For years Ukip has cultivated an image, via hints and implications, that it is a party which opposes immigration and the demographic changes being wrought in our ancestral homeland. It has carefully implied this message with its so-called hard line policy on Bulgarian and Romanian immigration, whilst no less carefully avoiding to say how it would reverse such migration should it ever take office.
According to many estimates, the indigenous British inhabitants of our island will be reduced to minority status within 50 years. This has occurred without any consent or consultation of the electorate whatsoever. Unlike those from Africa, China and India, for example, we in the West have no ancestral homeland to which we might return should our nations cease to become exclusively our own.
Such a malady afflicts only us in the West; it does not afflict those from the Third World. Africans, therefore, may return to Africa; happily, they are in no danger of being replaced or displaced in their ancestral territory. In the West we face ultimate disintegration.
Rather like the Conservative Party, usually just before election time, Ukip has hinted at tough action and it has implied that it understands common concerns about immigration but it has never had any intention of taking principled remedial action. Its motive has been to split the patriotic vote and attract votes that would otherwise align elsewhere. Indeed, according to a well-placed member of Farage’s EU staff at the time, Farage held a high level meeting with the BBC before the 2004 European elections along the lines of ‘back me or you will get the BNP’. That is exactly what the pro-EU BBC did and it has always provided Farage with a remarkable platform on its flagship ‘Question Time’ programme.
Given that the BNP has, since 2010, imploded (the consequence, inter alia, of disgraceful leadership, gross mismanagement and incompetence) what could be behind Farage’s call that the UK should admit Syrian refugees into the UK?
Before answering this question, it is worth briefly describing the problem.
According to the BBC, there are some nine million Syrians who have been displaced by war. In its table of Syrian refugees, the BBC says over two million refugees now reside in neighbouring countries, with 6.5 million refugees displaced inside Syria. As Farage must realise, a significant number of these refugees are likely to be Islamic jihadists, who are losing their fight with the Syrian government.
We are, of course, sympathetic to the plight of all innocent refugees. We are also aware that the war in Syria has been backed by a coalition of malign interests, not readily apparent (and in which the UK Government has played its part), surrounded by a campaign of misinformation and disinformation.
It is not our responsibility in the West to accept refugees from many countries distant, separated by seas, continents and nations unconnected with the UK, or the West more generally.
At any time in the world, especially in Africa, many local wars prevail. The logical extension of Farage’s call is that he would open the door to refugees worldwide and expose Britain to an influx of hundreds of millions of persons, over a period of time, whose lives might be in danger either because of war or because they have attracted the attention of the state.
Farage’s latest call to admit Syrian refugees echoes his response to Andrew Brons MEP in the European Parliament in December. In reply to a question from Mr Brons, Farage stated “UKIP is not against immigration. We welcome immigration; we want immigration”. http://www.andrewbrons.eu/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=859:we-want-immigration-farage
What, therefore, lies behind Farage’s call to admit an unspecified influx of Syrian refugees?
In our opinion, this call is designed for two principal reasons:
1) To offset the genuine concerns of, and increasingly principled audible expressions by, rank-and-file Ukip members that have alarmed elements within the ‘Establishment’. Most ordinary Ukip members hold instinctive views on the topics of immigration, multiculturalism and the future of the indigenous inhabitants of our islands. Many such persons hold opinions far to the right of Nigel Farage (and sometimes to the right of the BDP) on these issues. Many have joined Ukip in the expectation that Ukip will take action to address their concerns. Many have joined Ukip because it has been portrayed, with the backing of such organs as the BBC, as a respectable outlet for their beliefs.
We are also aware that the topics of immigration, multiculturalism and ethnicity are more important to many Ukip members than the issue of the EU itself. There is no question about this. It may be evidenced – for example – by the loud applause this issue attracts at Ukip meetings, whenever a member summons sufficient courage to voice the subject. It may be evidenced by the considerable number of Ukip members who have been discovered by the media making principled statements on immigration and multiculturalism and who have then, as a result, found themselves involved in party disciplinary hearings.
The enormous Ukip rank-and-file support for Godfrey Bloom, now dropped by Farage after his ‘bongo bongo’ statement and some later untoward expressions, have sounded further alarm bells and demonstrated the real views of Ukip’s rank-and-file members.
It is evidently clear that as a result of the support significant elements within the media have provided Ukip – primarily as a safety valve – a rank-and-file genie has been created. That genie, representing grass roots opinion, holds ‘hard line’ views and principles on immigration and multiculturalism that risk destabilising the party. That genie must be kept in its receptacle or else there is the risk that Ukip might become a party of nationalist sentiment and, by extension, policies.
We know of dozens of current Ukip members who were once members of the BNP and who have not been discovered by the Searchlight organisation, despite its access to Ukip membership files. There were hundreds (if not thousands) of Ukip members who were, until the party imploded, occasionally or regularly attending BNP meetings in their localities.
Many Ukip candidates, for local council but also some Westminster seats, were in cahoots with BNP candidates and officials up to and including the 2010 General Election, such that they would not fight in each other’s strongholds and split the vote. Until 2010, there was always a continuous stream of Ukip members, candidates and officials into the ranks of the BNP (which has since collapsed). This process did not occur in the other direction until the BNP ceased to be a credible organisation.
It is therefore clear to us that Farage has chosen his words carefully. He has, we believe, made his statement about Syrian refugees (and allied topics recently) to re-assure the media and certain influential organisations that he intends to keep a tight hold over the policy of Ukip and that he will not tolerate any principled sentiment which might promote views of a nationalist kind.
2) Farage’s words are also designed, in our view, to ensure that he may reaffirm his multicultural and politically-correct credentials amongst the media movers and shakers, amongst the hard left – including Searchlight and the UAF – and amongst those who might otherwise make life for him and his party difficult. He does not want to be confronted by the hard left picketing his meetings and appearances on topics of principle.
This places the ‘movers and shakers’ in the BBC and elsewhere into a corner. To ensure Ukip remains no more than a safety valve, neutered, thoroughly multiculturalist, anti-British in terms of the preservation of British identity, culture and heritage, Farage – or someone like him – must be maintained at the core of the party and given plenty of publicity. Otherwise the fear remains that the party will drift in a direction that threatens the multicultural, multi-ethnic state. No wonder, therefore, Ukip has become virtually a one-man band around the egoistical personality that runs it.
Meanwhile, it will also be noted that Farage has pitched himself well to the left of the Lib/Lab/Con establishment parties. Note the Government’s firmer stance: “The Government has rejected calls to admit Syrian refugees, arguing that it is better to provide financial support to people in the region.” It seems, by contrast, that Farage must fall over himself to underline his ‘multiculti’ credentials.
It has always been clear to us – if not to Ukip members and supporters – that Farage wants to submerge the UK in a wave of refugees and visa issuance, and undermine our own ethnicity. His latest statement demonstrates the verity of our view. Ukip members should wake up and realise this struggle for the UK’s continuation is now about far more than who passes our laws – London or Brussels. Our very survival as an indigenous people in these islands is in jeopardy unless the ever increasing deluge of incomers is halted and reversed.
The BDP is attracting a significant number of serving and ex Ukip members. We are delighted that such persons should wish to join our principled party and, if they wish to maintain their Ukip membership, so much the better.
Footnote
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25539843
3
This is a good concrete article. However, it is a gross exaggeration to suggest that we indigenous British will be a minority within 50 years. We are already a minority in London. We will be a minority amongst the age which can have children (16 to 40) within 10 years. If one realises the birth rate of the people who come here from the Third World, one will soon realise we do not have much time to save our country.
The Establishment simply would not give Farage the publicity he receives if he were any threat at all to it. Farage’s role, in my opinion, is that of the shepherd – keeping the sheep in line so they do not wonder off in directions alarming to the Establishment. The real danger as far as the Establishment is concerned is that UKIP’s rank and file may oust Farage and replace him and his placemen with real patriots!
Excellent comment from Jim Diggory – spot on.
The approach of the media is one of carrot and stick. See how the Daily Telegraph has supported Farage and provided him with friendly support over his Syrian refugees initiative. See, also, how the establishment media cracks down on Farage and the party whenever there is a principled, patriotic sounding on immigration – such as that uttered by Ukip’s Councillor Ayling a month or so ago. And if that does not quickly knock Farage, back into line, the threat of demonstrations by the UAF and others does.
Let us hope the veil of smoke and mirrors is quickly fading on the part of those duped by the UKIP leadership – which is a safety valve if ever there was one.
E-Comment from the Telegraph: Sociology as a study within Western academia is dominated totally by the Cultural Marxist left progressives who are very effective at purging out anyone who strays from accepted liberal orthodoxies. It works in the way that the results and conclusions of any sociological research (think tanks) are rejected unless there is some moral ‘good’in it which conforms to the left/liberal world view.
Robert Putnam is an American left/liberal progressive sociologist and author of ‘The Perils of Diversity’. He set out to prove his theory that multicultural and multiracial societies were more socially prosperous, cohesive, law abiding, altruistic, and less xenophobic or conflict prone than mono-cultural/mono-racial societies.
To his surprise and horror, the results of years of his research demonstrated the very opposite and that, within multicultural/ multiracial societies, the individuals felt more alienated from their environment and would shut themselves in their homes, spend more hours watching television, and spend less effort being involved in charitable and altruistic causes for the community. The rates of mental illness, crime and violent crime was far higher. There was less communication between neighbours and people would attempt to ghettoize themselves to be with those of their own kind who they felt they had more in common with.
Of course, a well-informed and educated ‘right-winger’ (normal person), as the left call us, could have saved him all this time and trouble if he had only asked because that is our field of expertise. Robert Putnam was so disturbed by his findings that against all the rules of academic protocol he kept the results of his work secret and unpublished for several years. I can understand why when we live in a Western cultural zeitgeist where one wrong sentence can wreck a career for life.
(Party Member) Thank you Longshanks. All the signs are there that people in Britain and indeed Europe, have seen through the awful myth of the ‘multi-cultural, ‘liberal’ and Marxist utopia. Top Labour Party ex Cabinet Ministers are saying things like “We did not realise” and “We made mistakes”.
Times are changing at last and the era of our decent Nationalism is upon us. Far from being a disaster the Romania/Bulgaria situation is the turning point and will be our opportunity to make Britain a great place to live for our people, as Britons finally realise what a disaster the last forty years have been.
It seems that Farage is very out of step with the membership of his UKIP party on the topic of allowing refugees into Britain from Syria. He is obviously not speaking for the majority of his party on the subject of immigration either, it would seem. Sooner or later those members of UKIP who are principled on these issues will become disenchanted with their party and look elsewhere for a political home.
It would appear from the article that some UKIP members are already feeling this disenchantment and looking toward the BDP as a more suitable party for their beliefs and opinions.
Farage is fast becoming a one-man-band in the media, with few of the electorate seeming to notice that there are no other UKIP spokesmen or women who are allowed much voice in the media. The media does report the odd UKIP candidate who dares to criticize immigration or speak of foreigners in a derogatory fashion. This actually increases UKIP’s appeal for many electors and has led Farage to talk negatively about immigration himself (but only from Europe).
Farage is walking a tightrope with his party membership while courting populist sentiment over these subjects, having no intention whatsoever of stopping any immigration and of allowing the cultural and replacement of our people in our ancestral homelands.
UKIP may yet serve a good purpose though by breaking traditional voting habits. Those who vote UKIP expecting some action will then perhaps be more willing to give the BDP a chance when they become disappointed with UKIP’s ineffectiveness. We are running out of time though, and concerted effort and strong-minded policies are the only way of saving our homeland now.
I like Farage as a man but like many of UKIP he is a right-wing Tory who wants to be part of the ‘establishment’. His party is not radical enough to have any long term success. The BDP have more long term potential which is why I have applied to be a member this year.
Indeed, that is what Farage is along with many in his party.
UKIP is an economically globalist and Thatcherite, atlanticist anti-EU Tory Party and NOT a real nationalist party. I would suggest their economic outlook is a fundamental flaw of the party and is the principle reason why they yet cannot secure substantial support from those who would normally look towards the Labour Party. UKIP is a party that appeals mainly to disgruntled middle-class and fairly well-off Tories in Southern and Eastern England.
Its economic policies are a major cause of its limited social appeal and why it won’t grow beyond its present popularity.
We ought not shun our N. Atlantic kinsmen just because they have foolishly allowed in a rotten government of crypto Marxists and stooges in their pay. We, and our cousins in Europe-mainland, have done the same!
What I mean by UKIP being ‘atlanticist’ is that instead of an imaginary UKIP government pulling our country out of the EU they would rather us be beholden to the USA. I have no problem whatever with Britain being friendly towards America but I still wouldn’t want my country to subvert our national interests to those of the USA. Britain needs to recover its own national self-confidence once again and stand tall in the world and that means standing up for our interests whether that is in regard to Europe or the USA.
I, too, have applied to join the BDP. I am much impressed by the quality of the website, the serious thought that surrounds its articles, the sensible policies and the quality of the comments. I am not renewing my ukip membership.
I have investigated the alternatives and am highly unimpressed with the ethics of those who lead two alternative patriotic parties.
James
Well done, James! I hope many more former UKIP supporters see the light and realise that whilst UKIP does have a few good policies (mainly the anti-EU one) its other policies (ie its devotion to globalist economics) are of limited appeal and will prevent it growing more than it has already done so its anti-EU stance is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things in the long-term.
(Party Member) The Ukip effect has already affected Conservative and Labour policy. We need a massive Ukip vote to break the mould of British politics.
All along we have said that Ukip voters are sincere people who have realised at long last that the LibLabCon have hurt our country. This is the breakthrough for Nationalism we have been waiting for, albeit in a disguised way. When these millions realise they have been mis-led it will be an easy step for them to move to us!
The problem being that UKIP is NOT a nationalist party and if it becomes too popular it will be very difficult for our party to dislodge from its new position. I can see what you are saying here but I think my point needs to be born in mind. There is such a thing called the ‘big mo’ (big momentum) in politics. After all, nothing breeds success like success.
If it does not deliver it will fall from grace. More MEPs won’t deliver anything.
It’s being propped up by the media at the moment – particularly the BBC as a means of suppressing the Tory vote. They’ll pull the rug.
Also UKIP has ‘given people ideas’ and the genie will not go back in the bottle.
Not too worried about UKIP.
It will be interesting to see what happens this year regarding how the media treat UKIP. I think they will continue to give it mostly positive publicity until the Euro elections and then if UKIP do well the media (particularly Tory newspapers like the Express and Mail) will suddenly ‘pull the plug’ and act as if the party had never been heard of. Well, it simply won’t do to give UKIP nice write-ups in the crucial run-up to a general election in which their beloved Tory Party needs all the votes it can get.
Yes, that is one often overlooked factor as to why the BBC in particular gives UKIP bundles of fairly good publicity. The BBC hates the Tory Party with a burning passion and sees UKIP as not just good for ensuring nationalist parties don’t get anywhere but also as a means of splitting or suppressing the Tory vote to the advantage of Labour and Lib Dem.
Farage has now admitted that he has no policy on immigration.
What a sham it all is!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2535110/I-Britain-fewer-immigrants-makes-poorer-says-Farage.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field
That should come as no surprise. As he is no nationalist just an ultra economic liberal (globalist) Thatcherite Tory, he has no real nationalist ideology to fall back upon and consequently he says things for public consumption that will gain a few votes. It was ever thus with Tories!