The Tameside Speech

37:26 / 6,526 words

Editor’s Note:

This is the transcript by V. S. of Jonathan Bowden’s June 1, 2006 British National Party stump speech in Tameside. A few unintelligible words are marked ???. If you can understand what he is saying, or if you have corrections, please post them as comments below.

To listen in a player, click here. 

To download the mp3, right-click here and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”

To subscribe to our podcasts, click here.

This meeting is being taped by one of our organizers here, so this what this camera is for, and if it’s any good it might be sold by Excalibur, the party’s cultural merchandise arm at a later date.

Now, I’d like to begin by talking about the elections. When Derek Beacon was elected in the early to mid-1990s in the East End of London, when the previous leader and founder of the party was still alive, the media ran it for weeks. There was 24/7 coverage for about seven days after that victory on the Isle of Dogs. Now we’ve won well over 50 councilors, although there’s been quite a lot of media coverage it’s been damped down and much of the liberal establishment has just shrugged their shoulders and said, “Oh well, it’s happened. It’s a bit of reaction to post-war mass immigration. The white working class people are alienated. It’s unfortunate. It’s unfortunate what happened in Barking and Dagenham, but there we are.”

The truth is that there have been parties, movements, leagues, and groups to the Right-wing of the Tories since the 1920s, and until the ‘90s, with the exception of a couple of people in Blackburn when the Tories stood down, no one’s ever got elected at all. So, more has been achieved in about 5 or 6 years than has ever been achieved by the British Right, so to say, heretofore. So, 50 have been elected, and the truth is now that we are knocking at the door where 80, 150, 200, 280, 300, and more could be elected, and it won’t take that much more.

Let’s look at Barking and Dagenham. I know at least a third, maybe 40%, of the people who were elected personally. Now, that campaign in Barking was basically conducted by three people, one of whom was fanatical and basically has visited in one way or another, over a 2½ to 3 year period, the better part of 60,000 addresses in the Barking and Dagenham area, and he’s the chap who’s leader of the opposition group on that council.

When Hodge was accused by our own liberal media of betrayal and of letting the BNP fox in and this sort of thing, she was actually was actually just reacting on the door to something that was truthful. Indeed, the liberal media is split about her. Some say she shouldn’t have said it and the woman’s a fool and we should never have elected her an MP in that sort of area anyway, and other people are saying she’s just being an honest woman. The politicians lie all the time, the media accuses them of treachery and mendacity. When they tell the truth they don’t like it if people vote for this organization.

And Margaret Hodge had a bit of form before she became MP for a particular part of Barking and Dagenham. She used to be the head of Islington Council, which is where Blair and Cherie had their large house before he became Premier after the landslide in ’97.

Now, when she was in Islington there were several scandals that convulsed that borough, which is an inner city, sort of Labour rotten borough, Left, largely middle class, extreme Left rotten borough. There’s even a shrine, believe it or not, to Lenin in a side room in Islington town hall, the man who led the Communists to power after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. It’s a legacy of the Fabian past. But you can see, it’s got a shrine to Lenin in the corner for the sort people who are wandering around Islington town hall and its precincts.

Now, when she was in charge there was a major pedophile scandal in a number of children’s homes in the borough of Islington and this was used against her in her own constituency by the people who have ultimately become the opposition in Barking and Dagenham. Without going into all the gory details, she had a PC program whereby nobody could make any accusations against homosexual men. This meant that homosexual networks that had inveigled themselves into certain young people’s homes and half-way houses within the Islington area couldn’t be condemned. One of these individuals later died of AIDS when he became an education officer in Hackney, a neighboring red belt borough, several years later. She apologized when the weedy and liberal-minded Evening Standard, the local rag down in the capital, ran a campaign about this, but it was all a little too late really. Blair made her Minister for Children in the latter stages of the first Labour term, which certain mainstream media outlets had the temerity to oppose.

So, this is Margaret Hodge. But Margaret Hodge in some ways, when she’s knocked on 8 out of 10 doors in Barking, and they said, “We’re voting BNP.” And some of them may have even just said it to annoy her. Who knows? There’s a degree to which it fed into a terror that people like her have. Because amongst this largely sort of bourgeois Left that goes with Blair and that is called New Labour and whose project this is since ’97 — they’ve been in power almost a decade now — they fear that they’ve lost in part, certainly psychically and emotionally, the indigenous working class. They fear it. Their politics are almost entirely bourgeois Left and come out of the universities and colleges where they are. There was quite a bit of campaigning in the media before the Barking vote and elsewhere, but old Labour is losing the white working class to the British National Party. In actual fact, there were quite good votes in middle class areas, but it feeds a paranoia and it feeds a fear in Labour. Because for all their careers they’ve said they’re in favor of working people, that they’re in favor of their rights, that they’re in favor of trade unions and all the rest of it.

Well, I’m afraid that most of the people in Barking and Dagenham moved there because of the Ford Works, and many of them were bombed out of the East End of London during the war. It’s one of the largest, essentially but no longer, white council estates in the Southeast of England. And also, many of the people weren’t just bombed out of the East End. They left in the post-war period after Attlee’s government (’45–’51). And why did they leave the East End of our capital city? They left the East End of our capital city because whole districts and boroughs like Hackney, like parts of Islington, like Harringay, like Tower Hamlets, like Bow and Bethnal Green and so forth have been completely taken over by Third World immigration.

There are 45,000 Asian Muslims in Tower Hamlets alone irrespective of any other minority. And that is why when Respect stood in Tower Hamlets they got in, because you basically have a white ultra-Leftist linked to old-fashioned Communism competing against a half-caste Jewish New Labour MP who supported the Iraq War, and the Muslims even though they have parties of their own will say they have nothing to do with Western democracy and must organize within their own community against ours within this country as part of an international nation, campaigning against Respect, Respect with Galloway still got in. This was in his phase when he wasn’t pretending to be a cat and wearing red slippers and all the rest of the nonsense he usually gets up to.

What’s happening is that more and more of our people, irrespective of region, irrespective of class and social background, are becoming radically alienated from the political system in this society, north, south, east and west. It used to be said that the BNP was just a Northern party. Liberals, amongst themselves, would say it’s the party of ghettoized people who can’t get out into the suburbs. They said it would never get out of the northwest and go into Yorkshire; that happened. They said it would never get anyone voted in the Home Counties; that happened. They said it would never get anyone voted in the south of England, nevermind the southeast of England; that happened. And so on. There are regions or parts of the country that are neglected like the southwest, for example, where UKIP is strong and East Anglia and so on. But we have representation now in the north of the country, the south of the country, and the middle of the country.

If you’ve been to Cardiff, and Glasgow recently, you’ll discover that the problems they have are identical to things that are going on in Manchester and Leeds and Hull and Bradford and Liverpool and Newcastle and London and Southampton and Norwich and Bristol and elsewhere. The center of Glasgow has largely been “taken over” by immigration from the sub-continent of India and beyond.

So, it’s happening everywhere, and although the party is quite underdeveloped in Wales and Scotland, New Labour have handed to various interests there, and they’ve introduced devolved assemblies, much of which are second rate, second tier, rotten borough assemblies which considerable proportions, particularly the Welsh, actually voted against, but they’re there. And Labour is in love with democracy. There are elections all the time. When he had time for it, Prescott wanted to introduce a quack assembly in the northeast of England. 90% of Geordies voted against it.

Liberals are in love with democracy! But they won’t allow plebiscitary or direct democracy. They wouldn’t allow people to vote through their televisions on hanging, for example. They wouldn’t allow people to vote on immigration or membership in the European Union or having the IRA in government or the castration of pedophiles or the dealing with drug dealers or the deportation of foreign criminals. They wouldn’t have plebiscitary mass democracy and direct democracy for that sort of thing. They’ll have representative elite democracy with small little groups, largely of a liberal dispensation, controlling things from above.

Have you seen what the Tories have been up to recently? They’ve elected an ex-Etonian David Cameron. They’ve shifted the party to the Left. They actually are actually more to the center-Left now within their own spectrum of allotted opinion than they have been since Heath and before. So, we sort of reverse 30 years of Tory drift and the Thatcherite period which was part and parcel of that. Why has Cameron done this? He wrote the last Tory manifesto. Do you remember those billboards where they said, “We know what you’re thinking. We’re thinking what you’re thinking about immigration.” People in United Against Fascism and similar groups used to creep out late at night and deface Tory posters and say, “Don’t vote racist!” That manifesto that Howard fronted was written by Cameron who now says he doesn’t believe in any of it! That was only 6, 10 months to a year ago! He’s now become Tory leader. He says they favor everything green.

Believe me, Tories are not green. It gets in the way of their Jags. This party is actually more ecologically minded philosophically, if one wishes to concentrate on that particular issue, than they are.

And the irony is that there are two ways of looking at Cameron. Because Cameron is just a sniveling, Left-wing Tory without any ideas who will say anything to get in. But if he was in a fantasy world and in a sort of virtual reality zone, a secret patriot, he’s doing everything right to alienate a part of his core vote and to leave a wider and wider spectrum of opinion for something to the right of the Tories. So, forget Veritas and the Golden One, forget the United Kingdom Independence Party, there’s now essentially one party to the right of the Tories that stands for everything they said that they stood for in the 1960s when people like Enoch Powell were making a bit of a fuss. So, this whole area is opening up for us, and in a sense this is the best chance a radical Right party has ever had in contemporary British history.

You have a sordid social democratic regime led by Blair, who’s going on and on and on with increasing back-biting from his own, with fighting around him. He looks sort of dull; he looks aged; he looks slightly sordid and broken down. He wants another job in the EU or the United Nations within a year to two years. You see him in the House of Commons, Prescott to one side of him, dumpy, thinking about the ex-affair, thinking about his loss at croquet recently, thinking about the Grace and Favour residences, worrying whether his working class or middle class, because he has these debates with people all the time, but no one else is bothered. And on the other side there’s Brown. Dour, sullen, plotting, against Blair but agreeing with him on everything, saying he’s now tacitly against the morality of the Iraq War when he helped finance it, saying he’s less Right-Left Labour than Blair but he was on the cabinet for all of his decisions, and they’ve really been running the country together for nine years.

They did a deal in a restaurant (Yes, in Islington!) that we mentioned before. When Blair became leader, Blair was considered to be more English, more southern, more amenable to Daily Mail and Daily Express readers, Tories, middle class people they needed to convert to New Labour to get them in, to get 44% rather than the 36% that they had under Kinnock and Smith. Remember them? And now we have a situation where Labour is being ground down by the alienation and hostility of the indigenous population of these islands, which means the white population, largely but not exclusively of British towns and cities, particularly within England. The situation is open. The door is essentially halfway open.

Although this party is still “demonized,” it is less demonic than it ever was. It’s more semi-mainstream to mainstream than it ever was. I spoke at a meeting in Huddersfield six months ago. There were 250 people there. It was an utterly mainstream audience. Labour couldn’t get 20 people in Huddersfield. The Tories had two or three old ladies in a coffee morning in Huddersfield. The average age of a Tory activist is 67 and a half. Labour had 420,000 members before Blair came in. It’s now 220,000, and they lied to the electoral commission about their membership a couple of years ago.

These are dying political elites, but many people come up to me and say, “Why has this happened in our country since 1945?” We once ruled, in 1902, a quarter of the planet and a fifth of its population, and we were the most powerful country on Earth, and now we’re the lackey of the Americans, 14 to 15% of England is non-white. Yes, 14 to 15% of England under present the census, which is probably a partial underestimate given illegals and others, is non-white. 10, 11, 12% of the population is non-white. 17 million people enter the country every year, half of them white, half of them not. They move around, they leave. 200 million people pass through our airports and related space each year. We’ve become a transient zone. There are 6 million immigrants at least. Between 600,000 and 1.2 million of them here illegally. These are people that are settled and in a sense are now part of population.

How did they come here? They came here because the Nationality Act was passed in 1948 when 50,000 passports — that’s all — were distributed in the West Indies, Caribbean, and in the Asian subcontinent. But they then brought their families, and they brought more of their families, and they brought extended families, because liberals both by intent and by disregard didn’t realize that these cultures on the whole, West Indians excepted, had extended families. A family can be 300 people. It’s a clan. So, people come here and then they begin to create economic structures for themselves, and more people come in, and yet more people come in.

We also signed, in the wake of the Second World War, into a raft of interconnected pieces of legislation. These were called refugee, economic migrant, and asylum pieces of legislation. It was part of the Never Again culture of the immediate post-war era that Attlee’s government bought into. This means that if you are suffering oppression you can come here, and you can claim that you are seeking asylum. There are people here who are Iraqi Communists. We are now occupying Iraq, but they won’t go back, because they’re in danger of militants that we’re fighting against even though we’ve occupied Iraq. We can’t even send people back to a country that we’re occupying, because we signed bits of paper after the Second World War saying that their rights can’t be infringed.

At present, there are people at Belmarsh Prison, although many of them have sort of open access, a revolving door sort of principle, with Belmarsh. There’s 13 of them. Many of them said on tape, on their own phones, on their own emails that they want to kill British people; they want to blow up parliament; they want to assassinate the Queen, although some say she’s representative of a non-Caliphate Caliphate faith, and therefore they question that. But they want to blow up almost everybody else.

But they can’t be imprisoned, because it’s against their human rights, and they can’t be sent back to, on the whole, Algeria, because they might be tortured by the militaristic regime in Algiers and Oran. We can’t have that, so we have a memorandum of understanding between our government and them, but they get their lawyers to challenge that in the European court because we’re a part of the European Union. So, we can’t deport people that have said that they want to bomb, and when they go into court they say they want to bomb again, but we can’t deport them because their human rights could be infringed.

The Home Secretary says “Ahh I’ve got a cunning plan!? It was Blunkett’s plan, then it was Clark’s plan. Now it’s “tough-talking” John Reid’s plan. Let me tell you something about John Reid parenthetically. John Reid began in the Socialist Labour League, which was a Trotskyist party which was a forerunner of the Workers’ Revolutionary Party. He now claims he’s the “hard man” of the Labour Right. Well, ho ho ho! There’s a degree to which he has introduced via Clarke his immediate predecessor, who left because of the foreign prisoners scandal that we’ll come on to in a moment, he has instituted this idea whereby people can held under 24-hour, 24/7, permanent home arrest. Their email is watched; their mobile is listened to; their terrestrial line, if there exists one, is listened to; their fax is watched, and there’s somebody typing the colloquial Arabic out into passable English to see what their saying. Da di da di da. Because most of these people are Algerian.

Why are they Algerian? Because they’re members of the Armed Islamic Group. What is the Armed Islamic Group? It’s GIA, which is the paramilitary wing of the hafiz inside Algeria. There’s been a civil war going on in Algeria over the last 20 years, and over 160,000 have died. We allowed these militants to come here because the French wouldn’t have them. France was the old colonial power in Algeria. There was a deal done with these militants in the 1990s when Major was Premier. Don’t bomb here, but you can stay here even if you export what you want. But that was rescinded a couple of years ago when it is believed that Osama bin Laden said all bets are off and Britain is a target as well because they have supported the Americans and the Zionists in relation to Afghanistan and Iraq and a looming war that could be coming with Iran.

So, we have a situation where we can’t deport people who say they want to bomb us because their human rights might be infringed, and regimes that we’ve set up might infringe the rights of people, and we therefore can’t deport them. The logical thing to do, of course, would be to resile from all of these post-war liberal treaties and endorsements and codicils, and say, “We’ll make a big bonfire of all of them, and we’ll take control of our own law and the jurisprudence, which is the philosophy of law, in our own island and in our own country and in relation to our own state, and you’ll go back on the next plane, double-quick time, and if you don’t like it well there we are.”

Now let’s go on to the foreign prisoners scandal. This scandal has been going on for 20-30 years, all the time when Thatcher was talking tough and all the rest of it. The interesting thing about the Home Office is it’s an enormous department, because it consists of several in one: immigration and nationality, and prisons, and what in America would be called Homeland Security. It’s all bodged in and pushed together in one great colossus.

When Hurd, who was a sort of liberal, patrician Tory under Thatcher, became Home Secretary, in his autobiography, the first day in the department the chief civil servants said to him, “Afraid minister, you can’t do anything about crime.” He said, “Pardon?” He said, “I know you’ve got some big ideas and big things and all the rest of it, but crime is exponential, you know? It is due to inequality in society. There’s nothing we can do about it.” He said, “Look, I just got here! Don’t tell me there’s nothing I can do about it!” He said, “Well, its in the statistics. Don’t argue with me minister.” It’s Yes Minister, this sort of thing, isn’t it? “Don’t argue with me. We can’t do anything.”

Occasionally, they have spasms. Howard put quite a lot of people in prison. He chained pregnant female prisoners to beds and all this and got Widdecombe to front for it because it was controversial with the media, which is what politicians do. They get the deputy out in front when it’s difficult, and they’re hiding and all this. But still, nothing occurred, and the truth is that this will have little effect because prison is a soft option, and if you want to actually reduce crime in this society you have to do certain salient things. One is you have to look at certain areas of crime, which almost no main politician, and certainly not the David Camerons of this world, would ever go near.

A third of all crime is committed by immigrants, irrespective of race, ethnicity, and culture. A half of all crime is committed by the same number of people who go round and round and round again in the criminal justice system. It’s called recidivism. Your old man was a lad; his dad was; their auntie ran an escort agency out of a mobile phone. You know, it’s in the family. They’re used to doing it. They go round and round and round in the courts. Your first conviction at 16. You get a tagging, and you boast to your mates, “Look what I’ve got!” and this sort of thing. So, half are committed by the same people going round and round, a third is committed by immigrants, and a half of all fiscal, economic (look at your wallet), opportunistic crime is drug-related. So, you’ve got immigrants, drugs, and old lads doing it again and again and again.

So, what in my opinion we need to do is ship a large number of these immigrants out so crime will reduce. That’s point one. Point two, you need to look at drugs. Now, why do people take drugs? They take them at every level. David Cameron has refused to answer questions as to whether he may have taken cocaine when he was a student. But he was part of a set that made a lot of money in the 1990s in the cash boom, the bomb boom that occurred in the City of London when Merrill Lynch types could earn 460,000 in a year in 1994 before the big dip in the stock market at the end of the ’90s, and cocaine was part of that culture. And he won’t say that he didn’t take it, which is politician speak for the possibility of the contrary, so he’s hardly going to be too tough on drugs, is he?

The way you deal with drugs essentially is as follows: people take them because they’re bored out of their minds by the nature of this society. You have to make this society more interesting for them! You have to reintroduce things like national service. You have introduce ideas of patriotic fervor. You have to make sure that people in their recreational time do something which is constructive for the society. You have to channel the energies of people.

Another thing that you could do is random drug testing. In many American schools, particularly in black areas, but not exclusively so, when they go in through the doors they have metal detectors to take the coshes and the knives and the guns — yes, the guns! — off these gang members, because in their puffer jackets without their being filled up they’re not quite as hard as they were when they’re prancing about with these sorts of things. You do the same for drugs. You introduce random drug testing in the private, the public sector, in the military, in prisons, where drugs are actually the currency – inside prison.

And there’s another thing you can do. You take some of the key drug barons, the ones who are behind the people who are behind the people who are behind the people who stand in the streets and on the street corners in these places like Camden. I’ll tell you a fact, if you go to Camden tube station on Friday or Saturday evening, there will be five blokes that come up to you at least in a quarter hour period if you’re getting money out of a cash dispenser in a public space. This is supposed to be policed. And they’ll say, “Want any pills, mate?” And they’re not talking about aspirin. A lot of them will be Kosovars, and there will be other people.

Now, what you do is take five of them, ten of them, who have got forms as long as your arm, you find out they have a couple of murders either here or abroad, and you execute them on television. You execute them on television and you say that you’ve done it and you show it to the people. After you’ve done it you will find that the middling level of drug dealers and people who are into this culture and people who think it’s cool and people who think they can get a lot of jewelry, a lot of bling and so on out of it driving around in their cars, they will dip down very considerably.

Liberals will say it’s cruel and harsh, and you’re not respecting their human rights. But in Saudia Arabia, I know a chap who works in Saudi Arabia, and three Bangladeshis on a plane heading to Riyadh were found with drugs inside their mouths, taped inside their mouths and they were taken out, an imam was present, they were given a sharia trial, and they were beheaded in front of the airport two hours after touchdown in Riyadh. This is a key ally of the West, Saudi Arabia.

There’s a degree to which we have to toughen up in this society because at every level — in the courts, in the police, in the judiciary, in academic life, in the media — we have become softer and more reflexive and more liberal and more decadent. And there is a degree to which when a vanguard group like Muslims look at us from the outside in, they see a society which in some respects is there for the taking. They see weakness. They see the absence of a warrior society, irrespective of the stuff that gets on CNN and on international network news about what’s going on in Iraq. That’s the tough edge of the West, but internally here they see wetness. They see a population that believes in nothing. They see a population that’s mired in materialism. They see a population whose cities are changing out of all recognition.

When our men fought in 1914-’18 and 1939-’45, did they fight for the society that we are now living in? Did they fight for becoming a minority in Leicester, which has already happened if you add all the other groups together in an aggregate sum? Did they fight for the fact that Birmingham, England’s second city, will have in a finite period — could it be 5, could it be 8, could it be 13 years from now? But it will happen on present trends — a non-white majority? There are parts of London where that’s gone already where white liberals, for example, lawyers and other people, are elected by these ethnic groups to arbitrate between them because they all dislike each other up to a certain extent. They all have beefs with each other.

All Asian groups in this society come from India and the Indian subcontinent. In 1948, they committed large genocides against each other. They’ve brought all those tensions, particularly Sikhs and Muslims, here. They look at each other, and they in turn are looking at us. No one really knows what’s going to happen, because liberals have theories about life which are false.

When Blair was at college his first political act, other than being in a silly rock band and this sort of thing, was to go on an anti-National Front march. Because Blair knows what he is against far more than he could be said in some respects to know what he’s for. All these people know what they’re against and they’re against this organization pretty much and what it stands for. But if you ask them what they’re for – “Well, you know, what are we for . . . ?” Blair was asked recently, “What is Britishness?” And he said, “Tolerance.” Tolerance. Fair play. When you don’t hit the ball at cricket, snick, and it goes through to the wicket keeper, you walk. Well, I’m afraid it’s not that that’s not admirable in its way, in an old school sort of way, but that’s not what it’s about!

Britishness is about glory and power and heroic vitality, and being male or female, not some combination of the two. It’s about being proud of being white, because you have to be white to be British.

Now, in the 1960s, which of course Blair’s generation came out of, they all came out of that generation, they rebelled against their parents; they rebelled against traditional Britain; they said the family was old hat, and that men and women were interchangeable, and you didn’t need to hang criminals and you didn’t need national service. And, as Attlee said in ’48 when the Nationality Act was passed, all the races of the world all need to be mixed together because then there would be no wars. Well, I’m afraid that if you actually mix all the groups in the world there will be endless war, conflict, strife, civil disorder, mental disorder, and general unpleasantness for all, including others as well as ourselves! Because you will internalize conflicts within societies that are no longer coherent social groupings anymore — they’re just zones where people happen to be living! We’re in a sort of British part of an international zone because the whole world has come here to live.

Because capital moves around the world — a bloke in the City of London presses his thumb on a screen, 400 million dollars and pounds and Euros circle around the screens in other markets in the world. But if capital moves, labor moves. And immigration is labor because there are 6 billion humans on Earth. 2 billion are economically alright in comparison to the others, 2 billion are in the middle, 2 billion are in utter misery. Utter misery! And a significant number of the 4 billion who aren’t “in the West,” which technologically includes Japan, want out. They want to get into the West. They want a bit of this action. They want to take it for themselves. They regard others in their group who can’t or won’t do it as weedy, and they regard people who stand in their way here as something to respect if they stand up to them, but weedy if they are allowed to come in and push. They’re coming here because they want into the West.

Although a third of Pakistani men name their children Osama as one of their names, after Osama bin Laden, in a way he’s partly lost with his own group, because polling that the UN has done indicates that half of the people in “the south,” half of the people in the Third World want to come here. Not just to Britian, to the whole of the West. They want in.

But to have the lifestyle of a middle class American person – two fridges, obesity, pizzas on tap, 56 channel TV, four cars, all the rest of it – you need three worlds. You need the economic and ecological substructure of three planets, and so we’re not going to get that and, as always in life, it will not be fair, it will not be equitable, it will not beyond the remit of one’s own family and immediate circumstances be too pleasant, but in this life you need to stand for your own group. Charity begins at home! It begins in your own family and your own nationality! It’s not about hatred of the others, it’s about standing for one’s self. This is something that, in a sense, the radical Right has to learn. One of the reasons it’s never got anywhere in the United States is partly because laws haven’t been passed and people can come out with any old tosh.

What people have to understand is that we are now in a situation where just moaning about immigration and other related matters isn’t enough. The immigrants are here because of liberalism and because our leaders believe in a philosophy that allows them to come here. Everything is ideological. Gay marriage is ideological. Abortion is ideological. Not having the death penalty is ideological. Fighting in Iraq is ideological.

Blair and I disagree about the meaning of life. That’s why we’re in different parties. And if his ideas triumph our people will over time go down. They will become a minority in their own society; they will de-culturalize; they won’t be able to manifest what they are racially.

When I was at university, everyone said racial ideas are very dangerous, you know, we can’t have any of that. But what they don’t understand is that even our intellectual elite has cultural interests which are based upon race and ethnicity. Because people create spiritually out of what they are. It’s not high-faluting nonsense! If you don’t have a society which is based upon what you are, you don’t know who you are. Many of our young people wander around in a fog, in an alcohol-induced haze. They have no idea who they are. They think that British culture, English culture is Posh and Becks. They’ve been miseducated for 40 years in comprehensive schools and told almost nothing about their own culture. Blair sends his children to different schools, the sort of school I went to.

Now, these comprehensives were introduced by Left-wing idealists who said they were in favor of the working class, but they didn’t want any hierarchy, they didn’t want any exams, because people fail exams, and it’s unequal. They didn’t want any competitive sport, because it’s unduly masculine, and people who are crippled can’t compete. It’s all very sad.

Well, life isn’t like that! Life is unfair! We’re all the sons and daughters of nature. When you have a child, you walk around the ward, and there are children born without eyes and without limbs. Life is unequal and hierarchical! And liberals have developed interconnected theories about why isn’t it so and why is it not nice to say so. Well, who cares about being nice when one’s society and the existence of one’s family and when one’s future prospects are threatened?

Do you think we ruled a quarter of the world once by being nice? We had a certain grandeur; we had a certain noblesse oblige, but we were out for ourselves as a nation and a group. We had a ruling class that was snobbish, that was socially exclusive, that was inbred. But they had a bit of patriotism to them. Now there is a ruling class that has no patriotism at all, has no identification with the indigenous population at all, is ashamed to say what British culture is. If you said to Blair, “Are you proud of being white?” He’d say, “Well, you know, I don’t really want to get into that.” He doesn’t want to get into it, because he is frightened of his own people. He is frightened of his own identity. He would only come into this room with bodyguards. They go everywhere with these sorts of people, because although they say they love the Muslims, they’ve alienated them because they killed over 100,000 of them in Iraq, but they invaded the country to give them democracy. We have democracy in Birmingham, but ballot-rigging is endemic in the central areas of Birmingham to such a degree that the electoral commission said it’s like a Third World society, a banana republic in England’s second city.

People think that things can go on as they are without a political response. Well, ladies and gentlemen, this party is a political response. People have to reject Labour. When you canvas, you knock on a door, you get the eye of the person, you say, “I’m campaigning on social issues in your area.” Once you’ve got their attention, the TV fog is lifted for a moment, you’re talking to them Englishman to Englishman, Briton to Briton. You say, “I’m from the British National Party.” People come out, and grab hold of your hand, and say, “Yeah, I’m with you!” Because they are fed up with what has happened to this country and they want a change! Whether they are middle class or working class, whether they are Northern or Southern, all of our people are ultimately the same nationality. We care for them, we care for our own, and we want our culture and our state and our nation back, for us, in our own land!

Support this party, vote for it, and work for it in the future!

Thank you very much!