To Survive As a European Nation We Must Halt Immigration
The British Democratic Party’s policy on immigration is quite clear (although even some members would seem to be unsure). Its Policy Statement says “the BDP is committed to ending all immigration. Talking about reducing net immigration is to connive at the replacement of the indigenous population. Illegal immigrants and immigrants who have committed serious criminal offences would be repatriated immediately. Other immigrants, especially the unassimilable ones, would be provided with incentives to return to their countries of origin and those countries would be provided with incentives to welcome them.”
This is a policy that must be conducted humanely and with no hidden agenda of violence or threats of violence to encourage legal immigrants to apply for the proposed resettlement grants.
Those who say we would make further progress if we moderated our immigration policy should consider the true message of the recent report on the number of immigrant pupils in Britain’s schools. This was that:
Throughout England and Wales one in nine of all the children do not speak English as their first language.
In 2013 the majority of children in 1,755 primary and secondary schools spoke another language at home. Across England, the number of pupils who have English as their second language has risen by a fifth to almost 1.1 million in the past five years. That’s not a typing error, in the last five years. If you are in Wales and Scotland this growth might take as long as ten years (and independence for Scotland would not save our fellow kinsmen as Salmond has made clear).
Of the ten schools with the highest proportion of children who do not speak English as the first language, all but two are outside of London. The report adds that by 2022 the pupil population in England will exceed eight million for the first time, fuelled by a combination of higher birth rates and an influx of migrants in some areas. It does not admit that the ‘higher birth rates’ are among immigrant families and rarely among native Brits.
Douglas Carswell, a back-bench Tory MP had the sense to say that Britain needs to have a “national debate” about the impact of immigration on social cohesion. At least it indicates he has not fallen for his Boss’s empty promise of “reducing immigration to tens of thousands”. He is probably too bright to fall for the Ukip hogwash on immigration which, according to Farage, it’s OK if you are a non-European. Apparently we must keep out those Poles and other East Europeans but show we are not prejudiced and welcome the Afro-Asians.
For our children and our children’s children there is no choice but to halt immigration if we wish to hand over to them a nation which will continue to be their home as we knew it, whatever its faults, and which our ancestors fought and died for.
Help To Buy Goes Sharia Compliant
By gentle steps the ever expanding Muslim community in Britain increases the strength of its civic control far more than any purely religious grouping, whether Christian, Hindu, Sikh, or Odinist. The latest favoured development is that Muslim borrowers are now allowed to apply for “Islamic mortgages” under a change to the Government’s Help to Buy scheme aimed at extending the range of home buyers.
This means that Muslim borrowers who want a Sharia compliant mortgage can now use the Home Purchase Plans (HPP) which is financed by all us taxpayers. To meet Islamic law the HPPs split ownership of a property between the borrower and their bank. This will help Muslims to buy property up to £600,000 at only a 5% deposit. Unless he converts, my son who lives in London would be excluded from this, as would be his local Indian corner-shop owner.
Sajid Javid, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, launched the updated scheme at an Islamic finance conference in London on February 11th “as the UK attempts to become a major centre for the growing market in shariah-compliant finance”.
But not all is lost, for their have been some mutterings of disapproval according to Harry Wilson reporting in the Telegraph. He said the scheme has been accused of fuelling a property bubble, particularly in London and the South East of England. The Bank of England was forced to deny recent claims that its Governor, Mark Carney, had been pushing to limit the scheme and wanted to reduce the valuation threshold.
There are, of course, many aspects of Sharia law. This is just its soft side. As the saying goes, you’ve seen nothing yet.
The Left’s “Long March”, by one who was there
When trying to explain the original plans of Marxists of the Frankfurt School in the twenties or followers of Gramsci a decade later to infiltrate and control colleges universities and the media – irrespective of its alleged political standpoint, then you will often receive a strange look as if you were spouting the theories of David Icke, or some other nutter. At one time I used to edit trade journals which on the odd occasion could lead to a press visit to a major company on the Continent. Evenings could often end up in the bar of your hotel in the company of reporters from the ‘esteemed’ establishment dailies from The Times and Telegraph. Usually in their twenties and with a degree in media studies, I found that as their alcohol content rose it was quite the norm to hear them rave about “Fascist politicians” such as not only Margaret Thatcher but John Major and even the odd Labour MP who had expressed some concern over immigration. As for Enoch Powell, he was Hitler incarnate as far as these shallow Trots were concerned.
Where are they now? Perhaps some are still writing for the Tory Telegraph and Murdoch’s international capitalist Times. With staff levels being trimmed as circulations of the dailies continue to fall, no doubt others have made their nests in the BBC or so-called independent television, where they can continue to influence public opinion.
For a more explicit explanation of how extreme left views are perpetuated I would recommend the clarity of how the ‘long march through the institutions’ has been achieved given in the Sunday Telegraph of February 9th by its columnist Janet Daley.
Having gained a degree at the University of California, Berkeley in the 60s, Janet Daley was a far-left activist including when she first came to Britain to work as a journalist. She said that the Left’s political solution was to invade the areas of life that were “most directly responsible for opinion-forming and the bending of minds : to ‘work from within’, as we used to say, to alter the consciousness of the masses”, and become more receptive to the message of revolution. She added:
“I had dozens of comrades on the New Left who became union officials, broadcasters, teachers and lecturers. . . Anti-capitalist, class-war jargon permeated public discourse.”
Moving on to the present it was her opinion (which I share) that it is almost impossible for those who lead normal lives with private preoccupations to overcome the influence of professional, specially trained activists. She adds:
“An example of this is the way in which groups of activists conduct themselves at public meetings. We were always instructed not to sit together but to scatter ourselves through the audience, so that when we made noise (which we were encouraged to do) it would seem as if the whole hall was joining in.”
Now is this not what we see in action if you watch, for example, BBC Question Time audiences? Although I consider that Ukip is led by a collection of political fraudsters, you would not think that they had secured second place in each of the last six Parliamentary by-elections by the hostility that appears to be given their spokespersons by Question Time audiences.
3
Well said, John.
This party needs to point-out to the electorate that UKIP apart from the EU issue, have NO real answers to Britain’s problems. They are particularly WRONG with regard to their GLOBALIST economic approach.
The British Democratic Party should be the party that eventually benefits from the British people’s profound disaffection with the Lib/Lab/CON party!
(Party Member) Thank you for reminding people that we are not a Civic Nationalist Party whose deceptive policies would just assist in the replacement of our people.
We have to ensure that the BDP doesn’t make some of the glaring political mistakes of others so that it becomes a viable moderate nationalist party.
Yep. Can’t disagree with any of the BDP immigration policy.
Just one small problem, there never will be a nationalist government to put this policy into operation..
As the article correctly highlights by it’s reference to schools, we as a people are being replaced at a rapid rate.
It is far too late for a nationalist government, already to many non indigenous voters to make sure that will never happen, not to mention millions of our own lemming people who would never vote for any nationalist party.
And as each year goes by our numbers shrink, and theirs goes through the roof.
Surely the debate should be what can be done to protect our people and their existence once we become an ethnic minority?
John, I have to agree the chances of a Nationalist government being elected are zero (the present corrupt voting system is too tied into the MSM and we have no chance of fair press) although at present our chances look slim our salvation lies in the collapse of the present system. The willingness of people to openly discuss the devastating effects of mass immigration is at an all time high, the pot is slowly boiling and eventually the lid will blow, when it does things will happen very quickly.
Yes, the FPTP electoral system is an utter fraud and operates more like a lottery than a fair means of representing the people’s will. It HAS TO GO AND SOON. It is about time these guys: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk became militant and organised a campaign of civil disobedience to ensure this joke of a system was sent to the history books where it belongs. Let’s face it, the British Establishment doesn’t reform things UNTIL THEY ARE FORCED TO DO SO. Women in the early part of the last century had to become militant and pro-active in securing the right to vote with the Suffragettes.
One shouldn’t forget the bias of the QT panels, including the Chairman, which, as the historian David Starkey pointed out on one occasion, with a few exceptions constituted a liberal club.
Starkey thought that having the two individuals on the panel, including himself, who could be described as ‘right wing’ (they were, I should say, economic liberals or libertarian)
Constituted bias.
This was itself biased since it completely ignored the half of the population who would be described as Old Style Labour, ie patriotic and socialist, Powellite Tory & / or nationalist
Yes, the only kind of ‘Right-wing’ political thought in this country that is allowed any kind of fair representation are the idiots who espouse economic liberalism/economic globalism like the Tories/New Labour/Lib Dem AND UKIP.
The traditional ‘Right’ (ie in economic terms NON-GLOBALIST) such as we nationalists aren’t given fair airtime.
I do not understand the logic of the policy as outlined, perhaps someone can enlighten me? Whilst accepting that further immigration at any rate of inflow will result in us becoming a minority in our own land, no account is taken, apparently, of the fact that ethnic birth rates will ensure that we become a minority in our own land in any event. Banning immigration and kicking out illegal immigrants and criminals can only achieve a postponement in the takeover. So what measures do the BDP propose to address this issue, what is the BDP proposing to ensure that this land remains ours?
I would say they should introduce pro-white laws. Non whites have to pay higher taxes for the privilege of being here (similar to non muslims in muslim countries), less welfare for non whites and more for whites and so on.
(Party Member) In answer to Jim Diggory above, the measures proposed are clearly set out in our policy document. They are that we will encourage Immigrants to leave and we will pay them to do so. We will also pay the Countries who are accepting them.
That’s fine in principal John but has anyone actually costed this out to see if we can afford it? I suspect the answer is no. If it has been costed out then I would be interested to see the figures. On the basis that everyone has their price it may well be possible to remove the majority of the colonists by mutual consent but the fact remains that an awful lot of these people will not relocate themselves at a price that we can afford – what then? Do we accept the situation and kiss our homeland goodbye or what? What is the BDP plan B under such an eventuality? Any takers?
The political journey which culminates in victory at a general election for a BDP (or similar) government, with a program of ‘voluntary assisted repatriation’ will have only occurred concurrent with a fundamental shift in political attitudes within the electorate. That is to say, there will a new ‘climate’, a new dynamic in place. This will mean that that which was previously deemed ‘unthinkable’ or unacceptable, will no longer be viewed in that way. However, those minorities who feel ‘threatened’ by that shift in mass opinion, will most likely ‘vote with their feet’ as it were. Thus, the need for compulsory action will have dissipated.
We can look at the EU in/out debate to illustrate my point. Some twenty five years ago, while there have always been a smaller hard core of ‘outers’, the majority accepted reluctantly that we had to remain ‘in’ and anyone seriously advocating out was branded an ‘extremist’, ‘loony’, the usual insults. Now, however, the prospect of EU withdrawal is taken seriously within the mainstream body politic.
This is why I have argued consistently – and will continue to do so – that UKIP is worth supporting at the ballot box for the duration because it is a ‘facilitator of change’. It has achieved a huge amount in terms of bringing about that change in climate regarding the EU and has at least managed to propel immigration to the top of the agenda even if its own solutions are woefully inadequate. I note that some commentators here can justify to themselves voting Lib Dem in the belief they are assisting the campaign for PR, which might facilitate the electoral progress of nationalist parties, but busting up the domination of LibLabCon is a bigger and more useful aim.
The problem is though even if busting-up of the Lib/Lab/CON party is achieved and it is a very, very big IF (anyone here remember the SDP who were also going to “break the mould of British politics”?) UKIP really (apart from their anti-EU aim) represent a CONTINUATION of that globalist and anti-British political Establishment.
I think the only way we will get a genuine referendum on electoral reform (ie one that gives us at least one if not more options of a PR system) is for civil disobedience to occur ie non-payment of taxes ect. I don’t see any reason why I should pay taxes to a British government that tramples on my civil RIGHT to have a fair vote in elections.
The SDP is not a very good comparison. It came from within the Establishment party structure as a reaction to the Militant Tendency take-over of the Labour Party. It’s policies were not mould-breaking, just a re-statement of the liberal-consensus politics that had prevailed hitherto. UKIP came from the grass-roots. It has had, in some ways, a similar journey of ups and downs as NF/BNP in terms of splits and internal disruption. It has taken a broadly libertarian stance on issues and has taken a publicly hostile stance towards the NF/BNP stance because it does not wish to share the pariah status which the latter endures. Its main plank is EU withdrawal and frankly, its other ‘policies’ are fluff and I would say, not yet ‘settled’. At an individual/personal level, it is NOT hostile to nationalists. (in my experience, far from it!). It has found its own chemistry of success and is not going to rock its own boat now. Establishment journalists seem to be working overtime to unearth UKIP connections with ‘extremists’ etc to try and damage them. At this point I would make clear I am NOT a member. The point is Steven, you can’t get all that you want in politics all at once. Sometimes you just have to accept some pragmatic realities and then see how you can take advantage of the new situation that arises.
As usual, an excellent article. What I for one, while praising this excellent website, would like to see & hear about, are the public meetings which surely must be taking place all over the country to discuss these problems. Would it be possible to have some news about them, please?
I agree that politics is the ‘art of the possible’ but it is also the ‘language of priorities’
(Party Member) There is already a little known Government scheme that provides a resettlement Grant. Usually only taken up by a few aging West Indians who wish to return home and end their days in the sunshine, we could expand this by making it more generous. All it takes is political will and most things are possible !
You are correct. That scheme has been around since 1971 when the Tory government of Edward Heath introduced the 1971 Immigration Act which supposedly ended ‘primary’ immigration and also set-up a voluntary repatriation scheme which is the one you have just mentioned. Of course, this was back in the days when the Conservative Party at least made a small effort to be Conservative!
Good to see some constructive thought in these comments. As Steven says, the first past the post electoral system is now an utter fraud. We should co-operate with those (irespective of political beliefs) who are campaigning for the alternative system now favoured in most European countries.
Graham makes the most relevant point of all: “Our salvation lies in the collapse of the present system. . . . the pot is slowly boiling and eventually the lid will blow.”
Finally, as irrepressible as ever John Shaw says: “All it takes is political will and most things are possible! ” Couldn’t agree more John.
Further to John Bean’s comments, I’ve even voted Lib Dem on a few occasions not because I support virtually anything they stand for but because they are the only party that believes in proportional representation unlike the plainly undemocratic stance of Tory and Labour (although in their case it is the Single Transferable Vote method which wouldn’t be very good for us. I prefer the German/New Zealand system of Additional Member System/Mixed-Member Proportional.
(Party Member) We have many non member guest commenters who do not advocate BDP policy. However, I think it is fair to say that no true Nationalist would ever vote LibDem. This is because they are the total opposite of everything we stand for other than an agreement on Proportional Representation!
But John how else are we ever going to get a fair voting system other than for voting for people who DO believe in it? Personally, I think the only way we will get it is by mass civil disobedience as the British Establishment never accedes to radical constitutional reform unless they are FORCED into it. Women in Britain would still be waiting for the right to vote if it hadn’t have been for the Suffragettes in the early part of the last century.
I have voted Tory in the past so would that make me not a genuine nationalist? The ONLY situation I could vote Labour in would be if I lived in Scotland or Wales and this was the only way to prevent a SNP or Plaid Cymru separatist victory.
I suspect there are probably a few Tories in Scotland or Wales who do this even though they have to bite their tongues doing it. Under FPTP, people do vote tactically a lot and this isn’t because they want to do it but because the system forces them to do so to prevent a party winning who they really detest.
“I prefer the German/New Zealand system of Additional Member System/Mixed-Member Proportional.”
How does this work, Steven?
It is basically a hybrid system that combines elements of proportional representation and the present First Past The Post. You get two votes one of which is for voting for a local MP/representative and the other for a party list.
It is is the system used for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the London Assembly, the German Bundestag and the parliament of New Zealand.
Here is more information on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additional_Member_System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_representation
Our cousins in New Zealand use the latter system and their government are composed of TRUE DEMOCRATS.. They have now had TWO referendums on electoral reform and were offered REAL choices about which system to use (unlike our FAKE referendum on electoral reform which only gave us the joke of AV or FPTP to ‘choose’ from!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_reform_in_New_Zealand
(Party Member) Jim above, quite rightly questions the cost of our immigrant paid return policy. Not paying out around twelve billion in ‘Foreign Aid’, untold billions to the European Union and more of our wealth on new immigrants would be a good start!
This also describes the various electoral systems: http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/
(Party Member) Steven, does this means you are not going to vote tactically for Ukip in the absence of a genuine nationalist candidate?
John, I certainly will not be voting UKIP. I just cannot vote for “more of the same” instead I will deface my polling card with “none of the above” a small gesture I agree, but an honest one.
I have considered voting for UKIP but I am wary of doing so and that is because some of their attitudes I profoundly disagree with such as their mania for MORE economic globalism and neo-liberalism (Thatcherism) which will make Britain’s existing economic predicament even worse than it already is Their ultra-Tory attitudes to people on benefits are also repulsive to me.
Also, there is a more political point and that is if they gain any more momentum by gaining more councillors or even an MP (though I think they are still some way from achieving that) then it will make the British Democratic Party’s chance of gaining support extremely difficult if not completely impossible. Momentum in politics (or the ‘big mo’ as the Americans call it) is very important and this factor can’t be overlooked so by not voting for them I am helping the BDP to have some ‘opening’ in which to operate. We need to remember that many people think UKIP is the ONLY anti-EU party. That, of course, is completely wrong but unfortunately due to the media constantly promoting UKIP that is the perception people have and politics is about 80% perception and 20% reality.
I might vote for them in the Euro elections but ONLY if there is no other anti-EU party standing. A vote in the Euro elections is where UKIP can do most good.
You seem to be obsessed with attaining Proportional Representation above all else Steven. If such a system was in place then, yes it might aid the election of a few nationalists, but LibLabCon would still dominate and be able to form the inevitable coalitions that would ensue as a consequence of no single party being able to secure a majority. The nationalist grouping would be permanently frozen out.
However, under ‘First Past the Post’, it is only necessary to build a ‘critical mass’, not a majority. Thus, in a constituency Lib, Lab and Con could each get around 24% each, the Greens and Loonies 2% and with the anti-nationalist forces thus divided, the Nationalist could be elected with only 25%. I hope that idea does not offend anyone’s democratic sensibilities. It is exactly the system that has operated against us for generations! Agreed, the hard bit is getting to the critical mass stage and on the way it will take a change in the political climate and what I would call a ‘chemistry of events’ that form that change in climate. It is happening to a certain extent already, with the UKIP phenomenon. Yes, the media helped UKIP and boosted it to become a safety valve against the BNP, but it has gathered a momentum of its own now, arguably beyond the capacity of the Establishment to control. UKIP is demonstrating the capacity to achieve critical mass and it is going to be impossible just at the moment for nationalists to compete at the ballot box with them. However, it will shake up the system and LibLabCon will be busted up and maybe forced to re-align. When UKIP has achieved its main objective of pulling out of the EU, its appeal will fade if it is unable to satisfy on the immigration issue and the consequences of economic globalisation. That is when nationalist ideas will start to gain traction.
I am not obsessed with the subject. All I am doing is pointing-out just how grotesquely unfair our present electoral system is. Basically, it’s a sick joke
Yes, getting a ‘critical mass’ is what is important under FPTP but that is where the problems begin. The ONLY reason why UKIP has been given a mostly free ride by the media is because they are simply anti-EU ultra-Tories and NOT a genuine nationalist party. It shouldn’t be a surprise to any of us here that a REAL nationalist party will NEVER get decent coverage in the media and that will prevent it getting a ‘critical mass’ in any one constituency as the full weight of the political Establishment will be brought to bear on it so that it can’t build-up a significant local government base in any promising constituency and go on and win the parliamentary seat.
UKIP has only really changed the debate on their one and only real difference with the political Establishment ie that of Britain’s EU membership. If they were ever to attempt to change the terms of the debate on the PIVOTAL nationalist issue ie mass immigration and ALL its effects they would be absolutely slaughted by the media and we all know why that would be the case.
Whilst getting Britain out of the EU and restoring its national sovereignty is an important issue it is NOT the PIVOTAL issue for nationalists.
We need to remember it was the Labour Party that was the original anti-Common Market party in British politics and whilst it may seem be be extremely unlikely that party would countenance a policy of EU withdrawal if they thought their electoral base was seriously threatened by UKIP or another anti-EU party they could change their stance overnight and where would that leave UKIP or that other possible anti-EU party?
What I am saying here is, as the Labour Party’s former stance on the subject demonstrates, it is perfectly possible to be a socialist or another kind of leftie and want to see Britain regain its self-government and that means this issue DOESN’T DEFINE a nationalist political stance.
Yes, that is because Socialism has been taken over by Marxists to become Marxist-Socialism, with the ‘social democracy’ Labour party just one step to the right; believing in gradual reformists measure towards Marxist-Socialism than revolutionary Socialism. As a result Socialism has become a dirty word for most of the electorate due to it’s conitations with Marxism and immigration who then end up siding with the free trade, globalist tories who are little different. Before Socialism was hijacked by Marxism it was about ensuring that those in society (nothing about ‘diversity’ and ‘multiracialism’ which Marxists have done) had good conditions, were healthy, united and prosperous and not under the past conditions of the Aristocracy and Merchant Class earning vast wealth while the rest of society lived hard lives in squalid conditions.
The combination of Racial Nationalism and Socialism can be known as Social Nationalism or National Socialism (they are slightly differing ideologies but generally are the same). Of course the powers have deliberately slandered this as it removes the wealth of International Finance and for a Marxist establishment to gain power.
Marxism after all requires a divided, weak society to gain power. The struggle of workers against the ‘bourgeois’, the ‘struggle’ of women against men, the ‘struggle’ of non-whites against whites, the ‘struggle’ of homosexuals, the ‘struggle’ of minority religions (despite Marxists banning religion when they are in power. Whilst doing so weaken the peoples’ identity further by replacing their natural identity with ‘Multiculturalism’ so they feel they should not resist because an artificial identity is all they know.
You don’t even have to be a ‘socialist’ to want good conditions for the majority of people. The Conservative Party used to espouse ‘one nation conservatism’ now it doesn’t and has been taken over by the followers of Thatcherism ie globalist free traders and economic neo-liberals/monetarists. As a result of this, it is perceived more and more as the ‘party of the rich’ and finds it very hard to win general elections. Indeed, it is because the Tory Party won’t go back to this former ‘one nation’ tradition, it has virtually ceased to exist in vast swathes of the country.
There are also two other considerations to take into account with regard to me possibly voting UKIP. One is if UKIP do exceptionally well in the Euro elections this year it may encourage more Scots to vote for ‘independence’ in September and break-up our country Great Britain which I don’t wish to see and two Nigel Farage has made many very demeaning and insulting remarks about nationalists so does he want our votes anyway? Presumably, he doesn’t and would want to wash his hands afterwards so to speak if we enabled his party to achieve a great victory.
There is one other impediment to me voting UKIP. The Tories are becoming increasingly insane and frankly evil and cruel with their so-called welfare ‘reforms’ and I believe one reason they are doing this is to gain cheap votes from UKIP supporters who tend to be even more extreme in this regard as they believe everything the moronic cretins of the Daily Mail print about this subject. If I were to vote UKIP, I would be giving the Tories more reason to produce even more batty policies on the subject and I don’t wish to do this as I, unlike them, have a social conscience.
(Party Member) Well said, David M. Real Nationalists know that Ukip will ‘open the door’ for us. The taboo subject of Immigration is now debated, in our awful media, day and night. This is only the beginning as ‘the genie is out of the bottle’ now and the Liberal Marxist alliance will NEVER be able to put it back. Discussion has even started on Enoch Powell’s voluntary paid repatriation ideas which are also BDP policy. Our brand of decent Nationalism is on it’s way to success.
Yes, it is being debated but the terms of the ‘debate’ are very narrow. I have yet to see a serious examination in the so-called ‘mainstream’ press about its SOCIAL effects and not just the economic ones. Also, the press are curiously reluctant to mention African and Asian migration. If you were to listen to them, you would think Britain only has Eastern European immigrants.
Not entirely as UKIP have shifted the debate into the narrow spheres of ‘culture’ and economics of those yet to come. There is no racial aspect to it which in peoples’ sub conscious is what it is all about. Immigration debate has become scapegoating White Poles and Romanians (and the Roma’s but they are non-whites) and not advocating anything to stop the pakistanis, bengalies, indians, africans and afro-carribean infiltrators.
By doing this they can still ‘debate’ immigration but can play their normal tricks when racial Nationalists enter. There will then be the sneering Farage “my greatest achievement is taking votes away from the BNP” then UKIP will be accepted, albeit on the sidelines of the current political establishment.
However the establishment deals with it it can linger as the ‘respectable’ anti-immigration party. As shown by the electorate for decades they don’t agree with the main parties but still vote for them. For those that do not want to play along and whose sentiment lies with racial nationalism then unfortunately they will waste time on UKIP. UKIP offers a quiet death in my view and is not a ‘vehicle’ that should be used in our struggle.
I agree with your last point. Time is fast running out for native Britons and UKIP are just getting in the way and offering false hope just like Mrs Thatcher did in 1979. Some people who vote for UKIP are no doubt nationalist-inclined and are on our wavelength but they are wasting their votes on UKIP and seeing into it a salvation UKIP are patently ill-equipped to provide as it is NOT an explicitly nationalist party but merely a party of GLOBALIST Tory values.
To solve demographic issues, I would suggest:
1. Stop mass immigration
2. Deport those who will not assimilate and fit in
3. Limit family sizes to two children per couple
We need to reduce the population to a sustainable level and that includes Brits too.
‘Assimilate’ is a vague civic Nationalist term which means different things to different people. If they wear a suit, say “please” and “thank you”, watch Eastenders, drink alcohol and engage in sexual debauchery are they ‘assimilated’? You could teach or brainwash them that but it does not take away the fact that they are still foreign and ignores the natural desire of all people to live around and desire a future for their own kind.
It is about a future for the White Native British and White Europeans generally.
I agree Paul. Britain is one of the most overcrowded countries in the world. We would have a better quality of life if our population wasn’t as large as it with the consequent population density in certain parts with all the implications that has for transport problems, school overcrowding ect.
Agreed. After WW2 they were encouraging people to love to Australia and Canada because of overcrowding when our population was 49 million. Now are official population is at 63 million (with illegals, short term residents and tourists not counted). We then have them predicting our population will become 90 million near the end of the century.
It fits the goal of the establishment very well:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01hvktf
I support UKIP without agreeing with all its views and also support PR. My immigration policy would be to restrict it to those who can read, write and speak fluent English and have something to offer us. Deport immigrant scroungers, criminals, and anti-British terrorist supporters, renew a lot less work permits, and abolish the race relations industry and multiculturalism.
(Party Member) With so many people writing comments that range from Civic Nationalism to Liberalism, could we have a weekly spot on one part of our policy document ?