The Decline of the New Left

The following is a transcript of an oration given by the late Jonathan Bowden in Lancashire, at a meeting for the British National Party in 2009.

I always talk about what’s in the news, and I’d advise people not to necessarily believe everything they read on a site called “UAF.”

Now, what’s been going on in the world since I was up this way last? Well, Trevor Phillips has announced that he wants to change the constitution of this political party. For those who don’t know, Mr. Phillips is head of the Human Rights Commission — the Human Rights and Equality Commission — which is the successor body to the Commission for Racial Equality, or what was in the late nineteen-sixties was the Race Relations Board. It’s also merged with all sorts of other alleged oppressions: in relation to gender, in relation to age to a degree (although that’s been enforced by the European Union), in relation to homosexuality, in relation to transsexuality or persons of transgender non-specificity, it’s concerned with disability; it’s concerned with all sorts of things. It receives a hundred million pounds a year, this organization, of your money. And Brown says he wants to cut the budget deficit and he wants to reduce the overspends which he’s spent to get us out of this recession which he’s been digging away for the last ten to twelve years — and I think he could start with the Human Rights and Equality Commission! Get rid of them all! Starting with Mr. Phillips!

Now, Mr. Phillips says he’s not an extremist, but in his office at this bureau in the middle of London, he’s got a portrait of Karl Marx on his wall. So what is he saying by that? He’s saying that he’s in favour of militant equality, he’s saying that he’s in favour of militant egalitarianism — but there are certain groups that he doesn’t like. He doesn’t like people who vote for this party; he doesn’t like white working-class people, particularly in the north of England, but elsewhere will do; he doesn’t care for anyone, irrespective of social background, who votes to the right of UKIP. He regards one of his jobs as preventing this party winning seats, and obviously he’s having a bit of trouble internally and bureaucratically for many reasons. One of which was the return of two British National Party members of the European Parliament in the last European Elections — one for the north-west of England, and one for Yorkshire and Humber. I’m very pleased to see the re-emergence of Mr. Andrew Bronze, who was the former chairman of an organization called “the National Front,” and has been involved in right-wing British politics for many decades.

Now, Phillips and his clique are attempting to impose a constitutional change on this party that will open the door, allegedly, to non-white members. Now, he’s been planning this for a long time and it was first meted the better part of four to five years ago. Phillips himself is under a great deal of pressure because half of his executive board inside his bureaucratic group have resigned and there’s lot of scandals over where the money’s gone, and over management practice, and so on within this particular institution. It has to be said that a lot of these people fight in these bureaus like rats in a sack, even though they’re pathologically opposed to what this country once was, to a portion of its indigenous population, and to what it might be again. There’s no need for Phillips, there’s no need for his bureaucracy, there’s no need for the boards and committees out of which they came, there’s no need for these politically correct laws, and there’s no need to change this party’s constitution, in my opinion. I believe the members should decide the constitution, and it’s quite clear what they’ve decided hitherto.

It is understandable that one of the reasons this sort of weapon has been fired at the party is to drag the party into the courts, is to entrammel it in legal procedure where only the lawyers win, where you rack up a case of eighty-thousand and then you get the costs against you because the case has been prior arranged so that you can’t win; so a bear trap has been dug out in the sand and the gravel before you, and like an idiot, like a charge of the light brigade, you go straight down into it. So there’s a degree to which it’s quite obvious people want to tip-toe around the side and not go down into that tiger trap and be embroiled in the nets. I personally think though, that the case out to be defended at least the first time round. I don’t think you can just wave your hand in the air and say “We’re totally against it, whoops, we surrender!” I think you’re actually got to do something, even if you’re forced to do it, partly because you’re seen then, to be acting under distrait, you’re seen to be pushed into it, you’re seen not to fire your pop-gun in non-anger and then sulk in the corner. So I think even if a senior party official defends it, which would obviate barristers’ and solicitors’ costs on the defense side, and even if you then go down to defeat, you budget for the nature of that defeat and spread it over a certain time. I think that would be better, personally, than just sort of dropping dead as soon as Phillips waves his bit of paper in the air.

But make no boast about it that various laws have been passed by new Labour since they came in in ninety-seven. There’s probably been eight through ten acts which deal with militant equality of various sorts. There’s a degree to which anyone who speaks in public, or semi-public in relation to this meeting now, has to make sure that anything they say is well within the remit of all the laws that have been passed. This is why the language that people use, in my case anyway, is abstract to a degree — and it has to be. The point of these laws anyway is to prevent people speaking emotionally or from the heart in a philosophical, or an abstract, or an intellectual, or in a semi-intellectual way. Freedom of speech to intellectuals who have liberal opinions has been allowed. The point of these laws is to prevent — particularly, but not exclusively — indigenous, working-class people from saying the truth as they see it, about the way in which the country has changed around them in the last forty to fifty years. This is why these laws have been introduced — the laws that created the Race Relations Board, the laws that intended the creation of the Commission for Racial Equality, and its intended Commission for Sexual Equality, and this new hyper-ministry led by Phillips.

In the old days, white elitist liberals used to lead these organizations; lords and liberal peers — usually executive members of the Liberal Party, as it then was. Now, after Usely, we have Phillips, and Phillips is under pressure because the British National Party has risen. Usely, who was, of course, chairman of this commission, or the CRE which preceded it before Phillips, criticizes Phillips because the British National Party has won elections – as if his remit is actually to stop one particular political party in the country. Phillips’ remit is actually to impose equality in relation to alleged oppression and/or “discrimination” in all areas of the society. But one of his prime, textual, down-in-the-basement targets is to make sure that parties that stand for a different set of values, such as prior-patriotism, don’t get anywhere.

Now, the key test whenever the Conservatives win — most media pundits think that Cameron will be leader in under a year — is whether they will sweep away all this. Margaret Thatcher and Michael Portillo in the late nineteen-eighties did actually have a few internal governmental policy papers about abolishing these quangos — which are anti-white, and anti-British, and anti-English, and anti-Welsh, and anti-Ulster Irish, and anti-post-Irish in Britain, and anti-Scottish, and anti-white proletarian, and anti-bourgeois, and anti-heterosexual, and anti-disabled — you see, these are quite discriminatory bodies even though they say that they’re for love and justice and inclusion and tolerance, and they love everybody to death, and they dislike nobody at all! But if you actually look at them in a different way, and you cast the ideology that comes of Phillips’ bureaucracy in a different light, you realize that they have groups to which they’re antagonistic, they have individuals drawn from those groups to which they’re even more antagonistic, and they wish to deny such persons freedom of speech.

Now, earlier in the twentieth century, our fathers and grandfathers were told that they fought: they fought against Germany, they fought against Fascism; they fought against Imperial Germany in the First War between nineteen-fourteen and eighteen. You may have seen some of the very elderly veterans who are basically dying now; ninety-three, eighty-nine, ninety-six, hundred and nine, hundred and six, hundred and four. As these men went over the top in nineteen-fourteen/eighteen, in Flanders Fields, at the Somme, at Passchendaele, and Ypres, and elsewhere, were they fighting for tolerance and inclusion? Were they fighting for Mr. Phillips doing poses bureaucratic remit upon future generations of this country? When men got out of their tanks and fried an egg on the side of it in the North African in the Second War, were they fighting for tolerance and inclusion? Were they fighting for Mr. Phillips to impose laws upon them, here in the north of England and elsewhere, to describe what they can say even in private? Even in a text message between friends? Even in an office in the public or the private sector? No. They weren’t fighting for tolerance and inclusion, they were fighting for glory, they were fighting for this country, they were fighting for England and Britain, they were fighting for what their old rulers had told them about what the future would be like if they lost, they were fighting for a degree of racial and ethnic pride that was unstated because the whole English conspectus was you didn’t really go on about that because it was accepted as a norm to begin with, and you didn’t need to illustrate it too much because it was a given before you even started. They were fighting for the flags that were behind them.

Many of them didn’t know what was coming, and certainly didn’t know that the Great War was a form of mechanized death in which we would lose eight-hundred-thousand men. Eight-hundred-thousand! And look around this country now — what did they die for? (And many more maimed and injured on top of that core eight-hundred-thousand — and that’s just in the first war.) But what did they die for? Did they die for a multicultural Britain? Did they die for a multi-ethnic Britain? Did they die for a politically correct Britain? Did they die for two-hundred-thousand abortions a year? Did they die for the absence of the death penalty? Did they die for liberal-left censorship that denies even the rights of a private conversation up to a certain perspective? Did they die for the rights of men to marry eachother and adopt children? Did they die for all of these things, or did they actually fight for something different? I have the guess that they actually fought for a society that we had a proportion of, but which has now been dipped down to such a degree that to even mention it is “incorrect”; is “transgressive”; is anti-system; is mentally criminal or treated largely as such.

This society was once relatively free of drugs — never free of crime but freer than it is now. Look at the centers of some of our cities like Birmingham and elsewhere — England’s second city. In the center of Hansworth in the middle of Birmingham, criminal gangs control large parts of the economy there. There are two gangs in Hansworth — both Afro-Caribbean gangs — one’s called “the Johnson Crew” and the other is called “the Burger Bar Boys.” They’re gangs; they have buildings in the center of Hansworth. These aren’t just lads sort of skulking around in car parks, they own property, they have criminal mafias; these things are developing in our cities fueled by the drug economy.

One in four youths between sixteen and twenty-five is now unemployed. This country is technically bankrupt despite the actual coin that seems to be still in people’s pockets: unemployment is two and a half million, but will rise to three million by the turn of the year/beginning of the next; if you add in all the people that are claiming, if you add in all the people that don’t want to work, all the people that are on the sick, all the people that have been miscalculated as to whether they’re unemployed or not — don’t forget Thatcher changed how you count unemployment seventeen times between seventy-nine and ninety, and Major did nothing to change it, and Prescott and the others screamed and jumped up and down in the House of Commons, but they’ve kept those statistical analysese when they came in in ninety-seven. So unemployment is well-over three million now — and don’t forget, at least a million Polish have gone back to Poland, so there’s a degree to which there’s a certain element of unemployment that’s sort of been farmed-out. They came because of E.U. laws that permitted such a travel by persons across European boundaries in the last couple of years when the economy was booming. But was it really “booming”? Or was it just a trash capitalist boom fueled by debt? You got up in the morning and there were three new credit cards on the mat! “Zero percent! Buy now — worry later after six months the APR is twenty-nine-point-five percent…” Do you remember all those letters and all those cards? Everyone in this room is fifty-five grand in debt. That’s after the bailout, and in relation to the actual corporate debt — add up the Waitrose, and the Debenhams, and the Co-op, and the Tesco, and the store-cards, and the debt that has been put in to save the banks — all of which crashed around a year ago — and we’re all in debt to this degree.

Now, Brown was lying recently when he said that the Tories would only cut and they will invest prior to a form of non-cut, Labour will cut ten percent off all budgets after they election if they’re going to win — and they’re not going to win — and the Tories will cut it deeper and harsher. But I think that these depressive times, economically, enable you to look at a wider and a broader picture. There’s all sorts of things that could be cut in this society aren’t there? The special hospitals cost a billion a year, for large numbers of psychopaths and those who are the equivalent of the murderers of Baby P. — hang them and close these institutions. Get rid of every politically correct item on the governmental agenda at local level (multiple language translations); at the regionary and sub-parliamentary and devolved level; similar sorts of bureaucracies — Phillips’ bureaucracy — at the higher level. Get rid of all of the panoply of E.U. laws and regulation that restricts business and denies the rights of English and British people to do what they want in their own country. Leave the European Union, which leaves you free of an enormous sort of forest of laws, and which enables you to decide again who is British and who is not; who is English and who is not; who is patriotic and who is not; who is in favour of the country’s development and who is not; who has the best interest of the society at heart and who in turn does not, because the people who do not have the interests of this country at heart are running the BBC, are running the Labour government, are running the Commission for Human Equality, some of them are running the NHS, some of them are running the Bank of England.

Fewer of them are in our armed forces, which is why our armed forces are always on the other side of the world, always fighting other people’s wars at the behest of the United States. Michael Portillo was asked in the nineteen-nineties — and he was Defence Minister, which is an important post in a Tory government to a degree unlike a Labour government — what’s our foreign policy? And he once replied “We don’t have a foreign policy, it’s decided for us by the United States.” And the United States in particular — amongst many other initiatives all over the world — even though it’s in radical decline, is obsessed with the fate of a particular society in the Middle-East, and is determined that it must be defended at all costs. And we’ve had war tangentially in Afghanistan, and ruinously in Iraq, in relation to a proportion of those measures, putting it as moderately as possible; and there are many who would like to attack Iran as a third option, as World War Four as some people call it. And we will be dragged into these disputes, adding to these wars on the tail-end of American power.

I don’t need to tell you that America has changed a great deal. Since nineteen-sixty-eight/sixty-nine seventy million persons of colour have entered the United States. Seventy million. The election of Barack Obama isn’t a strange fluke — he is representative of most American cities and what they have become. America is teetering on the bridge of not the second world, but the third world. When Obama became president, the CIA gave him a report. That report said that America will be in the third world by the end of this century; that China and India will be more important by two-thousand and fifty; and there will be a nuclear war in the Middle East in the next twenty-five years on present trends. The CIA gets many things wrong, and did not predict Nine Eleven — but they did predict the war between Georgia and Russia a year ago, so they get the odd one right. If you throw enough darts at the board you occasionally get a one-eight-zero! See what I mean?

But Obama is typical of what that country has become, and we are such an Americanized society now — look around you, in the country and the culture as a whole — that what often goes there happens here! The gang culture which I mentioned in Birmingham, proliferated in Los Angeles and other big cities in the United States, has now come here after a lag of ten to twenty years; mass abortion; civil rights; rights for minorities, sexual and otherwise — partly an American prerequisite — came here (although they were Western European tendencies in that regard simultaneously with the social and cultural revolutions of the nineteen-sixties); the pressure to comfort to international bodies such as the E.U. and the United Nations, and to push us in various ways and deny nation-state sovereignty so that we can’t make independent decisions about our economy and about our military usage. This, again, imprisons us in various ways.

Most liberals believe it’s unthinkable to get out of these structures; unthinkable to think in another way about political reality. It’s not unthinkable at all, but our people need the will to grasp it; the will not always to reach for the beer in front of them; the will to turn Sky Sports off for a moment; the will to wonder why Cameron and Clegg and Brown always sound the same and always say the same things. They’re all in favour of these wars; they’re all in favour of U.S. power; they’re all in favour of our troops being abroad in wars which are directly not in our ultimate self-interest; they’re all in favour of membership of the E.U.; they’re all in favour of bailing the banks out; they’re all in favour of the economics which led to those bail-outs; they’re all in favour of mass immigration. Why? Because they’re all liberals! And because liberalism is a system!

Most people look at the box and go “Why are Labour and the Tories so near? Why are they so close? Why does Brown occasionally make conservative remarks, and why does Cameron wear a red tie and occasionally says he’s a progressive? Why is this political transvestism going on as if they sort of launch into eachother and exchange garments?” And you’ve got Mandelson in-between Brown and Cameron exchanging even more garments because he wants to, you know? And people wonder “Why are they there and why are they so similar? Why is the political tension of the previous generations, between red and blue — which was very intense — where’s it all gone?” And it’s all gone, all been dissipated because they stand basically for the same thing. When anyone thinks of the Tories can you imagine Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who was Tory leader the year I was born in the early nineteen-sixties, being a member of United Against Fascism? Can you imagine that?

He would think that they were persons who needed a wash! And when Alec Douglas-Home, who was regarded as being very “out of touch,” was asked, on the equivalent of Panorama in nineteen-sixty-three, “What do you think of the recent rise in unemployment?” He said, raising a stick, “Oh, well there’s room for a new game-keeper on my estate.” That was when the Tories were something different, weren’t they really? He was quite clearly living in another world to most of the people in this country — even in the early nineteen-sixties. But can you imagine him being, like Cameron, a member of United Against Fascism?

I saw a few pictures of the Red, White and Blue which happened in Derbyshire a couple of weeks back in this year of United Against Fascism, and it’s very odd. The first thing I noticed about them is a new generation has emerged. The second thing I noticed was that they were very small in number. The third thing I noticed was that they all had red flags massed together in their falsity of numbers and many of those flags had the hammer and sickle on them. The Hammer and Sickle! Yes! We haven’t seen that for a long time have we, you know? And what does that stand for? Militant egalitarianism; the destruction of Western society; the death to everything that this country once stood for; the desecration of what people, basically, fought for in both wars that I mentioned earlier. This is what the sort of communism that these people stand for is about, so when people look at these sorts of sites and listen to this sort of propaganda they ought to remember that this is communist propaganda; that’s it opposed to everything this country’s ever stood for and has been, and can be in the future. These people are totally unrepresentative.

As I looked on the internet in a local library I saw various transvestites, and people in bondage gear, and this sort of thing leaping about. I thought I’d put in Liza Minnelli’s “Cabaret” by mistake, but in actual fact it was United Against Fascism down in Derbyshire — the police looking tight-lipped, you know, as they sort of danced around them. And interestingly, there’s the odd, sort of quite believing Muslim in the crowd — not many but there were a few. What they make of these sorts of shenanigans about which their religion is extraordinarily Right-wing and intolerant, one doesn’t know. They probably compart-mentalize and say it’s all a sort of delinquent Western fun fair that they’re just observing from one side.

But the truth of the matter is that — to be serious for a moment — we have a mass recession, we have mass unemployment, and where is the Left? Where is the Left? The Left that represents the working man; the Left that represents the British working class; the Left that represents the international proletariat inside Britain. In the thirties they were in the streets! They were in the unions! They were thinking about how they could take power in the society! Every time you had an economic dip in the early nineties to a degree, in the early eighties under Thatcher — remember the Right to Work marches? “Right to Work!” Many of the people in those marches had never done a day’s work in their lives, but they wanted the right to work, and they could mass tens of thousands in the streets! Where are they now? They’re finished! The Left has gone from history. The Soviet Union was an utter disaster. A genocidal disaster. Nobody — even radicals who’re anti-system in the West — wants to touch them now. The only way in which they can be radical is to oppose us because the next twenty to fifty years will see the rise of the Right in various forms all over the world in all groups. What we have to make sure is that the Right that comes up in our society represents us, and our values and our traditions. Because we know who we are; we don’t need laws to describe who we are; we don’t need little a priori prejudicial statements which prevent us from saying what we are. We know who we are! Kipling once said “the English, deep down, know who they are. Only the English know.” We know what we are, we know what we’ve been capable of, we know what we can do again.

Nearly all our people agree with us in a subtle way but they’re afraid. They’re afraid; their establishment has betrayed them and they wonder what to do. They feel helpless and bereffed. An organization like this has to lift people up, it has to give them strength and hope in their hearts. This country can be changed. Only the democratic ballot box can do it. The next census will reveal that the country’s only eighty percent indigenous now, but many of the people who’ve come in can go out economically just as quickly as they arrived. Things are going to change in the next twenty-five to fifty years very radically: ecological damage, economic stress, the collapse of versions of capitalism without the Left as an alternative. We’re going to see benefits cut in the next couple of years. We’re going to see the “easy years” (if they were easy – and they weren’t for many) in the sixties and seventies go. The idea that there are jobs to be had is going! There’s two hundred applying for every McDonald’s job now. That’s a job paying five sixty-five an hour to flip over an American burger that makes you obese and die horribly before you’re sixty — and two hundred are applying for each of those jobs (and probably about a quarter of them aren’t European).

So there’s, underneath the surface of Sky News and Happy Clappy and Amy Winehouse snorting drugs — underneath the surface of that — there’s a great tension in this society. And there’s a great sense of foreboding. Deep polling by the BBC thinks that many people are deeply worried. Worried that’s there’s going to be conflict in this culture; worried that there’s no-one to lead them; worried about the collapse of our identity in various forms — and we are in considerable collapse. You have to go round many of our cities: you notice the decay in the infrastructure, you notice the amount of blatant criminality – where are the police? Do you see the police as they drive around in their cars and they fly over cities in their numbered helicopters. They’re all dressed in yellow now so you can see them from a distance, but they’re firemen! They come at the end! They come after it’s kicked-off, they get out of the wagon when people are lying on the ground; they come at the end, not at the beginning. There just to put it out and dampen it down. They see their remit as partly inter-community tension rather than solving crime and dealing with some of the gangs that I’ve talked about proliferating inner Birmingham and elsewhere. So this country’s in trouble. And Cameron has no solutions at all. He will cut public expenditure, and because they don’t like spending money, the Tories will be a little bit more honest about that. But they will invest in wars like the coming that might occur over Iran, and the one that’s already petering out into oblivion and defeat like the one in the eighties and nineties in Afghanistan. He says he’s against the European Union, but will you have a vote on any of these treaties?

At the last election Brown said he would give us a vote on that constitution and he’s completely renaid! So yet another lie from the man that said he was straight. Do you remember when he came in? He said “look at me,” he said “I’m Gordon Brown, and I…” — you know the way he speaks? – “and I’m going to be sincere with you.” with his head on one side. Every time I see Gordon Brown he looks older. One eye’s up here, one eye’s down here, the hair gets whiter and greyer, the chins get more pulled to the left. He looks sadder and more alone, doesn’t he? Every time you see him you know he’s a man in decline. New Labour has had it! Old Labour died before ninety-seven, and New Labour’s now in the dustbin. New Labour’s probably as hated now as Major was in ninety-seven. But our people have got to stop moaning, and switching from group to group, and hoping that somebody new and cheesy (like Blair back ten years) will sort it out for them. They’ve got to choose something new. They’ve got to choose something radical. They’ve got to cease being afraid. You say to people “Will you vote for this party over there?” and they say “Oh no, no… they’re extreme. I didn’t like what I read about them in the Daily Mirror. I didn’t like this remark that this chap made about historical events that are sixty years old. I’m worried, I worried, I want to sit on the toilet…” you know? A lot of our people unfortunately are like this. The spirit of the egg frying on the North African tank in the eighth army in the early forties has unfortunately receded a bit. But deep down, it’s because the English and the British have been betrayed. They’ve always wanted to moan a bit, but otherwise trust their leaders, and they’ve realized now they can’t trust their leaders.

If this country’s to have any future, and we are not to slide into the second and then into the third world over this century, we have a choice to make. And we have to provide a new ruling group drawn from the body of the population — people who don’t just get into parliament to cheat on expenses the first day they’re in there. Because they’ve been cheating with those expenses for thirty to fifty years. Thatcher introduced those changes about twenty-five, to twenty-seven, to thirty years ago. When Michael Foot was asked about pay – remember Michael Foot? Duffie-coated at the cenetar picking his nose, that sort of thing. But when Foot was in, and Labour politicians said “I need a bigger salary.” he said “Oh don’t bother about that, just claim it on expenses!” So they doubled-up their pay on the expenses. And in comparison to the cheating over money that goes on in the City of London, that parliamentary cheating is actually small beer. It’s their resentment over that, and those sorts of things, that leads them to behave in that way. So there’s a total disconnect now, between the ruling group and the masses. And the masses have got to search for some stomach for once, and they’ve got to be prepared to vote for radical people who’ll clear out New Labour — clear them out.

Here in the North, in the South, in the East, in the West, outside England, within Britain and elsewhere; clear them out! And the Tories will do no good either — you’ve got to clear them out. And the Liberals are just a block in between the other two that gives the other two their ideas – all the sort of destructive ideas that Phillips is in favour of, and that I talked about earlier – you’ve got clear them out as well. There needs to be a new start. And it won’t be UKIP and it won’t be the Greens, even though there are good ideas which are Green, and the idea of leaving the European Union — the UKIP option — is an attractive one which should be supported.

But there is really only one option for this country, and this is to vote for a party which is patriotic; which is British; which is elitist; which is nationalistic; which believes that the only socialism — or the only social concern — that really is validated by history, by genetics, by identity is patriotism. Patriotism is the only thing that ties people together within a group in their difference. It aligns people together, it can overcome the breaches and divisions of class within our society. The blue of social conservatism, opposed in short-hand to everything UAF says that they stand for; the red of socio-economic concern, particularly for people at the bottom of the prior economic pyramid. The Tories have no concern for such people at all; the conservative definition of patriotism excludes half of the population from the very beginning. We must bring the two classes together, we must bring the North and the South together, we must bring the red and the blue together. And if you look at the Union Flag, there’s plenty of white in the red, white and blue.

Let’s say to all of the politicians that’ve ruled us for forty-five or fifty or sixty years that we don’t like Mister Phillips and his equality commission. That equality in relation to others in relation to us, is inequality in relation to us and we don’t favour it. That we don’t favour political correctness. That we don’t favour the ideologies that have been imposed on us, which are a soft form of Marxism peddled by New Labour and their friends whether they’re in the trade unions, or whether they’re in the board rooms of European companies — they have friendly contact in the European Union. That we don’t agree with what has been done in the last fifty or sixty years, and there’s only one way in which that can change. There is only one way in which our people can rescue the plight in which they find themselves. And that is to vote for this political party. To support tendencies of the Right, and of patriotism and of national renewal.

To realize what will this country be like in a hundred and twenty years on present trends? What will the health service be like? What will the level of taxation be like? What will an average inner comprehensive school be like in eighty years, never mind a hundred and twenty? Look at what they’re like now. In South London now, schools have two hundred cameras inside them; schools have metal detectors to take the [indiscernible], the knives and the guns off the students before they go in — and that’s before they’ve even got in! But, as we’re told, GCSE and other standards rise every year. The standards go up, but they can’t read and write, and that lessens the jobs they can go to, and when they emerge from these pits they end up talking like Jamaican gangsters on imported US television programs. This needs to change, and the only way it will change isn’t through fantasies, isn’t through marching like the English Defence League in city streets, it’s through voting, and it’s through politics; it’s the only chance we’ve got.

Two-thirds won’t even vote in the European Elections. They can’t moan if they don’t vote, and the only vote that’s meaningful is for the British National Party. The only vote that threatens the establishment is for this party; is for the tendencies of opinions that it represents. And when you vote, you’re voting against what Brown stands for. You’re voting against what Obama institutionalizes. You’re voting against what the European Union stands for. But you’re not just voting against, you’re voting for; you’re voting for what you are, you’re voting for this land, you’re voting for this village/town, you’re voting for this region, you’re voting for what your grandfather and father fought for. Vote for them, vote for yourself, vote for the generations who are coming, and always support strength, and identity, and freedom of speech, and England and Britain forever! Thank you very much!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s