National Strike Force launched themselves on to the Manchester political scene on 28th January 2015 with a day of action across Manchester.
National Strike Force distributed 60 Greggs hot drinks vouchers to 12 homeless people in Manchester – 5 each.
National Strike Force activists started the day by giving twelve homeless people five vouchers each for a hot drink at Greggs the Bakers. All of the twelve homeless people approached were White British males. National Strike Force’s core beliefs are compassion for others and they have a policy of starting all political activity with acts of charity to indigenous British people.
National Strike Force activists saw this sticker on their way to Prestwich in North Manchester. Even though NSF were doing the same stickers they were obtaining property owner’s permission before posting them.
National Strike Force activists then headed up to Prestwich in North Manchester stickering on the way, after obtaining the property owner’s permission at all times.
National Strike Force activists distributed the NSF’s message of hope to hundreds of Prestwich residents via door to door leafleting.
NSF activists were soon swarming through Prestwich delivering hundreds of leaflets to domestic properties. A few householders offered their moral support and a £20 cash donation was obtained from an enthusiastic member of the Public.
The jewish Labour MP for Prestwich, Ivan Lewis, didn’t want an anti-Globalisation flash demo outside his constituency offices. But he got one anyway.
As National Strike Force activists swarmed through Prestwich a simultaneous flash demo was held outside jewish MP Ivan Lewis’s Office. Passing motorists beeped their horns and made enthusiastic hand gestures.
The day was ended off with a traditional pint of Hobgoblin in a local pub run by a welcoming Nationalist landlord.
We were sold mass immigration as a fabulous celebration: a ‘celebration of diversity’; a ‘rainbow utopia’; etc. It was all about peace, happiness, enrichment, harmony and love. They never mentioned destruction and harm. However, it will be shown that, contrary to the images, this political policy has in fact caused much destruction – and mass immigration is, in many ways, inherently destructive(2). They deceived and manipulated, sometimes they plain lied.
So in what ways can mass immigration be viewed as causing destruction?
In the most significant and fundamental manner, immigration is destruction in the sense that if there is no form of separation between groups, then over time the immigrants will mix with the indigenous people and form one racial group. The mixing actually acts, in the long term, against diversity – this, in fact, leads to homogenisation. In this sense, to sell mass immigration as diversity is not true (in the longer term), and actually it is the opposite (the ‘multiculturalism’ propaganda is inversionist). Some figures in the media, politics, academia, etc. boast of the destruction of indigenous Brits, heralding the day when there will be no more such people and ‘everyone will be coffee-coloured’ or ‘we will all be one race’, etc. Cessation of existence is the destruction of the racial or ethnic group in question(3). In this sense immigration is destruction(4).
Mass immigration also causes destruction of culture. It is a logical fact that when more than one culture is present in one place at one time, then it is not possible for all cultures to exist totally intact: there inevitably has to be a level(5) of destruction of one or more, if not all(6) of the cultures in question.
The inevitable destruction of culture as a consequence of immigration is enunciated by Dr Turner’s ‘one set of rules dilemma’(7) which states that at one place at one time only one set of ‘rules’ can describe the culture of the population in that area (country, city, etc.). All cultures can be described by what could be conceptualised as sets of descriptive ‘rules’, for example the descriptive ‘rules’ describing the architecture, mode of dress, language, behaviour, etc. An example of one such descriptive ‘rule’ could be that ‘women all wear purple hats’. In cases in which there is a difference (s) between such sets, then not all sets can describe one area simultaneously. And no two different cultures share the same set of such ‘rules’ (or they would not be different cultures). Hence, if one group moves into the area in which another group is practising its culture, then the ‘rules’ of both groups cannot remain unchanged across the area/population in question.
As a simple hypothetical example to illustrate the ‘one set of rules dilemma’, perhaps cultural group P paints all their buildings pink, and cultural group B paints them blue.
If group P moves to the city of group B, then the city-scape cannot remain all blue unless group P gives up their cultural practice of using pink paint. If group P continues to use pink paint, then the city-scape is altered: now there is a mixture of pink and blue buildings instead of the blue view that represented group B’s culture.
Alternatively, amongst other options, group B could change their practice – which would present cultural destruction for group B. Either: group P changes; or group B changes; or both change; or neither change; or parts of groups P and/or B change and other parts do not change (and the relevant changes in all cases could be to any colour or mixture of colours, not necessarily just pink or blue). The only option that does not involve either group changing their paint colour still does not preserve culture: even if neither group change their paint, the indigenous culture has been changed(8) (see above). In any possible scenario there is alteration of one, if not both(9), of the cultures in question. Culture has not been preserved. This destruction is inevitable in such circumstances.
This alteration of culture as a result of immigration can be seen in real life examples, e.g. views of cities have changed as the indigenous culture of Britain has been destroyed to make way for minarets and temples, etc.
The descriptive ‘rules’ can be applied to any aspect of culture, including to the rules of governance, for example: may women drive on the roads? They cannot drive and also not be allowed to drive. All cultures cannot remain intact: destruction is inevitable if space is shared(10). This is a logical fact. In real life some recommend that indigenous people alter their behaviour to accommodate immigrants, e.g. in Scandinavia one professor recommends that women alter their behaviour to avoid being raped by immigrants(11). “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”
Of course, when indigenous British culture is actively inhibited so as ‘not to offend’ or otherwise, (e.g. no pork, Christmas celebrations reduced or banned, etc.(12)), then this represents another example of the ‘one set of rules dilemma’ in practice. In fact, the very presence of different people is an alteration to indigenous culture. People form a part of the culture, and also culture is the product of people. In shared space, not all cultures can remain fully intact. Hence, mass immigration presents destruction of culture(13).
There are many other ways in which there is destruction. Mass immigration causes destruction of feelings of fraternity/solidarity, trust(14), peace, familiarity, etc. It goes against natural instincts to have one’s territory invaded, and this provokes feelings of stress(15) and discomfort. Many indigenous people are upset and their quality of life suffers varying levels of destruction in this manner(16) – but the deterioration in the quality of indigenous people’s lives appears less important than the desires of some immigrants who ‘want to improve their lives’(17). Some lives are ‘more equal’ than others. Of course, it is not just feelings of destruction of peace and suchlike that are brought by diversity, but there frequently are actual outbreaks of disorder etc., these on small and sometimes large scales, (e.g. racial animosity/enviousness/resentment in face-to-face encounters, race riots, etc.). Diversity of race/ethnicity etc. brings strife in many forms. Quality of life suffers destruction as a result of immigration.
In Britain, and other countries too, there have been many reductions in freedom as a result of mass immigration(18). Some hold that the diversity of immigration requires reductions in freedoms – and even requires a totalitarian government(19). The former German chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, is quoted as saying that ‘multicultural’ countries can only work under an authoritarian government: “The concept of multiculturalism is difficult to make fit with a democratic society”(20).
Of course, with the competition for cultural (and other) dominance between groups, clashes of cultures and races, etc. such a situation is intrinsically unstable and conflict-prone(21). Reductions in freedom frequently are held as necessary to inhibit unrest and open conflict(22), for example curfews are sometimes implemented and surveillance is widespread, etc.(23) Numerous other problems are caused by the diversity of immigration, many of which the governments of such countries attempt to quell/prevent by reducing freedoms. For example, often we are told that because certain immigrant groups present a security threat, our freedoms and privacies are to be reduced to keep us safe. Freedoms also are reduced in the UK as the government attempts to inhibit any opposition to mass immigration, and, inter alia, tries to suppress the indigenous people from expressing (or even thinking) anything that might upset the illusion that immigration is great. Freedom of speech has been severely curtailed in this country as a result of immigration (and the related actions by the government)(24). In many cases one is not allowed to state certain truths in case it might pose a threat to the political policy of mass immigration and to the related happy rainbow images (and/or upset immigrants, etc.) – truth and knowledge have hence suffered destruction. Of course, the ideology of ‘multiculturalism’ is based on utopian fantasies, irrationalities and lies (see Dr Turner qv). For such ideologies: truth, reason and open debate pose a significant threat. The whole house of cards easily could collapse were people to be well-informed with true facts – and were allowed to think and debate facts and policies in a fearless, honest and rational manner. Such ideologies require the suppression of truth, reason and morality to survive. “Dissent has been relabelled as either hatred or insanity. Those who disagree with current orthodoxies are therefore deemed to be either bad or mad […] utopian fantasies wrenched facts and evidence to fit their governing idea. Independent thought thus became impossible — which inevitably resulted in an attack upon freedom, because reason and liberty are inseparable bed- fellows. […] Reason was thus replaced by bullying, intimidation and the suppression of debate.”(25)
Even the use of some words, of certain kinds, can result in one being arrested and sent to prison(26). It never used to be like this. Chief Constable Fahy warns of Britain becoming a police state: “There is a danger of us being turned into a thought police”(27) . Many freedoms have been reduced as a result of immigration; this presents the reality of destruction of our liberties.
Justice and fairness have suffered significant destruction as a result of immigration. Because of immigration, albeit perhaps indirectly, the principle of double jeopardy was removed in Britain. In a general sense it is more difficult for certain types of fairness to exist in a mixed country. This is illustrated by examples such as observing the opinions of different races (on average) on cases that pertain to race – such as in relation to the O.J. Simpson trial in which blacks and whites differed (in general) in opinion as to whether O.J. was guilty or not. Such divergences of opinion make jury trials and other matters of justice problematic in mixed countries. The same issue can be seen in relation to the demands that different groups want their own group to police them, judge them, etc. – these demands often made on the basis that other groups will not, amongst other things, treat them fairly(28). The police frequently have been accused of not policing properly because the criminals in question were immigrants – this accusation made for various reasons including that the police do not want to be labelled ‘racist’(29). If the police are not performing their job properly in relation to immigrants, then this is not just nor fair and also this tends to decrease the quality of life for the people of the country. It is also held that often immigrants receive more favourable treatment when they are victims of crime (relative to indigenous victims)(30). Such accusations of differential treatment pertain to the various other arms of the legal system, not only to the police (e.g. CPS, judges, lawyers, etc.). In these contexts, and others, immigration destroys fairness and justice(31). Reduction of trust in the legal system has various destructive consequences, as does the destruction of the belief that the country is reasonably fair: these destructions of justice and fairness cause further destructions.
These problems of inequality before the law touch upon the idea that in many senses of the term ‘equality’, immigration’s diversity is incompatible with ‘equality’(32). Of course, in a social and political sense ‘equality’ is a nebulous-power-word (see Dr Turner, qv). However, one can distinguish certain forms of ‘equality’ that are not problematic from a rational perspective. For example, above various issues in relation to equality before the law were noted. Immigration also presents inequalities in relation to equality of opportunity and result: for equal results one would have to have unequal processing if the groups differ on the relevant criterion (or criteria). Hence, ‘equality’ in both of these senses is not possible in such circumstances(33). The very act of immigration into the country of an indigenous people presents the fact of treating the indigenous people as not equal to the immigrants(34). It is a reality that different groups tend (in general/overall) to feel more fraternity and loyalty towards members of their own group, presenting various intrinsic inequalities in a mixed country (including in relation to the law – see above). Thus, in many senses of the term ‘equality’, ‘equality’ is reduced, if not impossible, when there is immigration. In an ironic manner, immigration is frequently sold as ‘equality’.
Many children’s lives have suffered destruction as a result of immigration into Britain – this harm would not necessarily always be a result of immigration (as opposed to some of the destruction noted above which is intrinsic to immigration in general), but has been resultant in this context. This particular harm and destruction has been caused in many ways(35), including the many thousands raped by immigrants(36). It is held by many that the little girls in places such as Rotherham (and Sheffield, Manchester, etc.) were sacrificed to appease the immigrants and/or to enable the authorities to indulge themselves in their feel-good ‘anti-racism’ and ‘multiculturalism’ dogmas – letting them feel superior and compassionate(37) – and, not unrelatedly, avoid accusations of ‘racism’(38). It is likely that some people were too scared to act properly. Some hold that the abuse needed to be ignored to maintain the lie that immigration was not destruction, but was good(39):
“What is particularly sickening is their desperation to cover up the abuse in their attempt to maintain the illusion that cultural diversity was working in Rotherham.” (40)
As the local Labour MP for Rotherham during the time documented in Professor Jay’s Report (MP between 1994-2012), Denis MacShane (former BBC employee and convicted fraudster) stated:
“there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat, if I may put it like that. Perhaps, yes, as a true Guardian reader and liberal Leftie, I suppose I didn’t want to raise that too hard.” (41)
As author Allison Pearson notes in response, qv: “Much better to hang on to your impeccable liberal credentials than save a few girls from being raped, eh, Denis?”(42)
The destruction that results from sexual abuse is particularly life-destroying and the consequences rarely are confined to the victim him or herself; frequently the destruction to the spirit is passed down the generations and also family and others in proximity are affected. For example, the consequences of victims’ mental illnesses (and pain/suffering in general) affect others, as do the many cases when such victims turn to drink and drugs to dull the pain, cope with life, etc. Of course, a lot of the drug trade is conducted by immigrants, only too happy to profit from the destruction of lives.
Crimes inflicted upon indigenous Brits by immigrants are not confined to rape and drugs, and this level of crime has caused pain, destruction of a sense of safety and security – and the resultant decreases in quality of life. For example, many elderly people are scared to go out to the extent that they would like, and largely this is due to the fear of crime (and the destruction of their way of life and comfort in general, etc.). The increase in crime as result of immigration(43) (both by direct and indirect means(44)) causes fear and discomfort, plus other problems such as increased security precautions being necessary, increased insurance premiums being paid, etc. Immigration has destroyed quality of life to a significant extent.
The validity and integrity of the electoral system in Britain has suffered a level of destruction as a result of immigration. This has occurred by various means. For example, the problem of postal voting fraud is found to be occurring disproportionately amongst certain immigrant groups (not to mention the deals for the genuine postal votes and orders to vote from elders and family leaders, etc.)(45). There are attitudes to the voting system amongst some immigrant groups that differ from those of the Brits, and there is a higher level of corruption amongst some immigrant groups than amongst the indigenous people(46). As Attorney General MP Dominic Grieve says: “we have minority communities in this country which come from backgrounds where corruption is endemic”(47)
Of course, such corruption and attitudes are specific to certain immigrant groups, and this form of destruction is not a necessary consequence of immigration in the general sense. However, the diversity that immigration always brings does present some inherent potential problems in relation to elections, including matters such as split loyalties and groups favouring their own(48). All these general and specific issues present ways in which immigration has presented some destruction of political democracy.
Immigration has brought a lot of destruction to the working and lower-middle classes. In many ways, immigration is a class issue. The propagation of ‘moral relativism’(49) caused a belief to be widely held that one ‘should not judge’ – hence, amongst other things, facilitating immigration. This relativism has resulted in an inhibition of the teaching of moral and correct behaviour, which has wrought havoc on poorer communities. In more direct ways, immigration has destroyed the quality of life for working class people as wages and working conditions have reduced, and the shortage of lower-skilled and no-skilled jobs has rendered many unemployed(50). The main influx of immigrants has tended to be in the poorer areas of the country, and these areas are also less able to cope with extra problems and destruction. It is hence the less advantaged that have suffered the most – this pertains to all the destructions noted above, e.g. it is disproportionately white working class children who have been raped and abused by immigrants and it is largely these communities that have been destroyed by the other crimes and by the shattering of any sense of solidarity, comfort and community. As Leo McKinstry notes: “Mass immigration has amounted to a gross betrayal of the British people, particularly the working class who have borne the brunt of this catastrophically misguided policy.”(51)
One BBC presenter claims that the BBC ignored the problem of immigration so as not to be branded ‘racist’, and also because:
“BBC employees are unable to understand the concerns of ordinary people because they typically have ‘sheltered’ middle-class lives…”
In some ways, immigration has been foisted upon the white working class by the more privileged of society, and objections to immigration are sneered at in a snobbish manner by the more privileged – while the poorer are destroyed. Many of the educated/privileged seem to feel it is intellectually, socially and morally superior to support this destruction. This is admitted by some who previously supported mass immigration, e.g. Peter Hitchens writes that he is sorry: “…we liked to feel oh, so superior to the bewildered people – usually in the poorest parts of Britain – who found their neighbourhoods suddenly transformed into supposedly ‘vibrant communities’. If they dared to express the mildest objections, we called them bigots. Revolutionary students didn’t come from such ‘vibrant’ areas (we came, as far as I could tell, mostly from Surrey and the nicer parts of London). We might live in ‘vibrant’ places for a few (usually squalid) years […] we sneered at [the urban poor] as ‘racists’. … I have learned since what a spiteful, self-righteous, snobbish and arrogant person I was (and most of my revolutionary comrades were, too).”(52)
There are other ways in which immigration presents destruction, both in the general sense and in the specific example of Great Britain recently, including, in this country: destruction of the education system(53); the advancement of the country being reduced; etc.(54). However the destruction of culture and existence are perhaps the most serious (and are two of the inherent forms of destruction caused by immigration(55)). So, in exchange for this what do we get? And is it worth it? Could anything be worth genocide?
Well, we are told that mass immigration brings diversity, but in the long term it does not; as noted above it brings quite the opposite. And diversity in shared space is not always a good thing either, (e.g. race riots, fracturing of peace and solidarity, etc.). Some people say they enjoy seeing different faces around – putting aside the patronising ‘zoo-like’ tone of this – the very diversity they enjoy is threatened by mass immigration, and is their small pleasure worth the destruction? How could they think it is acceptable to self-indulge at the expense of others – and, ironically, all the time posing with their ‘moral values’? Why do ‘anti-racists’ throw one race under the bus to posture? And do they not see any possible inconsistency in their position? Another ‘argument’ for mass immigration is the variety of restaurants available, but is this choice of restaurants worth the destruction? And, of course, indigenous people can be taught to cook any dishes(56).
Some argue that it is ‘nice’ and compassionate to bring in millions of people: compassionate to whom? To those suffering the destruction? And in the long run it is not clear that the immigrants will gain – this true in a number of ways. For example, even the new immigrants will, and frequently do(57), resist further immigration after a point(58) – perhaps as, in relation to the area in question, a sense of territorialism and ownership develop to a certain extent(59). The short term gains enjoyed by immigrants might not be worthwhile even for them in the long run. And then there is the alleged economic argument. If all the figures (immigration has caused many costs to Britain(60)) and the long-term economic projections are taken into account, it is not clear that immigration is an economic benefit to Britain, in fact, the reverse is true(61). One can view this from the example of one hypothetical immigrant: he either works and thus takes a job(62) a Brit could have done(63), and pays taxes that a Brit could have paid. Alternatively, he takes benefits. Where is the economic gain coming from(64)? Are these immigrants all arriving and dropping off large amounts of cash that they brought with them? Well the truth is that millions of pounds leave the country every month as immigrants send money back home (plus benefits are sent abroad by the government too, etc.). We are not gaining money here, and even if we were, is it worth the destruction? As Hitchens writes in relation to immigration: “..it is impossible not to be angry with the politicians who either couldn’t imagine what their policies would bring in practice, or did not care. The destruction of familiarity and security cannot be measured in money.”(65)
How much would you sell your country, peace, freedom, quality of life, culture, heritage, children and race for? Even were there to be a financial gain (which there is not here(66)), is this moral? Are we for sale? What possibly could be worth selling your race for? Of course, all this destruction is predictable, and is documented around the world and across history – which begs the question: who would implement such a policy, and why?
Immigration presents destruction, and it just isn’t worth it.
Is one free to object to the political policy of immigration?
Often we hear about the oppressive regimes around the world, the absence of freedom in various countries and the political persecution of dissenters in those places. Frequently we are expected to give political asylum to those people who claim asylum in our country after them allegedly being persecuted for their beliefs in some horrible oppressive country elsewhere. We hear that the Muslims hate us and attack us because they ‘hate our freedoms’. There is a constant stream of statements that reinforce the belief, albeit sometimes by implication, that we in this country are ‘free’.
However, are we free? Are political dissenters persecuted, suppressed or oppressed? Are we free to discuss and hear political policies/ideas/facts?
Well of course we are not free. We live under a massive level of surveillance, with our communications, movements and data monitored and collected. We are forced to work for many extra hours a week to pay our taxes (being forced to work without reward and under duress is not being free). We can be arrested and imprisoned if we offend a member of a more important group(1) (yet us being offended counts for almost nothing(2)).However, here the focus is on the issue of political oppression. Is this country free in a political sense(3)? There are various ways in which political freedom could be examined. For example, may one express one’s political beliefs, proposed policies, etc. without fear or sanction? Are people free to examine and discuss political ideas and related facts (historical or otherwise)? Are certain political ideas suppressed, and their proponents persecuted? Are people scared to express certain dissenting views? Space does not permit a full examination of the concept of political freedom, and this short essay will focus on the issue of whether a particular political idea is suppressed, and its proponents oppressed and/or persecuted. Actually, it is a particular form of dissent – dissenting from the government’s political policy of mass immigration.
Is opposition to immigration inhibited in this ‘free’ country?
In a ‘free’ country a political view cannot be banned – that would expose lack of freedom; the people need to believe they are living in a ‘free democratic’ state, it helps to keep them from rising up against an oppressive regime. However, can a government suppress a dissenting view and/or oppress its proponents to the extent that the dissent poses no effective threat? Can the government with the arms of the state (and media, etc.) effectively suppress dissent to their political policy of mass immigration to the point that there is no effective opposition?
If people face persecution, and even prosecution, for expressing a certain political view and/or dissent to a certain political policy, then this is political suppression. If the arms of the state, including the state-broadcaster (the BBC), the education system, etc. all agree on a particular political policy and propagandise its greatness, then this can act to inhibit certain political ideas. If political parties (and/or their supporters) that object to a certain political policy face persecution by the state, then this is political oppression. If open debate on a government political policy is effectively impossible, then this is inhibition of dissent. If all major media organisations demonise those who express dissent to a political policy, then this has a psychological/emotional effect on the public, and acts to suppress dissent. If the information given to the public in relation to a political policy (and related matters) is distorted or censored, and even untrue, then this can act to manipulate people and suppress dissent.
In relation to open debate and discussion of the political policy of mass immigration, it is almost impossible to hold a rational and fair debate on this topic. Debate is inhibited by various means. One such means of suppressing open debate is that of straightforward banning of debate. Often this is phrased in a saccharin-coated phrase such as ‘no platform for ‘racists’’ or ‘no platform for fascists’ and suchlike rather than openly stating that this idea is banned from discussion.
The National Union of Students (NUS) bans any speech that is labelled by them as ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’; this ban under the ‘no platform’ guise(4). People using these sorts of phrases attempt to deceive others as to what is really going on: really these people are stopping certain political ideas, facts, beliefs, etc. from being stated or heard. This ‘no platform’ also achieves many other matters, including: giving the impression, albeit by implication, that dissenters are not worthy of being heard; achieving an ‘immunity from criticism (or truth)’(5); etc. However, by claiming a ‘high moral ground’ this ban on debate purports to be for some sort of moral reasons. Of course, the nebulous-power-word ‘racism’ is not a proper word, so such cries are not rational(6). Also, the term ‘fascist’ is thrown around in a non-rational manner (see Orwell(7)), in fact, often in an ironic manner; could it not be classed as ‘fascist’ under some of its definitions to ban open debate of dissenting views? Could one not label the banning of certain inconvenient truths as fascist?
This silencing of certain political ideas/beliefs, etc. is found in many contexts. As well as the ‘no platform’ in universities, there is a ban on dissent in many other contexts (including businesses, schools, state organisations such as the NHS, etc.) and only certain views can be heard or stated. Even during our elections such silencing is found to occur. For example, Mr Nick Griffin was not allowed to give his election declaration speech on stage during the 2001 elections, this prompting Mr Griffin and Mr Treacy to wear gags while on the stage with the other candidates(8):
In some contexts gagging of dissenters is claimed to be for reasons of ‘maintaining the peace’ or ‘community cohesion’ or suchlike – this usually prompted by threats or actual instances of violence(9) and other crimes by ‘lefties’ and/or immigrants.
So violence by those supporting the government’s political views is used as an excuse to gag dissenters(10). Surely the police should act to stop the violence? Enforce the law? Would such threats, were they ever to occur, by anti-immigration proponents be pandered to in this manner? Does this mean that the most criminal and violent win? Is this a safe message for the state to be sending out? Is this moral? Interestingly, those threatening and involved in such crime and violence frequently are linked to the government in various ways(11), which might explain the lack of the law being enforced when they break it(12). Such people could hence be being used by the government as a form of informal/unaccountable/deniable enforcers(13). Such people act as state-sponsored enforcers, but with full deniability by the state(14). This all further acts to intimidate the people from dissenting to this government policy.
Another means by which dissent from the political policy of immigration is inhibited is, of course, the fear of being labelled ‘racist’. ‘Racism’ is a nebulous-power-word, not a properly-defined term, and should not be used in rational discourse. However, it is this very fact of low referentiality that largely contributes to the power of this term (as analysed and explained by Dr Thomas Turner(15)). The establishment has contributed significantly to the social construction of this term (see Dr Turner’s book qv). People fear the consequences of being labelled as ‘racist’ – these consequences including the social(16), financial, legal and also the physical fear of being attacked by ‘anti-racists’ and/or immigrants. Most people understand that the law is not properly/fully enforced against the immigrants or ‘anti-racists’ in this context(17) – they have an almost free pass to enforce the will of the state against ‘racists’, including by use of violence (as noted above). Hence, people are intimidated into silence and acquiescence. Dissent is inhibited.
In fact, people are too scared even to state certain truths in relation to immigration for fear of being labelled ‘racist’ – by this means open and honest debate is further inhibited as many do not even have the true facts to consider. Many truths cannot be stated, and ‘racism’ is not the only excuse for suppression of truth – other means including those of ‘causing offence’, ‘stirring hatred’ and matters such a ‘maintaining community relations’ (often code for: not letting the people know the truth in case they rise up; having no riots; there being no challenge or disruption to government immigration policy; etc.). If one states certain matters one can be accused of being ‘an extremist’, a ‘right wing extremist’, ‘threat to security’, ‘dangerous agitator’, or other scary-sounding labels – such labels can, amongst other things, render one liable for various acts of state suppression and the government is currently seeking more legislation to further silence such truths and debate. The government deems such people as a danger to the state. More honest people will be imprisoned. When true facts that pertain to government policy are suppressed, then this is not political liberty. Neither is this moral nor honest. However, in an inversionist manner, those stating the truth and acting with honour will be imprisoned under the manipulative lie of them being ‘evil’. This is not open and honest debate, and this is not freedom.
Political parties and other organisations that object to the political policy of mass immigration are subject to much suppression and persecution. Of course the general factors, including those noted above, apply also here. The mainstream media, including the BBC, make sure that the coverage of such parties is very unfavourable, and frequently the coverage is dishonest (the BBC is not impartial as its charter states). Hence, the unsuspecting public often believe such parties to be dangerous and monstrous. This distorts the democratic political process. However, the persecution and suppression of such parties and organisations also is conducted by many other means. For example, a police officer was forced to resign after being seen while off duty at a football match wearing a BNP badge(18). Have any public servants been punished in any way for wearing other forms of political badges(19) while off duty, e.g. any pro-immigration badges? So it is permissible to support the policies of the government in relation to mass immigration, but not to dissent from them (even while off duty). Many have faced persecution for belonging to or even merely supporting the BNP. For example, a bus driver was sacked for belonging to the BNP(20). The BBC sent an undercover journalist to film Mr Nick Griffin giving a speech and this resulted in Mr Griffin facing two criminal trials – and he was not convicted of any crime(21). During his speech in 2004 he predicted that Muslims would launch an attack on our country and objected to the sexual ‘grooming’ and rape of our children (before any reports such as in Rotherham were released). His predictions and claims were proven to be accurate and true. It is fair to conclude that those organisations (including political parties) dissenting from the establishment’s support for the political policy of immigration do face suppression and persecution. Such suppressive acts not only directly inhibit dissent (and truth), but also others are frightened from dissenting.
There are various pieces of legislation that act in such a manner as to suppress dissent, this by threat of arrest, (e.g. ‘hate laws’). For example, words that might ‘insult’ and ‘stir up hatred’ can result in imprisonment(22). The application of these laws has disproportionately been such that they act to suppress dissent(23). Of course, as is frequently found in this ‘soft totalitarian’(24) state, this is all wrapped up in a cloak of ‘compassion’ and ‘moral values’. But to whom is the compassion being shown? To those who object to what is fairly described as an invasion of the country? As genocide(25)? Can the indigenous people not object to these hateful acts being perpetrated upon them without being arrested (and, ironically, accused of hatred)? Would hatred not be valid in some such instances? Should one hate those who have facilitated or committed mass rape of children or genocide? Does this situation not alarm and distress normal people? Why should the state think it is acceptable to arrest people for their beliefs and emotions anyway? Does the invasion and mass rape not offend you? Are you not offended, insulted or distressed that, by various means, you dare not object to this? Not even to the genocide? Feel threatened or alarmed? And is it moral to ban the truth? How can proper political decisions be made if based on lies and not on truth? Why should ‘offence’ or ‘insult’ be criminalised – and also only is certain contexts? If a comment were to stir up hatred(26) against a group, then if the statement is true, perhaps that group should not be loved, hey? If there were truths that if stated might offend or insult a group (s), or even stir up hatred, then to ban their statement is still to ban truth and takes away true and useful information from the public.This legislation can act to disempower the true victims in many cases, and to give the false impression that the perpetrators are the victims. Also it can act, inter alia, to protect the perpetrators from truth (in case they don’t like to hear it, and/or possibly face the consequences of it becoming widely known). So if the presence of group X meant a significant increase in rapes of children from group Y by group X, then one could not say this because group X might not like it (never mind what group Y don’t like, including their children getting raped, some groups are more equal than others). Better to pretend we are all the same (and at the same time don’t forget to celebrate the diversity!). If group B get arrested or stopped by the police at twice the rate of group A, then even if this were because group B committed twice the rate of crime, one could not state this fact/truth in case group B were insulted and this fact might cause resentment of group B. Better to let them off the crimes they commit and equalise the arrest figures, never mind if the other people are victimised by the crimes (and not to bother if any of this alarms/distresses/threatens/insults them, or even could be interpreted as inciting hatred against them). This all acts to suppress certain truths and challenges to government policy – and often in an insidious and surreptitious manner.
Hence, by various means there is a lack of freedom in this country in relation to the political freedom of dissenting from the government political policy of mass immigration. People are misinformed and are intimidated by various means. Dissenters are oppressed and are susceptible to prosecution by the state. Organisations and political parties dissenting are liable to much mistreatment from the state – this is political persecution.
You will acquiesce, you will not dissent. It’s called freedom. Orwell warned us about this: “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
Christmas is a traditional time in Europe for the exchange of gifts between family and friends.
A traditional British family Christmas. However the little White girl now has a 6% chance of becoming a sex-slave to islamic slave traders in Britain.
At the Cigpapers blog we decided to put together some White survivalist related Christmas gifts. These will be delivered to you First Class recorded, or sent straight to the gift recipient with free Christmas gift wrapping and gift tag if required.
Are you really putting up with this multicultural shit any longer?
For orders from outside the UK please email email@example.com for a price on delivery.
Just how thrilled would your family and friends be with White survivalist related gifts?
Here are some gift packages we put together:
1. Four A3 Size White Survivalist Posters £10:
A pack of four White survivalist posters in A3 size (30cmX42cm). Full colour lithograph printed these look stunning as either a simple poster or framed in an A3 frame. There are presently four different designs:
PEOPLE AGAINST BANKERS
MULTICULTURALISM IS WHITE GENOCIDE
MUSLIM GROOMING GANGS
COUDENHOVE-KALERGI PLAN FOR EUROPEAN GENOCIDE
Pack of four different A3 White survivalist posters.
Choose any combination of the four in the message box on your Paypal payment to firstname.lastname@example.org – please note no Paypal account is required. The price is £10 for a four pack or £16 for an eight pack, due to savings on postage.
2. Framed A3 Size White Survivalist Poster £10:
A choice of one of four White survivalist posters in A3 size (30cmX42cm). Full colour lithograph printed these look stunning framed in a wood and glass A3 frame(37cmX49cm). There are presently four different designs to choose from:
PEOPLE AGAINST BANKERS
MULTICULTURALISM IS WHITE GENOCIDE
MUSLIM GROOMING GANGS
COUDENHOVE-KALERGI PLAN FOR EUROPEAN GENOCIDE
Choose from any of the four designs in this glass and wood frame. White corners are only for protection and can be removed.
Choose any one of the four in the message box on your Paypal payment to email@example.com – please note no Paypal account is required. The price is £20 for one or £25 for any two, due to savings on postage.
3. White Survivalist Starter Pack:
175 MULTICULTURALISM IS GENOCIDE lithograph printed roadside stickers and 175 COUDENHOVE-KALERGI PLAN FOR EUROPEAN GENOCIDE A5 150gsm leaflets.
Bring some Yuletide cheer with this gift pack.
A great starter pack for anyone beginning to fightback against White genocide. The perfect gift for anyone at £14 including recorded delivery.
Don’t let the jew-socialists destroy Christmas and the White race.
ARE WHITE BRITAINS TREATED AS SECOND CLASS IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY?
Written by Brittania
Photos and captions by Watt Tyler
Are white British people, the indigenous people of Britain, treated with the same consideration, respect, care and concern as other people are ………..…as immigrants are?
Imagine a country that was built, developed and defended for thousands of years by a beautiful, fair, strong, smart, brave and creative indigenous people. The country flourished and the people were happy. Then imagine a hostile government takes control of the country and floods in millions of immigrants, this invasion to the detriment of the indigenous people. Thousands of the indigenous women and children are raped by the immigrants, poverty increases for the indigenous people, but they are not allowed to fight back, in fact, they are not even allowed to express dissent. They are to submit to the invasion, the occupation, all the deprivations and harms, and they are to remain silent about it. In fact, in a cruel and controlling manner, the government tries to make them celebrate the invasion (and finance it and its associated costs). There will be no more indigenous people in time; some of the government and their friends openly boast of this fact, of a future when the race of indigenous people with their fair skins will no longer exist and ‘everyone will be coffee-coloured’. Have these indigenous people been treated as inferior in any way?
Mass immigration has brought much suffering and harm to the indigenous people of Britain(1), including: the increases in many types of crime, such as the many thousands of rapes, many victims merely children; the importation of diseases; the lowering of wages and working conditions for the non-wealthy; reductions in freedoms; inhibition of indigenous culture; the shortages of and strains on resources, including housing; financial burdens in taxes; race riots; the strife and stress that diversity brings, including the reductions in fraternity, security and social capital; etc. Without immigration, the people of this country would not suffer these problems that immigration has brought(2). Indigenous people have suffered for the gain of immigrants…so one group loses for another group to gain… ‘equality’ anyone?
On a fundamental level, immigrants want to come and most indigenous people do not want them to – one group’s preferences are put above those of a less important group (the ‘second class’/’inferior’ indigenous group). If an immigrant wants a better life, then indigenous people are to have a worse life to facilitate this. Some suggest limiting your birth rates to accommodate immigrants (3), but their wanting to move to your country is not to be limited, oh no. Immigration has caused areas of the country to be largely occupied by immigrant groups – the government has effectively given parts of the land away without the consent of the indigenous people. White Brits are now the minority in London(4). Your land was given away, theirs was not. Not very ‘equal’. Perhaps less easily remedied, there is the threat of genocide to the indigenous people(5). Territory and existence are fundamental to a group, and both are threatened by immigration. These threats and realities cause stress and concern amongst indigenous people, but not amongst immigrants (since they are not losing anything in this respect).
The very fact of immigration puts one group (the immigrants) above the other group in relation to many issues. In this sense, there cannot be ‘equality’ as between immigrants and indigenous people, because the very fact of immigration has breached many of the ‘rights’ of indigenous people and has put the immigrants’ desires and wants as more important than those of the indigenous people. In the social and political sense, ‘equality’ is a nebulous-power-word(6), but many of its forms are simply not possible in the context of immigration: these two concepts are incompatible.
Indigenous people are also treated as second class in other ways. Can you object to immigration? Immigrants can object to anything you do, but can you really object to them being here? Not always easy without some potential loss to yourself. This loss in freedom of speech(7) again is not applied equally, and even if it were, it is only the indigenous people who would wish to exercise it. Various means are used to silence dissent, of course the nebulous-power-word ‘racism’(8) is thrown around, but also certain legal, social, financial and professional consequences can ensue if one dares to object – and they are going to make the grip on free speech even tighter yet(9) (if they can get away with it).
And how does the legal system treat you? We frequently hear that blacks are picked on by the police, (e.g. with more stop and searches than whites); but is this proportionate to the amount of crime they commit? Are men ‘picked on’ by the police by being stopped for rapes at a higher rate than women are? If crime rates differ, then police action rates also should reflect this were the police to be acting ‘equally’ in this respect. Where there is a glaring inequality before the law is in relation to the manner in which the legal system bends over backwards not to ‘offend’ immigrants, this at the expense of the indigenous white Brits. For example, the mass child rape and abuse noted in Rotherham was allowed to continue for decades(10). Would the legal system have allowed thousands of little black or Asian girls to be raped and abused by white men for decades(11)? And the police response time?…well, 16 years and still waiting…And the ‘racial equality’ laws, well, again, not really applied in an equal manner. For example, a pack attack on a white woman by immigrants shouting ‘kill the white slag’ is not considered as a racial(12)…imagine the other way round…well, imagine it, but don’t speak of it cause that might cause offence….and nobody wants to be called ‘racist’, or arrested(13).
And the media, all heard of Stephen Lawrence? Of course you have, the government (= the working man and woman paying taxes) has spent untold fortunes in relation to this case, and even changed the law so that defendants can be tried again(14) if acquitted (double jeopardy). Another fundamental protection removed to please immigrants (and, inter alia, to suppress and oppress indigenous people). But what about the little girl murdered on the bus by a black man while she was on her way to school? Vaguely remember the case? But can you remember her name(15)? What about a black man raping many elderly people in their own homes? Know his name(16)? Or any black cannibals in recent times(17)? Got any names? Has Kriss Donald’s(18) family been lavished with awards and money by the government? Any award ceremonies being held in his name(19)? Does the media frequently mention his name? Or any white victims’ names? When a little white girl as tortured and repeatedly raped and then taken to be shot dead, the media description on the day of the then wanted suspects omitted their race, but managed to broadcast that the car was ‘maroon’ in colour(20). Do you know her name? Does the media make all victims’ and perpetrators’ names equally salient to the public? Or are indigenous people not shown the same concern as are immigrants? The media go to great lengths to conceal the level of crime committed by immigrants(21), and to mislead the public into believing that ‘whitey’ is the bad one(22). Immigration is to be portrayed as beneficial to the country, and immigrants as victims of bad whites. This misrepresentation of the truth is admitted to by various journalists(23), and such behaviour is actually found in various guidelines to journalists, e.g. that in relation to immigrants, journalists are told to ‘find positive stories’ (National Union of Journalists, NUJ, Guidelines). Mass deception(24), and since this gives preferential and unfairly favourable treatment to immigrants and thus lower concern to white Brits, then this is not treating white Brits with the same respect/concern as other groups are treated(25). Not to mention the media coverage of any political party that dares to object to immigration…
Often it is claimed that more immigrants should have certain jobs or educational places, etc. This might be labelled as affirmative action, ‘equality and diversity’(26) or suchlike(27), but if some groups are to be given the jobs/places, then this can only be at the expense of other people. To call this ‘equality’ is untrue: this is blatantly unequal and treats one group (white Brits) as second class. If you are not given the job because you are a white Brit, then you have been treated as lesser. And for a non-indigenous person to be given the favourable treatment, this can only mean unfavourable treatment to the white Brit. Can’t have one without the other.
Perhaps you are offended that you are being treated as a second class person in your own country, but the very idea of offence is not applied equally to you either. White Brits must be very careful not to offend the immigrants(28). However, if you are offended by their presence and/or by any of their behaviours, or even by the very fact that you are not considered as equal of respect as they are, then you better keep quiet about it. White Brits being offended does not count in the same way, and can cause problems for those who express it. Offence only really counts if it is immigrants offended ..is this not an offensive fact? SShhhhhhhhhh…you mustn’t cause offence to the more important people. Their being offended is more important than your existence.
So, second class might not be strong enough, perhaps third or fourth, but remember not to complain about immigration. While you sit in a choked traffic jam from your cramped over-priced home on your way to work at a job under your immigrant affirmative-action-boss, working to pay high taxes to help support the immigration, remember that the stresses under which you live, the lack of freedoms, the crime, the occupation of your country, the genocide…remember that even if you feel offended by any of this, keep quiet and don’t say anything that might offend the masters. How low are you that you can’t even express dissent? Maybe not even fourth…
If you have read up on what multiculturalism is really about then you’ll realise we are facing genocide, and a lot sooner than the sixty to eighty years predicted by main stream politicians. Towards the end the sexual and physical violence against Whites will massively increase.
A5 size stickers (21cm X 15cm). They are offset print rather than a PC printer so will last several months outside.
If you’re not yet politically aware please read these articles and then come back to this page:
There are many organisations, and groups, now starting to fight back against the multicultural genocide of Britain, and other previously White Nations. What the whole British Truth Movement needs is a mass awakening of the brainwashed masses as to what multiculturalism is really about, and what it will mean for their descendants.
Sticker on a busy road in Trafford Park, Greater Manchester, England. In rush hours there is standing traffic making it easy to read.
The MULTICULTURALISM IS GENOCIDE sticker campaign is simply a re-branding exercise of the term “multiculturalism”. The stickers are offset printed and are A5 size or approximately 21cm X 15cm.
Another sticker up in Mottram, Tameside, Greater Manchester, England.
The best places are on busy roads that have standing traffic during rush hours giving thousands of views every day. Also bus stops and above ATMs can give a large number of views every day.
Packets of stickers have already been sent to South Wales, Dundee, Blackpool, North London, Toronto (Canada) and other places.
100 Multiculturalism Is Genocide Stickers With UK Postage
300 MULTICULTURALISM IS GENOCIDE Stickers With UK Postage
For foreign postage costs or leaflets please email at firstname.lastname@example.org. If you can send a photo of a sticker with somewhere indicating where it is (and the place hasn’t already been done) we’ll send another 15 stickers free of charge.
Stickers by “Debbie” in Chapel-en-le-Frith, Capital of the High Peak, Derbyshire, England. Free pack of stickers on the way.
From the lads at Salford University (Lancashire,England) who emailed this in and said “We’re not all brainwashed, Globalist drones.” Thanks lads and a pack of free stickers on the way.
Good hit in Camden, London, England by a Southern Nationalist. Pack of stickers in the post.
Nice hit from the “Pie And Mash Squad” ( 5 words – We Go Where We Want ) at Clapton F.C. Free stickers posted.
Manchester Nationalists launch an early morning raid on the University of Manchester and surrounding areas. Stickers in the post.
Jess Lishak Women’s Officer for @ManchesterSU shows her anti-White racism on Twitter on 22nd October 2014. Tweet her at @ExecTeam_Jess
Rotherham Globalist reds are squealing about a team hitting Rotherham. Strange they never spoke out against Child gang rape. Sorry but no free stickers for this photo my Trotskyist chums.
National Strike Force (Merseyside Division) sent this in from Liverpool. They told us they did a full 100 pack of stickers across Liverpool and Birkenhead. Free stickers in the post.
Another photo from Liverpool docks – which used to have plenty of well paid jobs before Marxist union bosses shut it down.
The Globalists/Reds have no real street presence North of Birmingham and are left squealing to Liverpool Council. Why not also grass us up to Luciana Berger the jewish Labour MP for Liverpool Jake? @JakeArmistead
Just come in from Salford BNP
Got this photo and the next three with the following email: “Stickers were sighted on the A406, some stickers have been there for 3 weeks. A sticker was also seen on the back of a road-sign on the A1055. Kind Regards “Anonymous”
Rich if you can email an address we’ll send you some free stickers.
This photo from Squires Gate railway station in Blackpool, Lancashire, England was sent in by the notorious Jack “Boots” Renshaw.
Blackpool Pleasure Beach in Lancashire, England gets a visit from National Strike Force (Racial Hygiene Unit)
National Strike Force ( East Manchester Division ) sent this photo from their rampage through Manchester University campuses on 22nd January 2015. Deano told us: “The Manchester reds have melted away – there was no opposition at all.”
This photo was also on http://www.fightwhitegenocide.com the sticker also appears to be outside a shopping centre in Hungary. No gibbering outrage from Hungarian Globalist reds yet – maybe Globalists aren’t tolerated there.
National Strike Force (Racial Hygiene Unit) visited Blackpool for a day out. This isn’t one of our stickers but is very true.
National Strike Force (Racial Hygiene Unit) on their day out in Blackpool.
National Strike Force (Racial Hygiene Unit) again on their day out in Blackpool.
National Strike Force (Racial Hygiene Unit) yet again on their day out in Blackpool.
Salford, Lancashire, get a visit from a Pie And Mash Squad.
An interesting new look for a Labour Party sign in Stockport, Greater Manchester.
This photo and the one below have been sent in by National Action – one is Liverpool one is Birkenhead.
Looks like the scousers weren’t taken in by this propaganda for White genocide.
A pro White genocide advert in Manchester – swiftly dealt with by a local Nationalist.
Just come in from Liverpool Nationalists ( not sure which group/party) showing the World famous sticker in front of the quite well-known Liver Building.
Liverpool students sent this in and said “We’re sick of our crappy cultural-marxist lecturers who seem to wish they lived in a squat in the 1970s.”
Sent in by a National Front member from Stockport – free stickers in the post.
The sticker outside Everton’s football ground Goodison Park. This was sent in by some Autonomous Nationalists.
The sticker again outside Everton’s football ground Goodison Park at night. This was sent in by the same Autonomous Nationalists.
The sticker somewhere on Merseyside. This was sent in by the same Autonomous Nationalists.
The Unite Union are led by Len McCluskey and bankroll the U.A.F. to attack working-class British Nationalists opposing multicultural genocide.
This sticker in Accrington was sent in by a UK Nationalist.
Leicester gets a visit from West Midland Infidels.
One of the main drivers of anti-White racism is the constant references to the jewish slave trade, which has been turned in to a White slave trade of Africans. The Liverpool museum of slavery got a visit from National Action.
A White Rabbit in Hull sent this in.
@ANecroticTide – a Manchester Globalist red is left seriously butt-hurt in Rusholme.
Globalist Bristol teacher Suzanne Williams is left outraged by opposition to genocide in Staple Hill, Bristol. Another N.U.T. member no doubt.
A Globalist Portsmouth University red @ConorNorf0lk was squealing on Twitter about our campaign hitting Portsmouth. No photos yet but will post when received.
Globalist and Deputy Leader of Stockport Council LibDem Councillor Iain Roberts was strangely drawn to our stickers in Stockport. Expect your neighbourhood to be flooded with leaflets and stickers Councillor Roberts!
Another self-hating White from Salford was left outraged by opposition to genocide. Thanks for the mention @katieshark
Derby Telegraph has covered our campaign here ow.ly/MBXc6
These are some stickers being put out by the Church of Creativity against White genocide – sorry but we don’t have any. Contact them through http://www.creativityalliance.com
FOR LEGAL REASONS : Please get the permission of the owners of any property you put the stickers on. By purchasing these stickers and/or submitting photo(s) you are agreeing to these terms and conditions.
Globalist Reds Fight Back With Their Own Stickers:
A weak effort from Salford Globalist reds here on Ordsall Lane. I think you’re going to need bigger stickers my socialist chums. As always no free stickers for cultural-marxists.
A notorious Globalist red who works as a cleaner at Manchester University was putting these out in Salford: “Burn the flag I have no country I am an anarchist I don’t believe in states borders or government I want to be rid of them all” We should point out to Paul K. that his minimum wage cleaning job at the University wouldn’t exist without the State, nor would his tax credits.
A group of Globalist socialist political posers known as the “161Crew” from Manchester have put these up around Manchester. The 161Crew affiliate themselves with F.C. United of Manchester who are currently playing at Tameside Stadium. Several deals between F.C.U.M. and Labour run Greater Manchester Councils are currently being investigated by this blog.
Even for a Globalist red it was pretty weird to put notes up trying to support multiculturalism – still if it keeps them busy and away from kids it can’t be that bad.
A sticker in Gorton, East Manchester was sprayed over in orange with an anarchy sign sprayed above. Maybe it was a Dutch anarchist or a Blackpool fan.
This sticker was in Mossley in the Pennines. You’ll notice the typical socialist half-arsed attack on it. After failing to rip it down they followed up with a crap attempt at covering it up.
Around the World there is a general awakening about what multiculturalism is really about.
Over the last few months the Cigpapers blog has been sending “Multiculturalism Is White Genocide” and “The Coudenhove-Kalergi Plan For The Genocide Of The White People Of Europe” leaflets to hundreds of British politicians. You can see the pdf files for the leaflets by clicking here:
These leaflets were followed up by various emails and telephone calls to various constituency offices around Britain. There is no real doubt that the majority of British politicians now realise what multiculturalism is really about. The various replies being made were “It’s too late now”, “I can’t risk being labelled racist”, “There isn’t much I can do” and other permutations of these replies.
The general feeling in mainstream British politics seems to be that even though multiculturalism is obviously demographic genocide, anyone resisting it will be labelled a racist and have their career destroyed. With this cowardice in mind, the idea of sending British politicians a white feather in a leaflet opposing White genocide was born.
Giving someone a white feather in Britain is a traditional way of calling them a coward.
The first twenty British politicians (sent 4th August 2014) to receive their white feather wrapped in a leaflet against the ongoing genocide of White Britain are:
Michael Meacher MP
Frand Fields MP
Dennis Skinner MP
Peter Tapsell MP
John Hemmings MP
Paul Flynn MP
Tristam Hunt MP
Bill Cash MP
Andy Burnham MP
Peter Bone MP
Tom Watson MP
Alan Johnson MP
John Mann MP
William Hague MP
Ian Duncan Smith MP
Stephen Mosley MP
Nigel Mills MP
Simon Danczuk MP
Total Cost In Time And Money:
20 envelopes @ 1.5 pence = 30 pence
40 leaflets @ 1.2 pence = 48 pence
20 white feathers @ 2.5 pence = 50 pence
No stamps required to write to House of Commons or Lords
TOTAL COST = £1:28
TOTAL TIME = 30 minutes
Remembrance Day MPs Who Are Ex-Armed Forces Campaign:
The next fifteen British politicians (sent 9th November 2014 to be received on Armed Forces Remembrance Day) to receive their white feather wrapped in a leaflet against the ongoing genocide of White Britain are:
Richard Drax MP
Dan Jarvis MP
Kris Hopkins MP
Mark Lancaster MP
Richard Benyon MP
Stephen Barkley MP
Dr Andrew Murrison MP
Jim Shannon MP
Richard Ottoway MP
Bob Stewart MP
Andrew Mitchell MP
Mike Penning MP
Stephen Phillips QC MP
Jeffrey Donaldson MP
Hugo Swire MP
Total Cost In Time And Money:
15 envelopes @ 1.5 pence = 22.5 pence
15 leaflets @ 1.2 pence = 18 pence
15 white feathers @ 2.5 pence = 38 pence
No stamps required to write to House of Commons or Lords
JEWISH SUPREMACISM MY AWAKENING TO THE JEWISH QUESTION
By Dr David Duke
Dr Duke was previously elected to the House of Representatives, State of Louisiana, USA and served from 1996-2000 A book review by Boadicea
The powers that be will not be kind to those who tell certain truths; one could face loss of career, reputation-assassination, even face persecution … and maybe prosecution. And yet, some have the courage and compassion to tell those truths.
With honour and bravery, Dr Duke tells the truth in this volume and in so doing makes great personal sacrifice.
He speaks out for the good of mankind.
‘Jewish supremacism you say? What are you some kind of ‘racist’ hater anti-Semite who wants to kill six million Jews with pesticide gas?’ Some readers of this review may wonder if the author Dr Duke is such a person for writing a book with this title. However, last time you heard the newsreaders spitting about the latest so-called ‘racism’#/’white supremacist’ scandal, perhaps some white person had said something deemed to be ‘racist’ or a black person felt offended, did you imagine that the outraged journalist was a hater who wants to kill millions of white people? Did the journalist make sure to inform the audience that not all white people are so-called ‘racists’ and some are very ‘nice’? It is very likely that the reader has heard the venom directed at those labelled as ‘white supremacists’ and not imagined that the relevant enraged journalists are haters. Why are so many people trained to respond in such ways? Has the media and the education system, even society at large, trained certain responses to the word ‘supremacism’ in some contexts, but not in others? How could this be? Why can people spit about ‘white supremacists’ without any blame on the speaker, but to even mention the phrase ‘Jewish supremacists’ invites accusations of being a hater, a ‘racist’ – if not a genocidal maniac? What happened to ‘equality’?#
In contrast to the many pages of newspapers, academic journals, books, etc. written upon ‘white supremacism’, Dr Duke felt the need to make clear at the outset of his book that he does not hate all Jewish people# – in fact, Dr Duke dedicates his book to a Jewish man: the late Dr Israel Shahak#. Dr Duke did not start off with the beliefs he now holds, and his journey of awakening is told as part of this volume, a journey of discovery that took him from the official beliefs and narratives, to truth.
In this book Dr Duke discusses the issue of Jewish supremacism. Amongst Jews there are many who are brought up to believe that they are superior and have the right to reign supreme over their ‘inferiors’. These supremacist beliefs are found in the very texts held as holy by the Jews, (e.g. see Talmud, Torah, etc.). Such beliefs are found in the books and speeches made by some Jews. Such beliefs can be seen to be evidenced in much behaviour around the world.
Dr Duke quotes the definition of Jewish supremacism as: ‘The belief, theory or doctrine that the Jewish people are superior to all others and should retain control in all relationships’ and in his book presents evidence that many of the Jews of the world do believe themselves superior to all other peoples, e.g. citing Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion stating the ‘moral and intellectual superiority’ of the Jewish people#. One could imagine the reaction were a white leader to say such a thing in relation to white people! He also shows that they seek control in all relationships with other peoples, yet the Jewish-dominated world media shield Jewish supremacism from criticism (or even discussion), e.g. no outrage was expressed when Ben-Gurion was quoted in Look Magazine (1962) predicting Israel to one day be sitting atop a one world government:
‘In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine to the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents: this will be the Supreme Court of Mankind.’#
While the world hunts down suspected Nazis, little outcry was heard when boastful terrorist Menachem Begin was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize – Begin who brags in his book about the massacre of over two hundred men, women and children at Deir Yassin. Dr Duke argues that Jewish supremacists seek to control the nations in which they dwell – making particular efforts to dominate the two most critical factors of power in the modern world: mass media and government.
Dr Duke evidences Jewish supremacism with many quotations from Jews, e.g.
‘If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that, Jewish life has infinite value,’ he explained, ‘There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life’
If another group is considered so lowly, then this fact alone might cause them to be exploited by supremacists for the supremacists’ own gain. However, add to this feeling of supremacy a different moral code, one that does not resemble the typical Western code, but in fact views the Westerners as the eternal enemy even, with exploitation mandated, and the exploitation is inevitable. And yet this is hidden, even the acceptance of being a different race is frequently a matter of deceit#, and the holy texts are deliberately mistranslated for the non-Jews’ ears. Jewish supremacists consider themselves supreme, and desire the control and supremacy – this is a danger to people of the world. Dr Duke aims to speak out and protect all peoples of the world.
As Dr Duke starts to write this book he sits in the beautiful nature of the Rocky Mountains. As he enjoys the sunny scenery he thinks of the battle of nature. Beneath the tranquillity of the bubbling stream and the trees casting their dancing shadows in the breeze he thinks of the competition between the parts of nature; a competition of which this idyllic scenery is resultant – a competition that continues as he watches. Two ants spot a tasty piece of peach on the ground – but who will get to eat it? Are they from different ‘tribes’ that will go to ‘war’ for the food? The birds of prey soar in the sky with grace, but on the watch for a small furry animal too slow or careless to escape their sights – which mouse will be caught? Are some breeds of mice faster, smarter, more devious, better camouflaged? And hence better able to survive as a group?
Competition within groups, between groups, between species, all the losses and the selection has led to the beauty before Dr Duke at this moment. Within the ground countless rivalries between bacteria lie, even the stream itself wears away at the mountain over the years. And what of people? Who gets to survive and pass on their genes within a group? Which groups will render which other groups extinct? Will some groups finish off others – directly or indirectly? Will some groups interbreed with others to end the uniqueness of the original groups#? Even if they survive, will some groups be successful in life? Some groups be rich and healthy and powerful? What if group A viewed the other groups with contempt and desired to enslave them – could they do it? What of all the other groups were no competition, but one other group was splendid and their very existence perceived as a threat and a humiliation/insult to group A? What of this splendid group (B) were more beautiful, more creative, more honourable, more physically-capable, braver, nobler, more magical and very intelligent? Would group A not have a better chance of success without this group B? Group A could then just rule supreme over the other groups with no strong competition – be supreme and also hold supremacy. This could from a part of an evolutionary strategy. And with the use of language and power structures of the world, could power be exerted to attain these goals by means other than direct force? Could control be exercised in such manner so as to be largely invisible?
As a group, Jewish people hold great power around the world. The modern media exercises control over what information people have, and also determines their opinions and feelings. By, inter alia, repeated linking and imagery, certain phenomena are associated with the required images, beliefs and responses – perception and conception are both controlled. And yet, the mainstream media is largely controlled by Jews. This fact is acknowledged by some Jews themselves: across Moment Magazine’s front cover was proclaimed ‘Jews Run Hollywood, So What?’
The accompanying article inside was written by Jewish film critic Michael Medved, in which he writes:
‘Jewish writers and directors employ unquestionably flattering depictions of Jews for audiences that react with sympathy and affection.’
Marlon Brando – a beautiful and talented white man brought to his knees
The control of information and feelings/responses/images must be maintained – Marlon Brando serves as a good example of straying from the acceptable lines of thought. Although in his early career he behaved as desired, later he learnt truths that contradicted his early beliefs. On the Larry King show, Brando stated that: ‘Hollywood is run by Jews. It is owned by Jews.’ and commentated on the image-management: that while other groups are slandered, Jews ‘are ever so careful to ensure that there is never and negative image of the kike.’ A predictable onslaught against Brando ensued, only abating when Brando arranged an audience with Rabbi Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre – Brando literally got on his knees to the Jew and kissed his hands, begging for forgiveness. Brando was absolved and did not speak such truths again.
In real life it was not like in this movie – in real life Brando was on his knees kissing the Jew’s hand
Duke lists the Jewish ownership and control of the world’s largest media concerns, including: Disney, Warner Brothers, Paramount (Viacom), Universal (NBC Universal), 20th Century Fox (News Corp), Dreamworks, and Columbia (Sony). For example, NBC News President is Neal Shapiro, Jeff Zucker is NBC Universal Group President, David Zaslov NBC Cable President, Rick Kaplan is MSNBC president – all Jews. The extremely influential MTV is run by Jews (Redstone), and has immense effect on young people in developing their attitudes and desires. And the Oscars themselves form a news item – these run by Jews and a means by which they can give their own, and those supporting their interests, credibility and coverage (and other matters, such as money, influence and power). It is not only news programmes and films that are under Jewish control, but all media, including publishing, e.g. Time Magazine, the most widely-read such publication, being headed by Jewish CEO Gerald Levin.
Controlling the media controls people in a very complete manner. What would one think were we to be at war with a nation, say during a war with Iran, if all major news sources and entertainment media were controlled and owned by Iranians? Would one have any suspicion that perhaps they are not being totally unbiased in all matters? Could they be distorting our perceptions, beliefs, feelings? Perhaps censoring certain information and maybe distorting other parts? Yet one needs to look into who owns and controls the media – if one does so, one will find it is almost entirely Jewish. Did your media tell you that the mass murderer Dr Harold Shipman was Jewish – or was that fact censored?
With control of media many truths can be hidden, and many emotions controlled.
Hidden truths include the Jewish nature of the genocide in Russia of the Russian Revolution.
As Winston Churchill stated:
‘There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews…’
Who knew that of the 384 ‘Russian’ commissars more than 300 were Jews? And only 13 were ethnic Russians? Who knew that Trotsky was Jewish and his real name Lev Bronstein? Did your media or education system tell you about a British government report stating:
‘There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews.’
Millions died and there was untold suffering of whites in Russia – does it make Dr Duke an anti-Semite to accept the historical fact that the ‘Russian Revolution’ was not actually Russian but a takeover of Czarist Russia by an antagonistic, non-Russian nationality?
Other historical events are distorted in their presentation – who knew that the slave trade was not run by whites, but mainly by Jews? And why is the narrative of the ‘Holocaust’ protected by law in many countries – historians imprisoned for questioning certain aspects of this official narrative – is any other historical narrative not allowed to be investigated or discussed by academics? Why just this narrative? Who benefits form this narrative? Who loses?
More recent events are also presented in a dishonest manner and with an agenda that suits Jewish supremacism – all this aided and abetted by Jews in the media, education system and government. Did you know that Israel attacked the American Navy intelligence ship Liberty on June the 8th 1967#?
‘Israel purposely and deliberately attacked the U.S.S. Liberty’ (Dean Rusk the US Secretary of State at the time).
Liberty was an intelligence ship sailing off the Egyptian town of El Arish, a town recently captured by Israeli forces. Israel knew that the Liberty was monitoring its transmissions and might learn of preparations for a planned invasion of Syria. Also, Liberty has intercepted Israeli radio communications showing that they had murdered hundreds of unarmed Egyptian prisoners of war in the Sinai. After Israeli jets attacked the Liberty with rockets, cannon fire and napalm bombs, in violation of international law Israeli torpedo boats even machine-gunned the Liberty’s deployed life rafts.
31 Americans were killed and 171 wounded in the attack – but, although designed to sink the ship and kill the whole crew, there were survivors who reported the whole incident – including how the crew waved a the pilots – pilots so close that the American crew could see their faces. Israeli torpedo boats came close enough to machine gun Americans tending the wounded on deck. There was no mistake that this was an American ship – evidence includes that of the then U.S. ambassador to Lebanon who heard US-intercepted Israeli communications with the attacking Israeli fighters acknowledging that the ship was American. The Liberty’s commanding officer, Captain William McGonagle, was wounded but survived. Awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, unusually the relevant citations did not even identify Israel as the attacker. The US Navy conducted a perfunctory court of enquiry (lasting only 4 days) and failed to call even one Israeli to testify.
If the levels of control over the media and the government are not already clear – please note that President Lyndon Johnson ordered fighter support to be called back during the incident – caring more about his relations with Israel than saving American lives.
People can protest – but to whom does one go when the government is involved?
In Dr Duke’s book the evidence is presented in relation to the supreme power being exercised over others by Jews, e.g.: the wars in the Middle East, (e.g. Iraq); the false portrayal of events both recent and historic; the distortion of societies by degrading the people and spreading degeneracy, (e.g. Jews control pornography#, ‘progressivism’, feminism, etc.); and flooding the nations with foreigners to disrupt, demean, harm – and ultimately to facilitate the exercise of power (including by genocide). Who is largely behind the desire to flood other countries with foreigners?
Who promotes race-mixing? Who controls the puppet black civil rights leaders – did you know a Jew (Stanley Levinson) wrote many of the Martin Luther King’s speeches – and also that MLK was not a saint, but a woman-beater and a communist? If Jews were the only immigrant group in the West they would stand out more and also have less leverage – but being one in a mosaic acts to their advantage in a number of ways. In fact, with so much difference, many Jews can pass as whites to many (camouflaged and differences obscured and confused). However, in private and amongst themselves the separateness and supremacy over whites is strongly held – non-Jews deceived as to Jews’ true beliefs. In their own words they make clear their Jewish supremacism, and also their lack of fraternity to non-Jews, and their lack of loyalty to Western countries, e.g.
‘Like thousands of other typical Jewish kids …I was reared as Jewish nationalist, even quasi-supremacist… I attended Jewish summer camp…I saluted a foreign flag…and was taught that Israel was the true homeland…I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles’#
Divide and conquer protects the Jews as parasites in other countries, and also facilitates their supremacist agenda by other means. Dr Duke does not merely make such claims, but cites the evidence, e.g. Jewish writer Dr Stephen Steinlight bluntly states:
‘For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Jewish community is thus in a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agenda’
Supremacism in government, in the media and control over hearts and minds through other means such as the education system facilitates this supremacist agenda – all detailed by Dr Duke in this book. And why? Well, the desire for supremacy and the belief in supremacy is detailed as rooted in the very texts – again, all largely hidden from the non-Jews. Who knew that the Jewish term for a Gentile (non-Jew) woman is ‘Shiska’ which means ‘whore’? Who knew that the Talmud states that ‘only Jews are human. [Gentiles] are animals.’?
And yet, the information in Dr Duke’s book is largely unknown. By control of the information and also by silencing dissenters, the Jews have kept all this secret from most non-Jews. If anyone dares to tell the truth, then they are demonised as ‘anti-Semitic’ or ‘racist’ (or worse!).
In some countries, dissenters are imprisoned for questioning the official narrative of the six million# – upon which much sympathy, psychological pressure, power and money rests (not to mention the land of Palestine). And yet, if one were to take an honest view of history, one can see that the Jews have not been welcomed throughout history – this is not some new and unfounded irrational hatred, ‘anti-Semitism’ or ‘racism’.
The exploitation of others by Jews has caused Jews to be expelled from country after country across the world and across time – including King Edward expelling them from England in 1290 (which was revoked by Cromwell in 1657, over 360 years later, in exchange for money):
SOME EXPULSIONS OF JEWS FROM PARTS OF EUROPE AND RUSSIA
Mainz, 1012 Upper Bavaria, 1442 Naples, 1533
France, 1182 Netherlands, 1444 Italy, 1540
Upper Bavaria, 1276 Brandenburg, 1446 Naples, 1541
England, 1290 Mainz, 1462 Prague, 1541
France, 1306 Mainz, 1483 Genoa, 15550
France, 1322 Warsaw, 1483 Bavaria, 1551
Saxony, 1349 Spain, 1492 Prague, 1557
Hungary, 1360 Italy, 1492 Papal States, 1569
Belgium, 1370 Lithuania, 1495 Hungary, 1582
Slovakia, 1380 Portugal, 1496 Hamburg, 1649
France, 1394 Naples, 1496 Vienna, 1669
Austria, 1420 Navarre, 1498 Slovakia, 1744
Lyons, 1420 Nuremberg, 1498 Moravia, 1744
Cologne, 1424 Brandenburg, 1510 Bohemia, 1744
Mainz, 1438 Prussia, 1510 Moscow, 1891
The fact that this group believes that they are to rule and control others makes them unpopular. The hunger for power and the fact they have no loyalty to their host nation/indigenous people contributes to behaviours that make them unwanted – behaviours including acts of sabotage, treason, spying, enslavement of others, criminal behaviour, deceit as to their true desires and beliefs (amongst other matters), etc. As a cohesive group there are many advantages to be had, especially in a country that is racially mixed and in which others are taught not to have any group cohesion – these advantages are numerous, including those in finance that result from cohesiveness and the relevant knowledge, (e.g. insider trading). Control of money and banking has always been used as a means to control indigenous people – and is run by guess who.
The history of Jews as ruthless money collectors is largely rooted in their lack of compassion for the indigenous people from whom they extract the money, disdain for non-Jews also being a contributory factor. A group of immigrants taught they are supreme, seeking supremacy with little or no compassion or respect for the host nation/people, a group ruthless in their pursuit of gain for their own group, and hiding the truth from their victims – how could such tendencies make such a group popular with its victims? Are the repeated expulsions of this group really all acts of irrational anti-Semitism as we are led to believe by our government, education system and media?
It can be dangerous to tell the truth – but Dr Duke does in this volume. He not only tells the truth, he documents his statements with evidence, evidence largely from Jewish people themselves. Duke speaks out against the greatest threat to mankind: Jewish supremacism.
In closing this volume, Dr Duke calls for others to speak the truth for the sake of mankind:
‘As long as I have breath and ability, I will not be silent. I will endeavour to fight for European Americans, Palestinians and indeed, for the fundamental human rights of all peoples of the earth. Together, we must bravely face and fight the evil spectre of Jewish supremacism. The time is late, but we have a super-weapon in the struggle for freedom: the sword of truth. I beseech you; don’t let the truth lay silent, use your courage to give it voice. Let the sword of truth light the way to your freedom.’
Dr Duke’s book is recommended reading and is published by:
Free Speech Press. Manderville, LA: USA (2007)
Jewish Supremacism is available from booksellers in hardback or in pdf version, e.g. from Amazon:
The Unite Against Fascism are an establishment-financed group who intimidate, bully, threaten to kill, rob and assault anyone (particularly those from the White working-class) who dares to object to multiculturalism and/or Globalisation. Not only do you get beaten, robbed, assaulted and threatened you also get smeared as a fascist.
Here is a detailed description of the UAF and their backers both political and financial:
Because of the violent and corrupt nature of the UAF this blog is organising a campaign to have them proscribed as a terrorist organisation, and for the British Government to facilitate the seizure of their assets and those of their backers, to distribute to their victims. If you can help please copy and paste the following letter to your MP, MEPs and any members of the House of Lords you can think of on the website (whose address is at the bottom of this article).
Dear (name of MP, MEP, Lord or Lady)
I am writing to you regarding having the so-called “Unite Against Fascism” Group proscribed as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. The UAF intimidate, bully, threaten to kill, rob and assault those (particularly from the White working-class) who dare to object to multiculturalism and Globalisation. Not only do you get beaten, robbed, assaulted and threatened you also get smeared as a fascist. A number of people have been unable to stand as candidates and/or leaflet and canvass for elections across Britain because of the violence and threats of violence this group are involved directly in, or have incited. Please visit the link below for an example of their behaviour and total disregard for British law, democracy and freedom. The old man receiving the public punishment beating is a candidate for a Parliamentary constituency seat:
The Terrorism Act 2000 clearly defines what terrorism is:
(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2)
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the Government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against the person
(b) involves serious damage to property
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) the use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1) (b) is satisfied.
The UAF are quite clearly a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000 and should be proscribed as such by the Home Office as soon as possible. The Government should also facilitate the seizure of the UAF’s assets and those of their backers to compensate the UAF’s many victims.
I would expect you to back this campaign and contact the Home Office immediately.
Yours sincerely ( Add your name )
Please send to your MP, MEP and Member of House of Lords at the link below:
On 9th April 2014 a BNP “Stop Paedophile Rings” banner protest was taking place on the East Lancashire Road in Greater Manchester, England. At about 8:00 AM this banners was safely secured with professional attachments above the East Lancashire Road in Greater Manchester by BNP activists.
BNP “Stop Paedophile Rings” banner hangs between two commercial signs above the East Lancashire Road in Greater Manchester.The banners are secured with professional attachments before being swung over to the outside.
The banner was warmly supported by the majority of the public with only a few obscene hand gestures by multiculturalists. At around 8:45 AM a Police Officer approached the demonstration. The Police Officer ( Collar Number 14953 ) was friendly enough but had been ordered by his Inspector to take the banner down, then confiscate it and take one demonstrator’s name and details under Section 5 Public Order Act. We’re not sure about his understanding of the legal position here regarding Electoral Law and the Public Order Act.
How offensive is a “Stop Paedophile Rings” banner? What sort of person would be offended enough to telephone the Police?
The Greater Manchester Police seizing this banner, which has been warmly supported around Greater Manchester, shows a few cracks appearing in the red Mafia of the Greater Manchester Police and the local Labour Party. There is a video of the confiscation by Greater Manchester Police here:
The confiscation of this banner led to the cancellation of a planned “Stop Paedophile Rings” demonstration outside Manchester Town Hall against Labour Party paedophile rings. Whether this was deliberate or coincidental is impossible to say.
The same banner at a previous banner drop flash demonstration in Tameside.
The Police Officer in charge of the election in Greater Manchester is Chief Superintendent O’Hare of Greater Manchester Police ( telephone 0161 872 5050) who had previously stated he wanted a good, clean election.
The BNP’s banner was confiscated for opposing paedophile rings but what if you complained that you are offended by this celebration of communism and genocide in Manchester?
These “Stop Paedohile Rings” campaign banners have been well received by tens of thousands of members of the Greater Manchester public. The banners are very good for bridge drop flash demonstrations, or for hanging or holding at other demonstrations. Each banner should also last several years/elections if looked after.
Section 5 Of The Public Order Act 1986:
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable.
(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if—
(a)he engages in offensive conduct which a constable warns him to stop, and
(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning.
(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.
(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
BNP Rescue Banner 10th April 2014:
On April 10th 2014, Gary Tumulty (North West Regional Organiser) went to Swinton Police Station to demand the return of the “Stop Paedophile Rings” banner. Here is the video of what happened:
The Blog of Ian Pace, pianist, musicologist, political animal. A place for thoughts, reflections, links, both trivial and not so trivial. Main website is at http://www.ianpace.com . Contact e-mail email@example.com.