even in 2011, Britain and France could not run a war against a pretty minor dictator, because of the technicalities of a modern military operation. We needed Nato, because we needed America. That should have been another lesson.”

Nor was Libya the only problem “Back in 2012, I gave the Government a plan to deal with Assad. There was no interest in it. We did enough to keep the war going, but not enough to give our putative allies there a chance to win.

"I said if our Government were not prepared to do this then it would be best to let Assad win and win quickly, because otherwise we were fomenting all sorts of other problems further downstream – but that was politically unacceptable. So we let it drag on. Then Russia intervened and demonstrated the decisive use of the military instrument. And now we are tacitly supporting Assad, because the real enemy is Isis.”

He claims that, then, Islamic State "was not a huge military challenge. They could have been dealt with in weeks. Now there are five to 10 million Syrians displaced, their lives ruined, hundreds of thousands killed. Much of that could have been avoided by early decisive action. But we couldn’t contribute the sort of force we had in 1990-91, or in 2003.

“If our ambition is to be the second military power within Nato, and to be conspicuously proficient so that the Americans see us as their partner of choice, then having a navy of 19 ships, 12 or 13 of which might be available, but even some of those prevented from getting out of harbour because of financial constraints, then we are in a pretty sorry state.”

He feels his own service is struggling. “The Army, which has made a gallant effort to retain all its skills, can’t do so because it can’t re-train soldiers to the highest degree. The Challenger tank becomes obsolete in four years. The Warrior vehicles are 1970s designs. There’s a lot of gesture strategy – putting 200 or 300 people in somewhere. We’ve got 350-500 people in Afghanistan now, but there’s a debate about whether we should do more, as America now is.

"It’s a prime example of how our forces can fight extremism. If Afghanistan collapsed tomorrow, because we haven’t finished the job properly, we’d have to start all over again and sort it out. We couldn’t leave Afghanistan as a massive rogue state exporting extremism around the region and to us.”

He believes the Army is desperately short of soldiers. “I think mass matters hugely. That’s why the numbers of ships in the Royal Navy and the number of planes in the RAF are so important, too. A ship can only be in one place at a time: and an example of where we are caught short through and absence of ships has been the hurricane in the West Indies. It’s not just fighting wars, extremism or insurgencies in which you need mass.”

Mass, of course, costs money. “Our ambitions and the requirements of the various challenges we are confronting cannot be matched by the capabilities we have.” The new aircraft carriers, which he opposed, “are having a huge distorting effect on the rest of the defence budget. Now we have them we have to make them work. But you make them work at the expense of the rest of the Navy, of the RAF and of the Army.”

He says we may have to revert to being “a maritime nation with a good little Navy, with the Army put on the back burner and used only in very selective ways. If we go on as we are, we won’t even deliver on the government’s goals for defence.”

Although retired, he is constantly among soldiers of all ranks - and discerns that morale is “fragile”.

“At the moment there’s a consensus that joining the Forces, whether you’re heir to the throne or the son of a dustman, is a good thing. If the government breaks that consensus by not looking after the people in the Armed Forces properly, word will get out. It will affect potential recruits and those we wish to retain.

“These people aren’t idiots. They know the sums don’t stack up. Recruitment and retention are very difficult. I think there’s a question about the government’s commitment, notwithstanding the much-vaunted military covenant, to people rather than equipment.”

He is concerned that married quarters aren’t being properly maintained, and there’s no commitment to their provision in the long term. The Major government sold them to the private sector, and from 2021, the owners can charge a commercial rent.

“It all creates doubt and worry, and so people take the chance to leave when they might previously have continued a career with the Armed Forces.”

He hopes an element of defence spending might soon be included in our overseas aid contribution of 0.7 per cent of GDP, to pay for more “mass” – and he knows ministers, including Priti Patel, the Overseas Development Secretary, share his frustration that it isn’t already.

“I think the Government must conduct a campaign with those who write the rules, and if that doesn’t work unilaterally extract themselves from the process. To not be able to include the military contribution to overseas aid is ridiculous.”

But then, he concludes: “There is an absence of grand strategic thinking in Whitehall. Where is Britain trying to position herself in the world in 20 or 30 years time? And where is the plan to get us there?”

It sounds like a challenge to Sir Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, who rarely allows the present CDS to speak in public on such matters, and only then when he has vetted the remarks. Grand strategy, like our first-world defence capability, seems already a thing of the past: and Lord Richards is unlikely to be alone in expressing the concerns that such a vacuum inevitably raises.

Here is a link to the original article >>> General Lord Richards: Why I'm certain North Korea won't start a war

Monday, 18 September 2017

My speech to the English Democrats Conference on 16th September 2017

My speech to the English Democrats Conference on the 16th September 2017

Ladies & Gentlemen

Welcome to Leicester and to the English Democrats 14th Annual General Meeting. We are now into our fifteenth year since our launch in August 2002. Fourteen is an important birthday for a young person. They are on their way to adulthood but not there yet. Not only are they likely to be fully into the toils of puberty, but also a fourteen year old is more likely to be found criminally responsible if prosecuted. Make of that what you will ladies and gentlemen!

Last year we were of course exultant at the results of the EU referendum, although not so sure about the results of the Tory Party Leadership election. If you remember I said that I thought that Theresa May had the sort of obsessive, control freak, uncharismatic personality that could well make her the Tory Party’s Gordon Brown. I rather think that history has proved me right. What do you think ladies and gentlemen?

In many ways it would appear that Theresa May is even worse than Gordon Brown, as on top of everything else she makes very stupid and obvious mistakes, like calling the General Election and scheduling it when the universities were still in term time so that the National Union of Students would be able to gather the maximum number of students to vote against her, which explains the loss of several of the Conservative’s former safe seats!

Also she came out with probably the most politically unwise manifesto that I can remember the Conservatives ever producing in all my increasingly all too long period of interest in politics.

So bad was the proposed attack on the interests of old people, who after all are more inclined to vote than any other category, that my mother rang me up to ask me if I thought that she really could safely vote for the Conservative Party! Let me tell you ladies and gentlemen that that would have been a turn up for the books!

But then not only is Theresa May dogmatic, she is also all too politically correct. Not only was she the prime mover behind gay marriage, but we have seen several instances recently where she has said the stupidest things. That is from the point of view of anybody who is making out they are Conservative.

Not only does she drop a colleague immediately if they say something politically incorrect, but then she supported the antifa thugs in attacking what she uncritically accepted were neo-Nazis. Actually they were mostly simply protestors objecting to historic Confederate statues being removed across the Southern United States. Such a person as Mrs May could well next be found agreeing that Nelson should be removed from Nelson’s Column in Trafalgar Square!

I have heard it said that some of Theresa May’s Cabinet colleagues think she is simply a “Blairite in very expensive trousers”. Maybe that is the explanation for why she shows every sign of not being actually somebody who cares about our country and its history and its culture.

One thing is certain. Theresa May is an outright enemy of English Nationalism!

Her Government is pressing ahead with its attempt to categorise anybody who doesn’t believe in her so-called “British values” as an extremist.

The Government’s position is now that anybody who doesn’t subscribe to their definition of fundamental “British values” is automatically an extremist. So let’s examine what you have to sign up in order not to be an extremist according to the Gospel of Mrs May. Here is their definition of fundamental British values:-

The fundamental “British values” are:- of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.”

Ladies and Gentlemen let us just go through this carefully with a lawyer’s eye to analysing the definition. Obviously by definition any English nationalist such as all of us here in this room will not subscribe to fundamental “British” values.

Ignoring the point that naturally if you were a Scottish nationalist or a Welsh nationalist in Scotland or Wales it wouldn’t be suggested that you should have to subscribe to British values, since they are allowed their own Nations! We are not!

But the definition Theresa May’s so called “British values” goes further than that. This definition means that you couldn’t even be a biblically inspired Christian because you couldn’t subscribe to these fundamental British values if you believe what Christ says:- “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” then they define you as an “extremist”.

Now you may ask what it is we should do about this Government plan? I do not particularly wish to model myself on Winston Churchill, although I think stomach wise I am probably not dissimilar. Churchill’s defiant call for “we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender” but that would be the sentiment that I would wish us all to be taking to heart.

One of the problems for England over recent years has been the lack of any other leadership for England or for English values, or the English Nation or almost any aspect of England. We in the English movement need to focus on making sure that we build up our leadership cadre. One way we can do that is by letting people know that there are some groups out there who are prepared to stand up for English people and to fight our opponents through the official system, whether it be complaints or bringing court cases. The Prevent Strategy which British values is part of gives us a way to do this.

There is a case that I advised on, which is relevant.

As part of the case we reported a Leftist troublemaker to the police. He was visited by the relevant police Prevent Team and has now been put on the Prevent “Watch List” as an Extremist! 

What that means is that if that Leftist now takes part in any activity in the future which is hostile to, for example, English nationalists, then the police are far more likely to crackdown on him than they would have been hitherto.

From now on he will be on the “Watch List” and will be flagged up as somebody whose activities ought to be disrupted.

It is the same with reporting anti-English so called “Hate Crimes”. These always ought to be reported. If a police officer shows any reluctance to accept it as a “hate crime” then a complaint should be made against the officer concerned. The complaint should be taken as far as it can be up the Police Forces' complaints system - so that it gets into the records that a lot of the “hate crime” is perpetrated against the English rather than by them.

Equally no opportunity should be lost to insist that you are “English” on ethnic monitoring forms rather than permitting yourself to be put down as “British” which is a legally invalid category and therefore waives your rights and your community’s rights under the Equality Act.

In the last few days we have had the publication by a group which calls itself “The Community Security Trust” which has launched what it has described a joint initiative with what they call a leading British Muslim support group to offer advice for victims and witnesses of hate crime.

This guidebook, written in collaboration with the Tell MAMA organisation and backed by the Crown Prosecution Service, also includes details of how to navigate the criminal justice system and understand the law and processes of the UK court system.

The Community Security Trust said it was an “important tool” in tackling a rising tide of antisemitism and Islamophobia in the UK.

The Community Security Trust though the guide has a focus on antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred, its advice can, be used by anybody who has suffered any kind of hate crime, which can occur due to race, religion, sexuality, age, disability, gender or any other characteristic.”

This guidebook sounds as if it is encouraging their client groups to take exactly the sort of approach that we ought to be taking for our people and for anybody who is in anyway picked on or victimised for being an English Nationalist. We also need to use the same arguments to advance the interests of our People as against any other minority groups.

One of the great things that has happened around us over the last eighteen months is that the Left have dropped the mask of being nice and instead have revealed just how hateful they are.

Hateful that is in both senses, both full of hate and worthy of being hated. Just listen to this from one of them called Emily Goldstein published in Thought Catalogue under the heading“Yes, Diversity is About Getting Rid of White People (And That’s A Good Thing)

This is what Emily Goldstein wrote:-

One of the more common memes that I’ve seen white supremacists spread around recently has been “diversity is a code word for white genocide”. The concept here is that diversity is only promoted in white nations, and that the end goal is to eliminate white people altogether by flooding all white countries with non-white people until there are no white people left. Well, guess what, white supremacists? That’s exactly right. Diversity IS about getting rid of white people, and that’s a good thing.

First off, I am a white person myself, so allow me to get that out of the way. I’m extremely glad that the white race is dying, and you should be too. White people do not have a right to exist. Period. That may sound like a bold statement, but it’s entirely true. Any white person with even the faintest knowledge of history should curse themselves every single day for being white. Throughout all of recorded history, whites have engaged in oppression, genocide, colonialism, imperialism, and just plain evil on a massive scale. White people have denied every other race the right to exist, and have – at some point in history – oppressed every single race on the planet.

Why, then, should whites now be allowed to live in peace when whites have historically been the world’s #1 source of conflict and oppression? Whiteness is racism. Period. Whiteness is the source of all oppression in the world. Whiteness is racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and heteropatriarchal capitalism. Eliminate whiteness and you eliminate every single form of oppression that the world currently faces. No white people means no oppression. White people are like a cancer and oppression is a symptom of the cancer. Cut out the cancer altogether – with the cancer being white people – and you get rid of all of the oppression which white people cause.

I have dedicated my life to fighting racism, and I have determined – based on all available evidence – that the only way to really eliminate racism is to eliminate whiteness. Whiteness is the ocean from which racism flows. Get rid of whiteness and you get rid of racism. Despite what white supremacists often claim, white people do not have a “culture”. White “culture” consists of nothing more than oppression, genocide, and the disenfranchisement of minorities. White “culture” is racism and nothing more. When white supremacists talk about “white culture”, what they’re really talking about is racism. Over the course of history, white people have built a massive empire based entirely on the hard work of oppressed and disenfranchised minority groups. But guess what, white people? That empire is finally coming to an end now, and its demise is music to my hears. To quote the great anti-racist activist Tim Wise: “Do you hear it? The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently? Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.”

Descendants of Holocaust survivors can personally attest to the evil that white people are capable of when they hold the reins of power. Thankfully, whites won’t be holding the reins of power for much longer. When white people die out, so will racism, sexism, queerphobia, and all other forms of oppression. The only way to eliminate racism, white privilege, and white supremacy is to eliminate whiteness altogether. When I teach my students about human rights, critical race theory, and the role of whites in worldwide oppression, my white students often ask me how they can “atone” for the evils of whiteness and how they can make up for centuries of white oppression. And I tell them: you can do that by not having any children and ensuring that the white race does not live to oppress anyone ever again in the future.

Thankfully, white birthrates are indeed very low, while the birthrates of minorities are much, MUCH higher. Within our lifetimes, whites will be a minority in a significant number of formerly white countries, including the US, the UK, France, Germany, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, to name just a few. To white supremacists yearning for the days when whites could rape and pillage the world with impunity, this is incredibly frightening. To people on the right side of history, however, this looks like progress. Whites are finally getting their just desserts – and it’s about time. I sincerely hope that, when the white power structure finally comes crashing down, whites will receive no mercy from the minority groups that whites have spent centuries oppressing. We certainly don’t deserve any mercy or kindness, as we have given nothing of the sort to others.

Whites should also know that, when they do become a minority in formerly white countries, they will NOT be receiving affirmative action or any of the other benefits meant to assist the minorities that whites have historically oppressed. Why? Because whites don’t deserve those benefits. It’s as simple as that. One can look to South Africa, where whites are only about 8.4% of the population, but blacks continue to receive affirmative action because blacks in South Africa have historically been disenfranchised by whites. The same thing will happen when whites become a minority in North America, Europe, and Oceania, because whites have historically oppressed minorities in all three of those continents. Not to mention, why should whites receive any kind of benefits when the ultimate goal is to get rid of whites altogether? Finally, laws against hate speech will serve to prevent whites from complaining about this, as any white person who complains will be arrested, given a long prison sentence, and made an example of for the rest of the remaining white population. Speech that attempts to justify the white power structure and perpetuate white oppression of minorities is not freedom of speech, and it has absolutely no place in modern society.

As white people, we all need to recognize that we no longer have a place in the world. This world now belongs to the minorities that us whites have spent centuries oppressing, and there is absolutely nothing that any pathetic white supremacists can do about it. In order for a better world to be created, white people need to be exterminated. Period. It’s as simple as that. We should simply be thankful that our death will be accomplished through mass immigration and declining birthrates. When whites have exterminated other races, it wasn’t nearly so peaceful – it was done through violent genocide. But other races are not as evil as whites are, and it’s important to remember that. The world belongs to minorities now, and they will make a much better, more peaceful world with what they’re given. Only when white people have ceased to exist will a peaceful and progressive society – free of racism and hatred – be possible. The only way to eliminate white privilege, white oppression, white racism, and the oppressive white power structure is to eliminate white people altogether.

So, yes, white supremacists: diversity is indeed white genocide. And white genocide is exactly what the world needs more than anything else.”

Forgive me that was quite a long item but consider this. If one of us wrote an article in which you imagine changing “white” for any other group we would no doubt be under arrest.

In this case some people must have at least complained because Thought Catalogue has removed it saying “the article you are trying to read has been reported by the community as hateful or abusive content”!

We now need to pursue Emily Goldstein in the same way that she would be pursued if she wrote something for example anti-Semitic. Ladies and gentlemen what do you think?

So ladies and gentlemen turning to the English Democrats, what do we need to do to help focus people on the English Cause?

As I have said on previous occasions, politics is more of a war than an argument. We need to build up our resources and our fighting skills and all things needed to fight this war.

Just consider this information from the Daily Mail:-

“Businesses and wealthy individuals ploughed £24.8million into Theresa May’s coffers – compared to Jeremy Corbyn’s £9.4millions, funded largely by the unions.

The Prime Minister’s decision to call the snap election in April led to the humiliating loss of 13 seats two months later. Labour surged, denying the Conservatives a majority despite their much smaller election war chest.

Electoral Commission data shows the election prompted parties to raise a record £40 million in donations in the three months between April and June.

The Liberal Democrats received £4.4 million and the Scottish National Party £600,000.

UKIP, which was boosted by a £1 million donation from businessman Arron Banks ahead of the 2015 election, was much less well-funded in 2017, receiving just £150,000.”

Ladies and gentlemen I can tell you here and now that, in my view, if we had just half a million pounds, let alone all the millions that the Establishment Parties have, together with all their years of brand recognition etc., I would expect us to make that great breakthrough for England!

If we had just one MEP come over to us we would be entitled to three Party Political Broadcasts a year. But when you turn to look at the party that is most likely to break up in the near future, UKIP, what do you see?

Ladies and gentlemen what you see is a party that hates the very idea of England amongst almost all its leaders. There is only one leadership candidate in the UKIP leadership election who has said he supports an English Parliament and that is David Kurton, one of their two London Assembly members. What an irony for a party which sometimes claims to be campaigning for England that there should only be him among the contenders that supports any English Parliament! The most openly hostile one was David Coburn, UKIP’s Scottish Leader, who openly says he hates English nationalists.

The one thing you can be sure of is that whoever of their candidates wins this leadership election then there are some MEPs who have already said that they will be leaving UKIP if that person wins!

So UKIP is in the process of fragmentation. It has probably now reached the stage that it is irreversible and, although it has got further to fall than the BNP had six or seven years ago, it is worth remembering that the BNP is now virtually non-existent and probably would have completely disappeared if it were not for the fact that every now and again they get a substantial legacy from elderly supporters who have lost the mental capacity to be allowed to make a new Will since the BNP’s collapse.

Every now and again I get the opportunity to quote a bit of the ancient Chinese Philosopher of War, Sun Tzu, “Master Sun”, and so far as we are concerned he has words of political patience to offer us, which are:- “If you sit long enough on the riverbank, the body of your enemy will float past”!

So ladies and gentlemen what is the future of the English Democrats and of the English Cause I hear you ask. Ladies and gentlemen is there anybody out there asking that question? Thank you!

Well the first thing to be said is the question of English nationalism and of what should happen for England has now been recognised even by one of our academic groups of enemies in University College London in the form of their Constitution Unit.

Those who are particularly interested in the constitutional question may remember that the Constitution Unit was founded by Gordon Brown and his circle with the principal objective of undermining any calls for a united England!

Whilst I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the academics in the Constitution Unit are in any sense our friends, nevertheless they have now reached a point where they think that this is an issue that they need to address and they currently have a project in place to look options for an English Parliament.

Whilst that is not as powerful an indicator of the importance of the issue as large numbers of people demanding it on the streets would be, it does show that amongst constitutional thinkers it is becoming clearer and clearer that the arguments that we have made all along are more and more difficult for the anti-English British Establishment to dismiss.

Of course they still want to break us up into “Regions”.

Of course they want to criminalise people that stick up for England, but just think of Gandhi’s famous saying “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”. Just think where we are on that scale.

I recently had a meeting with a former Labour MP who said the disconnect between the British Establishment and the English People is now so great that the UK Constitution is like a very badly loaded brick lorry driving along the road. You can see that the bricks are going to start falling off soon but you can’t be sure exactly when or exactly what the damage will be!

We have come a long way but we do still have a great challenge ahead of us to make the breakthrough that we need to do for our Party, for England and for the English Nation. We need to build up our Party and to do our best to energise our local organisations and the facilities, our political candidates to maximum the opportunity.

Ladies and gentlemen I hope we will go forth from this conference with renewed determination to win a united national future for England.

England has been one of the great countries of the world. It can be a great country on earth again. The English Nation has been great and can be great again.

Just let’s take a leaf out of Trump’s campaign book, let’s Make England Great Again! Let’s make our slogan “Make England Great Again! MEGA, ladies and gentlemen, we want a MEGA future. What do you say? Make England Great Again!

Tuesday, 5 September 2017



Kezia Dugdale, the Labour Scottish Leader, has just resigned with immediate effect after only serving a two year period since 15th August 2015.

On the face of it as, under her leadership the Party has gone from one MP to seven, you would have thought she might have been considered a success and be wanting to stay on. But she has resigned with all sorts of rumours as to why she has done so now floating around.

I wonder if the answer might be quite simple?

Ms Dugdale has invested a lot of time and effort in trying to move Labour towards a “Federal” system, whereby the different nations of the United Kingdom would have separate powers defined as against the powers of the centre (i.e. more like the United States of America), than was the case before the devolution process started under Blair.

She seemed to be having some success in terms of the newspaper headlines with it being announced only last week that Labour was going to move to a Federal system. 

Here is a link to an article about this >>> Jeremy Corbyn puts federal government 'on the table' if Labour win power | The Independent

It then came out that the supposed “Federal System” was one in which England wasn’t going to get any representation, but instead the English “Regions” were going to get some sort of limited representation.

But what must have finished it off for her was Jeremy Corbyn’s remarkably stupid remark in answer to a question at a well-publicised Question and Answer session at the Edinburgh Festival in which he said:-

“We are thinking very hard about what forms devolution would take in the future. Devolution in Scotland has gone a long way.

“We are looking at the way we bring about genuine devolution and particularly economic devolution. Could you have a separate economic and legal system in different parts of the UK?

“I think that becomes difficult and very problematic. I want a Labour government that is going to legislate better working conditions for everybody across the UK.”

Here is a link to an article about this >>> Jeremy Corbyn mocked for saying 'problematic' for Scotland to have own legal system - even though it does already | PoliticsHo

The fact that Mr Corbyn could say that about Scotland, which has always had a separate legal system not only shows that the man is profoundly ignorant of the basic constitutional structure of the United Kingdom, but also it gives an insight into his real views. What he said is just like a “spoonerism” where you mis-say a word which gives away your real views.

This comment is a political spoonerism where Jeremy Corby has given away the fact that he generally is not interested in any sort of a Federal system, since of course all Federal systems have to some extent different legal and economic arrangements in the different states!

If YOU had been working on trying to make Labour Federal and then your Leader had come up to Edinburgh and at a high profile event made such a stupid remark which gave away his true opposition to everything you had been working on, wouldn’t you resign too?

I wonder whether we will next hear that Kezie Dugdale has joined her new girlfriend the SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament, Jenny Gilrath in the Scottish National Party?

Friday, 1 September 2017



I have been watching the news reports about the British Government’s negotiations with the EU’s negotiator, Michael Barnier, and also their dealings with Jean-Claude Juncker.

The interesting thing is that, despite predictions of common-sense negotiating at the behest of German car makers, it seems evident that the EU negotiators are behaving in exactly the same kind of way as we are used to EU negotiations taking place in the past.

Had the EU been a different organisation where negotiations could take place flexibly and sensibly and on a common-sense basis, then there can be no doubt that David Cameron would have brought back a far better compromise package, which would probably have resulted in there being a narrow majority for Remain in the referendum.

So the lack of the EU’s willingness to negotiate on anything of significance is part of the reason that we are where we are at the moment.

Almost inevitably the EU is now again adopting an intransigent approach to negotiation, whereby they are not prepared to discuss the financial settlement before the terms of the divorce have been settled. That thinking would be muddled even if we were talking about a real divorce of a married couple.

In a proper divorce the first stage is merely to decide whether or not the situation is one where divorce is proper. In an English court that is now done quite simply. It is more or less taken for granted that if the couple want to divorce they will be able to, provided they can make suitable allegations.

Once the divorce has been ordered, then the court will be prepared to go on and deal with the financial settlement. Clearly there is little intention of having further relations between the divorcing couple except for looking after the children.

This is not the kind of situation that we are in with Brexit. It is not equivalent to a divorce despite some of the rhetoric that claims that it is similar.

If it was a divorce it would be one where the EU were saying that they won’t ever discuss what the arrangements for the children will be until we have settled how much we are going to pay them! That is simply not a way which the court would accept was proper for divorcing couples to behave.

So the EU is not behaving in a proper way. 

It is however behaving in exactly the sort of way that you would expect EU apparatchiks to behave, that is in a demanding and dictatorial way the purpose of which is about protecting the EU as an entity, rather than looking after the interests of EU member states, let alone EU citizens!

Saturday, 26 August 2017



On the 17th August Jeremy Corbyn was interviewed by the BBC. The interview went as follows:-

Jeremy Corbyn:-

“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Do you not think it is a problem with Pakistani men because we have seen in Rochdale, in Rotherham, Newcastle and Oxford that being the problem?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Did you sack Sarah Champion?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“No she resigned.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Did you sack or did she resign”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned”.

BBC interviewer:-

“So you did not sack her?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned.”

BBC interviewer:-

“If she had not have resigned would you have sacked her?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“Well she resigned so that is the question.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Do you think she was right to resign?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“She resigned and I accepted the resignation.”

BBC interviewer:-

“Do you think she was right to resign?”

Jeremy Corbyn replied:-

“Well I accepted her resignation so clearly I did and I thank her for her commitment to the safety of women and the vulnerability of women and championing equalities in this country and I will be working with her in the future.”

(Here is a link to the original >>> Jeremy Corbyn: Wrong to blame 'entire community' for abuse - BBC News).

This interview was in the context of his being asked about Labour’s Shadow “Equalities Secretary”, Sarah Champion, being forced into the position of resigning by him. Jeremy Corbyn repeatedly denied she had been sacked. 

The truth was, of course, that he had made it impossible for her to continue. If she had been an employee that would clearly have been a “Constructive Dismissal” situation. So that was Corbyn’s first deception in this interview.

The second deception in the interview was to claim:-

“I don’t think you can label the whole community. I think what you have to do is label those that perpetrate disgusting and disgraceful crimes against people and they can be from any community. They can be white, they can be black, they can be any community and they have to be dealt with as the crime of what it is.”

Sarah Champion had never said, nor indeed has any commentator from any part of the spectrum, so far as I am aware, ever said that the whole of the Pakistani or Muslim community, or the whole of any Muslim community, or indeed the whole of any community whatsoever, is involved in child sexual exploitation.

What Sarah Champion had pointed out however is nothing more or less than the truth, namely that the gangs of exploiters are principally Pakistani Muslim men (but also include other Muslim men) and also that the “ethnicity” of the victims was almost invariably young white English girls.

Jeremy Corbyn then went on to say that:-

“The problem is the crime that is committed against women from any community. Much crime is committed by white people. Crime is committed by other communities as well. I think it is wrong to designate an entire community as the problem. What I think is right is to deal with problems, the safety and security and vulnerability of often young women who can be groomed by all kinds of people into some awful and dangerous situations.”
This was his third deception in the short interview!

Where it is of course true that there are individual paedophiles from all communities, what is certainly not true is that there are gangs of paedophile criminals drugging, raping and prostituting on a hugely profitable commercial scale thousands of young girls from another ethnic or religious group.

The idea that there is any “moral equivalence” is however completely preposterous and shows how far adrift Jeremy Corbyn’s moral compass actually is. 

But then that is of course all too true of Labour politicians generally because they are the very Establishment Party that was most involved in protecting the Muslim politician child rape gang members and their “clients” and in closing down any criticism of what was being done and also in concealing it and also in persecuting anybody who opposed that. 

So I ask: Is Jeremy Corbyn any more or less deceitful than Tony Blair?

What do you think?

Tuesday, 22 August 2017



I saw this question asked on Twitter recently in response to her latest outburst of what would be complete nonsense for any genuine Conservative to say about President Donald Trump finding “equivalence” between alleged fascists and the counter-protesters in Charlottesville.

Speaking with NBC Theresa May blasted Trump saying:- “I see no equivalence between those who propound fascist views and those who oppose them”.

She went on to say:- “ It is important for all those in positions of responsibility to condemn far-right views wherever we hear them”.

The latter is of course an indication of her own politics, but the former is a dubious point especially when considered in the context of the Charlottesville riots.

Also her further remarks to the BBC were equally dubious. Mr Trump had merely said in his press conference on the previous Tuesday that there was “blame on both sides”. “You had a group on one side that was bad”, he said. “You had a group on the other side that was also very violent. Nobody wants to say that. I’ll say it right now”.

Mrs May also went on to tell the BBC:- “As I made clear at the weekend following the horrendous scenes that we saw in Charlottesville, I absolutely abhor the racism, the hatred and the violence that we have seen portrayed by these groups.”

"The United Kingdom has taken action to ban far-right groups here, we have proscribed certain far-right groups here in the United Kingdom.”

And she repeated:- “there is no equivalence."

Here is the link to the article>>> Theresa May on Trump comments: Far-right should always be condemned - BBC News

In effect, Mrs Theresa May, the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was using her office to say that Fascists, Nazis, White Supremacists etc., should have no rights.

In fact many of the protesters were there to prevent the destruction of a memorial to the Confederate side of the Civil War.

Furthermore many ordinary white anomalies feel that they have been increasingly pushed into self-identification as “whites” by the increasingly vociferous “community” groups, such as “Black Lives Matter”. A very good article appears about this in the Spectator which I set out below.

It is usually dangerous for a foreign politician to hold forth in the way that Theresa May has about what is going on in America. Of course she doesn’t know and cannot know all the details of what actually happened, but the idea that the “White” protestors are automatically in the wrong and that the “anti-fascist” protestors are automatically in the right is simply bizarre.

Is she really saying that Fascism and Nazism is automatically worse than Communism when history tells us that the Communists have killed vastly more people than the Fascists and Nazis did?

Is she really saying that there is “no moral equivalence” because the killing of the victims of Communism as “class enemies” is more understandable than the “racial” victims of Nazism?

I once heard a BBC broadcast interview of the former student Far-Leftist radical, Tariq Ali. He was saying why he thought that Stalin’s 55 million dead didn’t make Stalin worse than Hitler with his 6 million dead because Stalin’s killings were about class not race! Is Mrs May now lining herself up with the Far-Left?

If Theresa May is saying that Communist mass murderers have no “moral equivalence” to Fascist ones then I would suggest that what this shows unequivocally is that she is not a “Conservative” in any meaningful sense.

In considering whether Theresa May is a “Conservative” it is worth bearing in mind that she was the principal architect behind the push for gay marriage; also that when she was Shadow Home Secretary and the then Home Secretary, Harriet Harman (aka Hattie Harperson), introduced her Equalities Bill, having said that her Bill was “socialism in a single bill”, Mrs May responded in the House of Commons that she on behalf of the Conservatives welcomed the Bill. Theresa May said that she only regretted that it didn’t go far enough!

I am not sure whether all of this makes her the worse Prime Minister ever, but it certainly does add grist to the point which I made when she first emerged as the Conservative Leader, that I thought that she was likely to be the Conservatives equivalent of Gordon Brown. 

Here is a link to my speech saying that >>> Robin Tilbrook: CHAIRMAN’S SPEECH AT THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS CONFERENCE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2016

I think her latest comments show that she is going to prove to be worse than Gordon Brown, not only on her track record of action, but also on her cack-handed attitude to dealing with foreign affairs.

When she was Home Secretary she was intimately involved in welcoming various foreign leaders from the Chinese President downwards with far more questionable “moral equivalence” than Mr Trump!

Of course it may be that Theresa May thinks they didn’t matter because they weren’t Westerners and therefore their repressive states don’t challenge her Blairite Left-Liberal world view!

The whole determination by multi-culturalists to destroy statues of historic figures which the protesters were trying to prevent in Chalottesville is intended to wipe away any of the monuments to our history. This is not only a phenomenon in America (where they are even now talking about trying to get rid of statues of George Washington because he owned slaves!). It has happened here also.

Remember when an ungrateful South African student, who had been sent to Oxford on the Cecil Rhodes Scholarship repaid his benefactor by trying to have Rhodes’ statue removed from Oriel College! No doubt Cecil Rhodes remark that “to be born an Englishman was to have won the lottery of life” was too unbearable to multi-culturalists to allow his statue to remain, however great his charitable giving!

I suspect that, given the chance Theresa May would prove just as much of a failure at genuine conservatism over such a statue here in England as she has been in her comments!

Here is the article from the Spectator by Brendan O’Neill, which I think puts all these points about 'moral equivalence' into a sensible context. 

What do you think?

The violent product of identity politics

"Identity politics is turning violent. It’s been brewing for a while. Anyone who’s witnessed mobs of students threatening to silence white men or Islamists gruffly invading the space of secular women who diss their dogmas will know that, as with all forms of communalism, identity politics has a menacing streak. And at the weekend, in Charlottesville, Virginia, it blew up. That ugly clash between blood-and-soil while nationalists and people crying ‘black lives matter’ is the logical outcome of the identitarian scourge, of the relentless racialisation of public life.

Charlottesville was both shocking and unsurprising. It was shocking because here we had actual Nazis, waving swastika flags, in 21st century America, the land of the free. That is deeply disturbing. But it is also unsurprising because in recent years, across the West, people have been invited, implored in fact, to think racially. To be ‘racially aware’. To think of themselves as belonging to a particular race, and to believe their racial make-up confers certain privileges or penalties on them – it shapes them. The young men hollering about ‘white pride’ at Charlottesville are surely responding to this racial invitation. They’re being ‘racially aware’.

To those of us who believe in racial equality, who admire Martin Luther King’s vision of a society in which character counts for more than colour, the rise of this PC and profoundly divisive racial consciousness has felt alarming. The pressure to view every aspect of life and culture through a racial lens has become intense. The academy wrings its hands over all the Dead White European Males in the canon. Student radicals claim white philosophy isn’t suited to black students. The idea of ‘racial microaggressions’ invites us to view even everyday conversation as loaded with racial tension. Leftists regularly claim that Brexit and Trump and other things they hate are the fault of ‘old white men’. ‘Dear White People’, say PC people before launching into a diatribe against ‘white’ behaviour. Race has become the explanation for everything, the obsession of the age.

Things have got so bad that anyone who seeks to resist racial thinking, on the humanist basis that people are individuals rather than bundles of DNA or the unwitting products of history, can expect to be rounded on. To say ‘I don’t see race’ is actually quite racist, says a writer for the Guardian. The University of California’s guide to acceptable speech – many campuses have one these days – describes statements like ‘I don’t believe in race’ and ‘There is only one race, the human race’ as ‘microaggressions’, because they fail to acknowledge the individual as a ‘racial/cultural being’ in the past, refusing to treat individuals as racial/cultural beings was a good thing. Now it’s bad. You must treat people as expressions of race. And if you don’t, you’re racist. Talk about doublespeak.

This is the foul nature of identity politics. It defines people, not by their achievements or beliefs, not by their character or work, but by their skin colour, their genitals, their sexuality. By their inherited traits rather than things they’ve done through the exercise of their own autonomy. ‘As a black woman’, ‘As a white man’, ‘As a mixed-race genderqueer’… these are the baleful prefaces to speech and debate in the 21st century, because what matters most is not what a person believes in but what shade their skin is or what chromosomes they possess. Biology trumps belief: a full and foul reversal of the modern, enlightened idea that the individual can escape the circumstances of his birth and determine his destiny for himself.

And as part of this truly nasty business, we have witnessed the rise of white identity. Some people have an apparently ‘correct’ white identity: they check their white privilege, they go on demos with placards saying ‘I was going to write my opinion, but it’s probably about time white men just shut up and listened’. White shame. And others, like those gurning torch-carriers at Charlottesville, have a bad white identity: they love being white, they think it’s better than being black, they flirt with Nazi ideology. White pride. But these seemingly opposed whites share something very important in common: they’ve embraced racial identity. They define themselves as white. They have responded to the cry of the identitarian and made themselves into racial creatures. And both sides bristle with menace, as can be seen in the contorted faces of the ‘bad whites’ in the all-right and in those ‘good whites’ who yesterday pulled down the Confederate Soldiers statue in North Carolina and then kicked and spat on it.

Those whites at Charlottesville look to me the ugly products of identity politics, of the elevation of trait over conviction, nature over character. Popular culture and the mainstream media say over and over again, ‘You are white, you are a white man, that is your identity, that is your privilege, admit it and own it’, and those men have simply turned around and said: ‘Okay’. A serious problem in this millennium perhaps the biggest problem, is the retreat from universalism, the surrender of the racial imagination. It has green-lighted a neo-racialism without realising how lethal this is. Anyone who thinks they can racialize public life without creating tension and storing up violence is clearly unfamiliar with history.

(Here is a link to the original>>>