It is a very well known fact that Tower Hamlets is one of the boroughs in Britain where electoral fraud is most prevalent.

Accusations of rigged postal ballots and bogus addresses have been going on for years, and this problem gained prominence nationwide when a journalist for The Independent was assaulted a few weeks before the election because he was investigating this electoral fraud.

Nationalists will be not be surprised to hear that detectives investigating allegations of voter fraud said there are no cases to answer, but their conclusions have been rejected by East End politicians.

Police from the specialist operations branch have looked into allegations of voter fraudulently registered at addresses in the run up to this May’s general, local and mayoral referendum. A Met Police spokeswoman said: “After extensive enquiries, no offences were disclosed and no further action will be taken currently based on the information gathered during the investigation.”

Abjol Miah from Tower Hamlets Respect party said: “We have got some serious concerns. There has been a lot of anecdotal evidence from people coming in, but people are not willing to come forward.”

Tower Hamlets Conservative leader Peter Golds agreed. He said: “I have never been asked for a full statement, had I done so I would have provided details of someone who would have said on oath that they had seen people filling in multiple forms.

This should surprise nobody, electoral fraud has been allowed to flourish so Labour could cling to power, but the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems have been investigated in other parts of Britain too and so they are involved as well.

It might be that the Police stopped the investigation because they didn’t want to ‘upset’ the Asian community and also to stop ‘youths’ from rioting.

This is the reality of Tower Hamlets today, a place where native Britons have been reduced to a minority in their own ghetto, and where the invaders have brought with them all the habits from their backward homelands.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

As austerity hits native Britons pockets and deep cuts in essential services are imminent, nationalists will be interested to read that asylum seekers seeking permission to stay in Britain are being offered free swimming pool or gym sessions while they wait.

More than 250 people from other countries have so far made use of a special card that gets them into council leisure facilities that residents – and even pensioners – have to pay to use.

Britons wanting to join the scheme – operating in Newcastle – can expect to pay up to £180 a year for the city council’s Leisure Plus card.

But 256 of the city’s 480 asylum seekers have taken up the offer of a free card, at a cost to council taxpayers of £7,000.

Bureaucrats regard the scheme as so successful it may be copied by other local authorities around the country.

Your Homes Newcastle, responsible for housing the applicants, says the scheme prevents users from feeling isolated in a strange country, and encourages them to become part of the community in which they are living.

But TaxPayers’ Alliance spokeswoman Emma Boon said: “Offering one group of people a particular service for free, whilst others, including pensioners, are paying is likely to create divisions in the local community.”

Applicants must be able to prove their asylum seeker status to qualify for the card, which is valid for six months and includes free use of Newcastle’s state-of-the-art Centre for Sport complex.

Steve Murphy, chair of Your Homes Newcastle, said: “We believe the scheme has real economic and social benefits.

“It helps to integrate asylum seekers. This makes Newcastle a more vibrant and diverse place.

Maybe Mr Murphy should consult Newcastle’s long term residents to see if they are happy to allow their city to be enriched.

But we know the answer, don’t we?

The same argument has been used by Labour (Conservatives got there first) to swamp Britain with immigrants in order to make it multicultural, they were well aware that voters would have never approved.

This is why they introduced tough race-hatred laws that make any criticism of immigration a criminal offence (BNP activists know only too well what I’m talking about).

On the bright side this programme may help us to get more supporters up North.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

How many time we have been accused of being racist because we want to ban women from wearing burkas?

Too many times I would say and in the current political climate only the bravest would dare to speak publicly in favour of such a ban (especially in an enriched area) as they may be arrested for incitement of racial hatred.

Therefore nationalists should be delighted to hear that a few days ago French MPs voted overwhelmingly to ban women from wearing burkas, thus expressing a form of common sense that Britain has lost long time ago.

Politicians from across the spectrum united in opposition to Islamic veils that cover a woman’s face, which some described as ‘walking coffins’.

Deputies in the country’s 557-seat lower house, the National Assembly, voted in favour of the ban by 335 votes to one.

Far-Left groups such as the Communists joined president Nicolas Sarkozy’s ruling UMP party in voting for it, although Socialists and Greens abstained.

Communist MP Andre Gerin said yesterday: ‘Talking about liberty to defend the wearing of the full veil is totally cynical – for me, the full veil is a walking coffin, a muzzle.

‘The result follows months of heated debate during which immigration minister Eric Besson also described the burka as a ‘walking coffin’, while prime minister Francois Fillon accused wearers of ‘hijacking Islam’ and displaying a ‘dark sectarian image’.

Recent polls suggested that more than 80 per cent of French people wanted the burka banned, including some of the country’s five million Muslims.

Under the terms of the bill, anyone caught wearing a burka, which covers the entire face and body with just a mesh screen for the eyes, or a niqab, which has a slit for the wearers’ eyes, will face a £117 fine.

Men caught forcing a woman to wear a burka or a niqab will face a year in prison or a £25,000 fine.

The garments are seen as undermining women’s rights and a threat to France’s secular status. The proposed legislation, which is colloquially referred to as the ‘anti-burka law’, is officially called ‘the bill to forbid concealing one’s face in public’.

The draft bill backed by Mr Sarkozy’s government will now pass to the Senate upper house where it could be ratified in September to become law.

But it could be shot down by the European Court of Human Rights and France’s constitutional watchdog, the Council of State, which has warned that the bill may be illegal because it does not allow freedom of expression.

This would be a humiliation for Mr Sarkozy, whose government has devoted much attention to a bill that only affects around 2,000 women in France.

It could also dampen efforts in other European countries to outlaw veils.

Belgium and Spain have begun the initial stages of burka bans, while support for one in Britain has come from Tory backbencher Philip Hollobone and the UK Independence Party.

The main body representing French Muslims fears the ban will stigmatise the religion, which it says does not require women to cover their faces anyway.

A French tycoon is setting up a fund to help Muslim women pay ‘burka fines’.

Muslim businessman Rachid Nekkaz has pledged to sell property worth 1million euros to finance the fund.

If French can pass a similar law, why not the UK?

We know the answer and we don’t need to make any comment.

It’s worth of note how Communist MPs voted in favour, usually they tend to be against those measures as it go against their vision of a vibrant, diverse, multicultural society.

This, at least, is the case in the UK where the liberal elite accuse anyone who want to ban the burka of being fascist and racist.

Apparently French Communists don’t share this opinion so it would be interesting to see if antifascist groups accuse them of being Nazi scum.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

Ireland, like Britain, is run by a treacherous political elite committed to destroying Irish identity through mass immigration.

The only difference between us is that in Ireland there are still journalists with independent minds and open eyes and common sense, something rare as rocking horse manure in the UK.

Ian O’Doherty is one of them.

A piece he wrote in the Irish Independent. Mr O’Doherty attacks the pro-immigration lobby who believe they have the right to harass anyone who dares oppose immigration.

Mr O’Doherty is not a BNP supporter and because he is not his comments have more credibility as no one can accuse him of being a ‘nazi’.

I present the article in full, as nationalists have no chance of finding anything like this printed in a British newspaper, the NUJ would never allow it.

The current debacle in Mosney was rightly declared by the Free Legal Advice Centre to be “an accident waiting to happen”, but it also brings up some other, wider issues.

In fact, the whole debate about refugees/asylum seekers, or whatever you want to call them, is a boil that needs to be lanced.

Indeed, the debate has become completely poisoned by professional Left-wing advocates who immediately denounce anyone with a dissenting voice as a racist.

This reached the height of wicked stupidity when the Immigrant Council of Ireland actually went to the police and tried to have Kevin Myers prosecuted because he had written a piece about Africa that they didn’t like.

This is the country we now live in, where government-funded groups would have journalists arrested on the grounds that they said something that didn’t fit their ideology.

And because of this Stalinist urge to purge anyone who dares to deviate from the same hymn sheet, most people prefer to just keep their head down and say nothing rather than have a horde of screaming morons descend on them making the spurious accusation of racism.

But ask yourself this — those of us in our mid-to-late 30s were the last emigration generation and when we applied for visas to the States or Australia, we knew the rules of engagement.

Australia, in particular, was quite open about their entry requirements — if you possessed a skill they wanted or needed, you got in. If not, you didn’t.

It wasn’t racist; it was just one of those things.

Now, in Ireland, we need to stop beating around the bush and start uttering some harsh truths.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the Mosney situation, it’s time for Ireland to admit that, sorry, we’re full.

We simply cannot afford to accommodate any more people who, through free accommodation, free legal advice, food, clothing and so on, become a burden on the State from the moment they arrive on Irish soil.

That’s not racism, that’s simply a case of pragmatic self-interest.

And, before you start to bleat that we need to take account of the horrid lives and hideous countries these people invariably come from, you can answer back — do we really?

On a human level, obviously it is impossible not to feel compassion for some of the stories we hear on a daily basis from refugees and asylum seekers, but the reality is that no matter how heart-rending their stories may be, ultimately they are not our problem.

At what point did Ireland suddenly have a moral obligation to look after people who had probably never even heard of this country until they got here?

At what point did we have a moral obligation to provide care and comfort and take on the financial burden of people who have no identifiable skills, who can’t speak the language and who, alongside their children, will only ever take from a system they never contributed to in the first place?

Look, I can’t blame people for wanting to come here from there.

Having said that, the State has an obligation towards its own citizens first.

We have more of a right to access the country’s education, health and social welfare provisions than someone who only arrived here last week.

Is that racist? Is it now racist to point out that the vast amounts of money spent on the asylum process and the seekers themselves would have been better spent maintaining and preventing the HSE cuts to the already lamentable support given to respite carers?

Of course, the hundreds, if not thousands of people riding the asylum gravy train will immediately take their head out of the financial trough they’ve been gorging on for years and start to scream about racism/bigotry/whatever you’re having yourself.

But as the new Australian PM Julia Gillard pointed out this week, being concerned about the number of people who come to your country and are just a burden does not make you a racist.

She is to be congratulated on having the stones to say what the average Irish politician, or indeed person, would think but not say.

Left-wing advocates would have you believe that if you harbour any doubts at all about untrammelled immigration not being a good thing, then you belong in the British National Party.

And, ironically, because they have been so successful in stifling proper debate and slurring people they disagree with, this has left a vacuum which the likes of the BNP were quick to fill.

Here in Ireland, you only have to listen to some radio phone-in shows and read Irish blogs to see what true racism really is — ugly, spiteful, ignorant and full of an irrational hate.

Indeed, it happened to me a while back when a woman rang the office to say fair play for not being politically correct. When I said thanks, she then went to add: “You’re a good man, Iano, I f***ing hate niggers as well.”

It was a profoundly depressing moment; the realisation that because nobody wants to talk reasonably about this issue, as soon as someone does, the bigots think they have a mouthpiece.

I don’t answer my phone any more.

But what the likes of that moron who rang, or the hate-spewing rabble of the phone-in shows, prove is that ignorance, stupidity and contempt for common sense is not limited solely to the activists on the Left.

- Ian O’Doherty

Irish Independent

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

A few days ago we reported that Jon Cruddas was worried about Building Schools for the Future (BSF), a government project to build new schools or renovate existing ones.

The Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham South feared that stopping this project would not only increase the shortage of school places at a time when birth-rates increased almost 100% in eight years, but it would not encourage young families to move into the borough (and Labour plans to complete the ethnic cleansing of the borough would be foiled).

Well, nationalists will be delighted to know that the project to rebuild 700 schools will be axed in a new wave of cuts after ministers were ordered to draw up ‘doomsday’ proposals to slash spending by up to 40 per cent.

Education Secretary Michael Gove will announce £5billion of cuts over the next five years by halting the Building Schools For The Future programme to overhaul run-down schools.

The decision will anger parents and teachers and could lead to the loss of thousands of jobs in the construction industry.

It comes as Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander today unveils cuts across government totalling £1.5billion.

In addition to the £1billion that will go from the school building programme this year, a further £265million will be slashed from the Department for Business, £220million from local government and a further £55million will be cut from the Home Office.

But Mr Alexander has also written to the Cabinet telling ministers to prepare for the most swingeing cuts in the history of any Western country when the spending plans are finalised in October. Ministers have been given three weeks to prepare two packages of cuts – one involving 25 per cent, and the other totalling a staggering 40 per cent reduction.

Indeed this is another blow for the Labour party in Barking & Dagenham but very good news for nationalists.

We have said before that this problem was created by the Labour when they decided to swamp the borough with immigrants in order to dilute the electoral base of the British National Party.

Without this influx of third-world colonisers there wouldn’t be a shortage of school places, and there would be no need to build new schools and the people in Barking & Dagenham know this only too well. Life for Labour councillors is going to get very tough indeed and not just because they will be facing the fury of voters.

When Labour took control of the council they planned to bring more immigrants in in order to turn Barking & Dagenham into another Newham.

However, as it is now impossible to build new schools, it will be more difficult to convince young (and larger) families to move into the borough and this means that in 2014 the BNP still has a good chance to get councillors elected.

This is why Jon Cruddas is worried, and now that the BSF project has been scrapped he will have to spend more time and energy on fighting the BNP.

Interestingly the council launched a petition to save the £270m BSF project and the Barking & Dagenham Post invited readers to support it but only 31 people bothered. (against 50 councillors):

http://www.petition.co.uk/save-school-funding-in-barking-and-dagenham

So far the school projects that have been scrapped are:

All Saints

Barking Abbey

Barking Riverside Community (PFI)

Barking Riverside Special (PFI)

Eastbrook

Eastbury

Jo Richardson

Robert Clack

Trinity Special

Warren

Dagenham Park (sample- for discussion-PFI)

Sydney Russell (sample – for discussion)

How I said before the vistory for Labour came with a poisoned chalice.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

*Here there is a link of all the school projects affected in the UK:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/interactive/2010/jul/05/building-schools-for-the-future-michael-gove

Nationalists should look at how their areas have been affected.

Share

When George Osborne delivered the emergency budget he attracted a lot of criticism.

In many ways he deserved it, he will increase VAT to 20%, he refuses to slash spending on foreign aid, and will carry on giving money to the EU.

However, the critics got it wrong when they attacked Mr Osborne for his plan to overhaul the benefits system as this reform was long overdue.

Many were concerned at the introduction of a cap on housing benefits (HB) that for a four bedrooms house will be £400 a week, three bedrooms £340 and two bedrooms £290 regardless of where the property is in London.

The measure that will become effective next year has been blasted by many Labour politicians, charity workers and political commentators.

Below is a comment published in the Paddington & Westminster Times that I wanted to bring to the attention of nationalists, as it is unlikely they will get to read this local paper:

The cap on Housing Benefit, announced by Chancellor George Osborne last week as part of his ‘austerity budget’, has already provoked a backlash.

Opposition politicians and housing charities have warned of soaring homeless numbers and the break up of communities.

London’s rich social and ethnic diversity is central to what makes the capital one of the most popular cities in the world.

Brent stands as the forefront of this, as the most diverse borough in London.

If the cap, which imposes a blanket limit on how much Housing Benefit can be paid out regardless of local rental markets, goes ahead, we risk losing this reputation.

The danger is that poor families reliant of Housing Benefit to subsidise their rent, will be forced out of expensive parts of London and into poor ghetto in the north of London, where rents are cheaper.

Brent is a microcosm of what it may occur London wide. Rents are higher in the south, and Brent council will be under pressure to house people in the cheaper northerly wards.

Rich and poor will be separated by an invisible wall.

Other major cities bear the scars of such social divisions.

In Paris, the suburbs which encircle the more affluent centre have become a byword for poverty. And many of the large housing projects situated there are considered no go zones by more affluent Parisians.

The social tensions and simmering resentment this led to boiled over in 2005 when civil unrest hit the suburbs, sparking riots and car burnings.

We must do all we can to make sure London’s poor does not slip through the net as they have elsewhere, in the drive for cuts.

We recognise cuts must be made, but these are a step too far.

Now anyone can see this is typical marxist nonsense that nowadays is quite common to hear being spouted amongst the treacherous liberal elite in charge of this country.

However what nationalists would like to know is, why this cap on HB is a threat to the ethnic diversity of London?

It might be due to the vast majority of HB claimants in central London being immigrants and asylum seekers that are not supposed to be in this country in the first place, let alone living in a stately mansion at the taxpayers expense?

There are very few indigenous Britons left in central London, and therefore the claim that this cap will increase the number of homeless is rubbish and those people without accommodation should be kicked out of the country anyway.

For the few native Britons left in Westminster the best option would be to give them the council accommodation.

Unfortunately this is not possible because the few unsold council houses and flats have been given to immigrants and refugees.

This is the real scandal and this is what people with common sense see as a step too far, but journalists will never expose this scandal as it’s against the NUJ guidelines.

It’s also interesting to note that the comment talks about the French riots but fails to mention the fact that the rioters are second or third generation Muslims that have been allowed in against the wishes of the native French.

Sound familiar?

Of course it does and maybe the real fear is that the multiracial utopia they are so keen to promote and impose on us is going to collapse.

For all his faults George Osborne is right to put a cap on HB and if this helps to get rid rid of a few foreign scroungers then let’s go for it.

Unlike the treacherous elite, ordinary citizens never asked to live in a diverse society and I am sure this applies to the native Britons who once lived in Brent.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

Nationalists know only too well that the European Union is undemocratic and very dangerous.

Below you will find an interesting article published in Pravda written by a columnist disillusioned with the EU.

It’s worth a reading because it proves anti-EU ideas are spreading fast to countries that used to support the European Union.

The Monster that is the European Union

The European Union is the most undemocratic of institutions which exists only to serve the interests of those who for some reason are unable or unfit to enter the political hierarchy in their own member states and who pander to the interests of a clique of schemers and dreamers living in cloud cuckoo land under some demented illusion of a Quixotic chimera: a united Europe.

I was born outside the European Union in a country whose government had the bright idea to enter, without holding a referendum. I moved from this country to another one in Europe but outside the Union – Portugal. Again, the Government of this country decided to join. Without asking anyone. Nobody asked me where or how the money should be spent, nobody asked my opinion as to whether the structural funds were being well applied.

The US economist Michael Porter was asked to write a report, which was received with a scoffed sneer of derision by the Government of the then Prime Minister Anibal Silva (now President of Portugal), the man who claimed rarely to be in the wrong and usually in the right, through whose hands billions of Euros passed.

For what? The immediate result was a policy of public works which has gone on unabated in Portugal since the mid-1980s without producing any tangible results other than socio-economic indicators which become ever more depressing as countries like Cyprus and Malta move up the table and Portugal flounders and sinks lower and lower.

It is ironic that today a group of ex-Ministers of Finance of Portugal should be visiting President Silva, when it was precisely he who was the father of massive public spending in Portugal. Nobody asked me if I wanted Maastricht, nobody asked me if I wanted Nice, nobody asked me if I wanted the Treaty of Lisbon. Nobody asked me if I wanted to join the Euro and promptly see prices shoot up three-, four- or five-fold while salaries remained the same.

Nobody told me in any political manifesto that the ones who really control my pension and standard of living, the ones who really control the amount of taxes I pay at the end of the day are some faceless anonymities working in some rating agency on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean called Moody’s or Standard and Poors or Fitch.

They are the ones who unilaterally and anti-democratically attach some credit rating to Spain or Portugal or the Republic of Ireland or Italy or Greece (suppose we call them SPRIGs, symbolizing hope, instead of the derogatory “PIGS” which is an insult to those of us who worked hard all our lives in these countries?) And this credit rating has a direct effect on the coupons (interests) attached to the bonds, or national debt both at maturity (when the time for payment expires) and also upon the ability to sell new bonds (which affects income).

Nobody asked me if I wanted such a ludicrous scheme imposed on me, nobody told me that the financial system being created was unsustainable and subject to speculative raids. Not one single Government or European Institution has protected me even though I have spent decades fulfilling each and every single prerequisite that has been placed upon me.

Now as I near the age to receive my pension, because of the weird and wonderful anti-democratic European Union and its enlightened Eurocrats, I do not even know if I will have one. I do not know if I will receive my holiday subsidy. I do not know if the income I am supposed to receive will be available.

If this is the European Union, then I believe it is time to move one third and final time outside it and this time, never to come back in again.

John WHITEHOUSE

PRAVDA.Ru

http://www.moscowtopnews.com/

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

Nationalists have always known that one of the reasons council tax increased hugely under Labour is because mass immigration created greater demand for public services and so councils needed more money to cope with it.

Therefore it won’t surprise anybody to hear that the number of translators at Milton Keynes Community Language Service has increased from 20 to 300 since 2000.

The centre, part of Milton Keynes Council, now offers services in 84 languages rather than the original 12.

Twi, the second largest language in Ghana, Teluga, spoken in India, and Yoruva, used in Nigeria, are included on the centre’s list.

The centre provides a free 24-hour service to immigrants helping them understand housing, health, police and legal matters in Milton Keynes, Luton, Bedford and Northampton.

Staff are currently in the process of recruiting a further 20 interpreters and plan to add Pashto, an Afghan language, by the end of the year.

Gloria Drew, co-ordinator for the centre, said the services were in ”great demand” and the nature of users had changed significantly over the years.

She said: ”We have definitely seen a large increase in demand for our services and for different languages. When we first started we were helping those who were highly educated with professional jobs such as doctors.

”Now their relatives have arrived and they are not as highly educated and need our help more.

”Milton Keynes is a very multi-cultural and welcoming city with people from all over the world who speak many different languages living here.

”Our services are in great demand and we are often needed to help at health centres, various areas within the council, hospitals and law courts.

”The interpreters all have a six day training assessment which is very intense because they have to learn all the terminology for social services, health and housing.”

Milton Keynes Community Language Service is a self-funded body, as it charges ‘hirers’ by appointment and pays a proportion of the fee direct to the translators.

The above is another example of how hardworking British taxpayers are forced to pay more for people that are not supposed to be in this country in the first place.

Milton Keynes is just one example as there are plenty of council who waste money in interpreters and translations.

This is something that people should bear in mind when in the next few weeks the Lib-Con coalition raise taxes and cut vital services in order to reduce the £140bn fiscal deficit.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

Nationalists will remember when the Times and the Sunday Times printed smear articles based on lies in order to prevent people supporting the British National Party.

What they do is illegal but they were well aware BNP members don’t have the resources to go to court and libel laws don’t cover political parties.

The only thing we could do was to expose their lies and convince people to boycott those papers.

Apparently this strategy is working because The Times is set to cut up to 50 members of staff and reduce its editorial budget by around ten per cent to stem “unsustainable losses”.

James Harding, editor of The Times, told staff today that Times Newspapers Limited, the News International subsidiary which is home to The Times and The Sunday Times, was losing a “significant amount of money”.

Management had started a process to “cut costs, reduce our losses and free up resources for the future of our journalism”, Harding told staff in an internal memo. “We are looking to reduce our editorial budget by approximately ten per cent”, he said.

Harding told staff The Times had opened a voluntary redundancy process which would run for two weeks but that the company could not rule out compulsory redundancies.

He added: “Until we know the exact number of people who will be leaving voluntarily we will not know what the number of compulsory redundancies might be.

“While a voluntary redundancy programme will slightly extend the period of uncertainty, I hope that in these difficult times it will create some opportunities for people who choose to leave our business.”

The ten per cent editorial cut at The Times is expected to be mirrored across its sister paper the Sunday Times.

Harding told staff at a lunchtime briefing that around 50 posts could go and that editorial cuts would be made across all News International titles, including the Sun and the New of The World.

Pre-tax losses for the Times and Sunday Times in the year to June 2009 increased to £87.7m from £50.2m the year before.

“Our losses are unsustainable. We cannot ensure the long-term future of this paper and our futures in journalism if we cannot make a viable business out of The Times,” Harding’s memo added.

“Second, we are clearly in a period of galloping technological change and we need to ensure that we have the resources to invest so that we can lead the market in digital journalism.”

We have said in the past and we will keep saying it, if they are losing money and some journalists are made redundant they have no one to blame but themselves.

News International think they have the right to attack anyone who dares oppose their globalist agenda and when this is not enough they print stories based on lies.

This is a clear abuse of freedom of speech that in a normal country would be illegal.

They deserve no sympathy or support and we hope that more of them are sacked and they pay the price of their own arrogance and contempt.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

After the setback endured by the British National Party in the recent local and national elections, it was inevitable that the MSM and political commentators would crow about a BNP meltdown, and you can be sure more of those kind of articles will be published in the following days.

Actually the BNP had a small increase in the number of voters 1.8%, over half a million supported us and there is a solid body of supporters.

The aim of this BNP bashing is not just to demoralize BNP activists, but also a useful way to distract people from the hard times that lie ahead and it gives the three main parties a breathing space to avoid an embarrassing debate about the state of the economy.

Let’s start with the election results.

What is obvious is that no one won, and the main losers are not Labour, the Lib-Dem or the BNP but the Tories.

For David Cameron achieving a landslide victory should have been a walk in the park, after all he was challenging the worse PM in British history and leader of the most unpopular government in living memory.

Yet, far from getting a huge majority, the Tories managed a small increase that doesn’t gave them the power to govern alone.

It’s clear that they have a problem and we need comment no further on that, nationalists know very well what is wrong with them.

So now we have a hung parliament, a bad scenario in the best of the times but a nightmare now that the British economy is on the rocks.

By attacking the BNP the three main parties conveniently shift public attention from the sorry state of the British economy and the huge public deficit that must be reduced sooner rather than later.

Even if the economy recovers it will not generate new jobs, the rate of growth necessary will be too low, because people are still reducing consumption to pay-off debt.

Whoever is in power must increase taxes and must make big cuts that will adversely affect front line services, and a Greek style’ scenario of street riots and social unrest cannot be ruled out.

This will work in our favour because the more voters who are hit hard in their pockets the less they will support the three main parties, and this will be the time when the BNP make an unprecedented breakthrough.

Now it’s true that Labour now controls all the 51 seats in Barking & Dagenham but is this a victory they should be celebrating?

Maybe not.

Sooner or later they will have to deal with the council deficit and it may be, that central government will cut funding and therefore the council will have to increase council taxes and cut essential services.

And who will take the blame for that?

Without the BNP in opposition Labour will be forced to make unpopular decisions and will have to face the consequences of its actions.

We were hoping to take control of Barking & Dagenham, roll back the deficit, and show the other councils how to do it. This is no longer possible; and the new council will now face the anger of the voter when the tax’ rise the cuts come. We will be able to say with a degree of feeling; “we told you so”.

As for our Chairman Nick Griffin his third place in the election means more time to concentrate on his work in the EU (85% of British laws are made by the EU).

He is still an MEP and will last longer in his post, than the coalition in charge of a hung parliament will in Westminster.

Because of the result he can use his position as an MEP to expose the corrupt nature of the EU and show people the destructive effect it is having on Great Britain.

This task will be made easier by the new pan-European group of nationalist parties that should start work next year.

Far from finished!! The BNP is still active, although in a different way.

It is also worth remembering that immigration is still one of the main concerns for British voters and it’s not going away. it will get worse.

Labour stole victory from the BNP but it may turn out to be a pyrrhic’ victory.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

I reported in a previous article that one of the achievements of the BNP in Barking & Dagenham was that it brought St George Day into the borough again.

Never before has the council spent money on financing events aimed at celebrating and raising awareness of an important part of  English cultural heritage.

What we achieved is the exception rather than the rule and an article published on the Daily Star confirms that.

In a north London borough furious parents have blasted a school’s plans to shun St George’s Day today and celebrate Turkey instead.

Pupils brought home leaflets for International Turkish Day, which prompted one angry dad to rage: “We should be celebrating St George’s Day, not Turkish day.”

But headteacher Sue Maran, of Rokesly School in Hornsey, north London, said: “What it should say, and what we’re celebrating, is International Children’s Day.”

She said a lunch on offer had a Turkish theme.

This story proves, once again, that British education system has been infiltrated by Marxists with the aim of brainwashing British students by making them deny/forget their cultural past and convince them it is shameful to be English.

They did the same in Barking & Dagenham until the British National Party in 2006 had 12 councillors elected, and our activists have worked hard every year to organise a St George parade.

Would the council finance all those events without the BNP efforts to promote this cultural event?

Of course not.

What this school did is not just immoral but stupid, after all anyone can celebrate St George regardless of his/her ethnicity and in fact I’ve got a St George flag this morning from an Asian lady.

We don’t need to explain that this is part of a bigger plan aimed at the destruction of nations and creation of a new world order.

Therefore what has happened in Barking can be seen by nationalists as the victory of common sense over political correctness.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

Nationalists have always known that David Cameron is a liar and a traitor.

Further confirmation came last night when he claimed immigration would soar if Britain backed Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.

He warned voters away from the Lib Dems, claiming their amnesty for illegals would be disastrous.

Mr Clegg wants to give an estimated one million illegal immigrants in Britain permission to stay, and his party believes border controls should be relaxed.

The LibDems are enjoying a huge surge in their popularity after their leader’s convincing win in last week’s TV debate.

But Mr Cameron said voters would soon drop their support when the party’s policies were fully exposed. Panicking Tory chiefs are desperate to stop the Clegg “bounce” from harming their chances on May 6th. Advisers have told the Conservative leader to act tougher in the second TV debate on Thursday. The Tories have made a last-minute change of tactics to their party election broadcast aired last night to switch the attack from Labour to the Lib Dems.

Mr Cameron said: “It is the Conservatives who offer decisive change, anything else and you risk being stuck with what you have got.” It’s a bit rich for Mr Cameron to criticize Mr Clegg for proposing an amnesty for illegal immigrants when it was a Tory bigwig, Boris Johnson, who started campaigning for the same thing a few months ago.

Why doesn’t Mr Cameron attack Bojo with the same zeal?

Thus far we have not heard him, or anyone else from the Tory party, make any sort of  statement on the issue, so we must conclude that all Conservatives want an amnesty.

It is also amazing that Mr Cameron has managed to deceive voters about his plan to put a cap on the number of immigrants coming into the UK.

We have said many times that immigration and asylum policies are decided by the EU, so there is nothing the Conservative party can do to implement his plan.

Making this promise is deliberately lying to people and they are proving once again, that they are no better that the Labour party.

For all his faults, at least Mr Clegg is honest about his intentions and this may explain why he is riding high in the polls and the Tories are failing to capitalise on 13 years of Labour failures.

Only the British National Party is determined to stop this madness, and that is why the establishment is scared of us and will use any tool in their armoury to stop us.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

Many nationalists will remember that we reported on Iraqis voting for their general election in Iraq while living here in London, and about the Metropolitan Police Service (Force) deploying 200 Police officers to prevent trouble.

I believe it to be unconscionable that a Police force can find 200 officers to monitor immigrants voting who shouldn’t be here in the first place when those officers are badly needed on patrol in London streets.

I made a FOI request to the Metropolitan Police asking if the information reported in the Paddington & Westminster Times is correct.

Below is the response or rather the lack of it, because they refused to answer on the grounds that, by doing so they would help potential troublemakers.

Now I find this statement hilarious because the article clearly stated that 200 Police officers have been deployed, and therefore troublemakers would have the information anyway.

What troublemakers, do they mean sectarian violence from Iraqis will spill onto UK streets?

What follows is the so called reply, and I believe it’s time to expose the uncomfortable truth.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010030002888

I write in connection with your request for information dated 12/03/2010 which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 12/03/2010. I note you seek access to the following information:

* I read in a local paper that between March 5 and March 7 2010 Iraqis went to vote in the national elections in Iraq. The election took place in Wembley, in the borough of Brent. Apparently 200 Police officers have been deployed to prevent trouble. Under the FOI act I would like to know:

1) Can you confirm that 200 officers were deployed to prevent trouble?
2) How much this operation cost to the Metropolitan Police?

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted with the Brent Borough.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located records relevant to your request.

DECISION

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release the information requested. This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

This information is exempt under section 31(1)(a)(b) Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FoIA) governing Law Enforcement. This letter therefore serves as a refusal notice. The relevant sections from the Freedom of Information Act can be seen below in the Legal Appendix below.

As s.31 FoIA is a qualified and prejudice based exemption I am required to provide you with a prejudice test evidencing any harm and complete a public interest test.

Prejudice Test under s.31 FoIA:

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.

If officer deployment data on specific dates were released into the public domain there could potentially be substantial harm to the Police Service, as it could inhibit its ability to fulfill its core functions. The release of the number of officers on a specific date would furnish individuals or groups having the necessary intent to disrupt police activity with the necessary information to effectively do just that, thereby hindering future operational activity. This rational also applies to question 2 where you requested the cost of this policing this event. This is because to release the costs would inadvertently provide you with the number of officers deployed during the dates requested.

This would consequently increase the capability for criminals to target innocent members of the public. Any release of information that would be likely to prejudice a police services’ ability to prevent and/or detect crime could only be viewed as being harmful to members of the public.

Public Interest Test under s.31 FoIA:

The aim of the Freedom of Information Act is to make government bodies more open and transparent. Releasing officer deployment data would make the MPS openly accountable for officer staffing levels, proving police deploy their resources in the most suitable manner with the numbers available. Additionally, where public money is being spent, there is ultimately public interest in where and how public money is spent. Providing the public with details of how we spend public funds and use our resources show that Brent Borough on these dates have utilised their biggest resource, officers, efficiently. This would greatly contribute to the accountability and scrutiny of the MPS allocation of resources and would also widen the public debate.

The information requested relates to the efficiency and effectiveness of the force or its officers. Regarding your request, forces may be obliged to prove to the general public they are actively involved in initiatives to reduce crime, thus ensuring public safety and confidence on these specific dates. The release of the requested information would demonstrate to the public the measures taken by the police to utilise resources where and when they are believed by the public to be most needed.

As you may be aware, disclosure under FOIA is a release to the public at large and indeed there is a strong argument to release the information you have requested. However, to disclose the information you have requested into the public domain could potentially compromise the current and future law enforcement role of the MPS by disclosing those areas that can be exploited. To release this data could prevent the Service from preventing and detecting crime, as well as hinder our ability to apprehend offenders. This is because this would reveal potential strength on a specific day and could be used in future to determine the potential officer strength at such occasions.

In support of this rationale outlined in the previous paragraph, I would like to draw your attention to the following Information Commissioners Decision Notice (Reference: FS50123769). This request was for officer deployment at a specific football match, and the Information Commissioner was of the opinion that when determining whether to disclose the deployment of police officers at football matches they were in favour of non-disclosure and determined that section 31 was rightly engaged. The Decision Notice states at page 8 states: ‘…where disclosure of the information would compromise tactics that may be employed in future, similar police operations the information falls within the exemption at s.31 of the Act. Information on the numbers of officers and how they are deployed throughout the match together with the geographical area covered by the operation is similarly exempt as it could be used to identify any weaknesses in such an operations and to
identify locations where criminal activity is less likely to be detected. This would be likely to be of assistance to those planning disorder at football matches in the future.’ The Decision Notice goes on to further state: ‘….to release this information could either expose weaknesses in the police operation or increase the vulnerability of officers. The Commissioner is satisfied therefore that this information is exempt.’

To read the full Decision Notice please see the follow the following link:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2006/Decision_Notice_FS50123769.pdf

Here we can see a strong similarity to your request. Although the information requested by this applicant was for historic information about officer deployment at football matches, links can be made to your request for historic information about deployments on borough on specific events and days. The Information Commisioner was of the opinion that to disclose the requested information into the public domain would invariably release law enforcement techniques. I believe the same applies here, as argued above. Releasing our law enforcement techniques and capabilities will be detrimental to the MPS’ ability to prevent and detect crime, and to apprehend and prosecute offenders. Police resources and our protection role would likely to be negatively affected and manipulated by those with criminal intent to obtain an unfair advantage over MPS resources. Upon this basis I find it is not in the public interest to compromise the MPS commitment to being
efficient and effective in our role as law enforcers.

Furthermore, information regarding police deployment data is a valuable commodity to individuals (and/or organisations) wishing to commit crime, as it provides an insight into tactics and resources available to the MPS. Those seeking to commit criminality could counter any future policing tactics and elude justice. This will ultimately have a detrimental impact on innocent members of the public living or traveling within the Brent Borough. Therefore, releasing the requested information regarding deployment data on the 5th, 6th and 7th March 2010 could leave Brent vulnerable to criminals utilising the information for malicious intent, including potential terrorist threats. This could lead to an increase in crime if offenders believed they were less likely to be apprehended in the future. This is particularly the case if they obtained the information for various London boroughs on these specific dates, enabling them to ‘map’ periods of officer
deployment over the capital.

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest. As crime prevention/detection is in the ‘public’s interest’, any release of information which would be likely to prejudice our ability to prevent and/or detect crime could only be viewed as being harmful to the public interest. I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh disclosing information relating to the number of officers deployed on these specific dates. Therefore, this information is exempt.

Share

George Galloway, the Respect MP for Bethnal Green & Bow, once stated that when Britain was 90% white it was really bad as the best you could have was fish and chips.

He is not alone because his view is shared by many self-loathing treacherous white bleeding heart liberals, who are more than happy to swamp Britain with third-world immigrants for their own benefit.

Nationalists have known for years that this wave of immigrants brought new kinds of crime, unheard of only a couple of decades ago.

During the old “fish and chips only” days no one would have believed the time would come when gangs of foreigners would be killing each other, and us, with MAC10s and Uzis.

Many nationalists will remember that a few months ago a Turk, Cem Duzgun was blasted to death with an Uzi-style sub-machinegun in a suspected gangland turf war.

Detectives released images of the two hitmen and announced a £20,000 reward for information. Mr Duzgun was shot dead at 10.45pm on 5 October last year as he played snooker at a Turkish social club in Clapton.

Mr Duzgun had gone to the club to play snooker and died when the men walked up to the door of the premises and opened fire indiscriminately. Police recovered at least 10 bullet casings.

Mr Duzgun lived with his family in Islington and worked at a clothes store in Croydon. Detectives say he died because he was closest to the door. They say he was not known to be associated with gangs or crime and described him as a “complete innocent”.

His murder is believed to be at least the third linked to a war between the Bombacilar (Bombers) gang and their rivals the Tottenham Boys.

Three days earlier Turkish national Oktay Erbasli, 23, was murdered when a motorcycle gunman pulled up alongside his Range Rover at traffic lights in Tottenham. The murders have sparked fears of escalation in a turf war between Turkish gangs over control of the heroin trade.

Detective Chief Inspector John Oldham, who is leading the inquiry, said: “Of course there is a Turkish element to this but I believe this involves criminal associations involving people of mixed nationalities.

One suspect is described as a light-skinned black man in his early twenties, of medium height and slim, wearing a navy or black jacket, grey hooded top, blue jeans and white trainers.

This is not an isolated case, there is a problem with black and asian gangs carrying out violent crimes and controlling vast criminal activities.

This is just one of the effects of mass immigration, and we are right to be angry because those people shouldn’t be in this country in the first place.

Labour knew about the untoward effects of immigration, and recently disclosed documents prove that they deliberately omitted any mention of the risk that immigrants would increase crime rates because it would have made it harder to convince British voters of the benefits from immigration.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

If  nationalists need an examplar of a country which put the interests of its citizens first, Belgium wouldn’t be at the top of any list!!!!

This artificial small country made up of two different peoples, Flems and Walloons, each with their own institutions and governments can be used as a case study for what is wrong with all multiracial societies.

Like many other countries it has been enriched to an extent that in many large cities whites are now a minority.

It is therefore surprising that a vote against the wearing of face-covering veils in public was unanimously voted for last Wednesday. This legislation represents a major legislative step, which could make Belgium the first European country to impose such a religious prohibition.

The full House of Representatives is expected to vote on the issue late April.

The Interior Affairs Committee representing all major parties unanimously voted on Wednesday to back the bill. The six parliamentarians from the MR french-speaking liberal party said the principle of “recognize to know” trumped other considerations in the issue.

“We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen,” said Daniel Bacquelaine, who proposed the bill. “It is necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and encloses an individual,” he said, adding he was not targeting the classic headscarf worn by many Muslim women.

The parliamentarians are specifically targeting the body-covering burqa and face-veiling niqab, which are still very rare features in Belgian public life. “We have to act as of today to avoid (its) development,” Bacquelaine said.

“Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society,” he said.

In Belgium, the proponents of the ban argue that such all-covering garb poses security issues as well as threatens democratic values. Some feared, however, that the bill would not stand a legal challenge.

Belgium is not an isolated case.

In France on Tuesday, the Council of State, the nation’s highest administrative body, warned that a prohibition on full-body Islamic veils in public risked being found unconstitutional. President Nicolas Sarkozy said last year that such clothing was “not welcome” in France.

Such a ban could also be challenged at the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights.

Let’s hope that Belgium can pass this ban and finally make clear that anyone must accept our laws and way of life.

We can of course expect most liberals to cry “racism” and accuse Belgium of being intolerant, but the fact is that no one asked indigenous Europeans if they wanted Muslim immigrants in the first place.

No one wants Saudi Arabia to become Christian and so therefore no one can force us to change our way of life to suit  people that shouldn’t be here in the first place.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

The dream of every nationalist is to see the British National Party in power.

Unfortunately a dream is not enough given that the enemy within are the marxists (often unelected and unaccountable) holding key positions in the civil service, the Police, the judiciary and the education system and, of course, MSM.

Getting rid of those traitors is essential but will be far from easy.

This is why nationalists should take encouragement from the news that a BNP councillor has joined the governing body of a city high school – because none of the other parties put up candidates.

Councillor Steve Batkin will fill one of the three vacancies at Edensor High School, in Longton.

He was elected unopposed after the other political groups failed to put up alternatives.

Councillors had previously accused the BNP group of using underhand tactics to get its members elected as school governors.

They complained that the BNP had sprung nominations at the last minute, breaking the unwritten rule that candidates have to be announced in advance.

On this occasion the BNP followed this rule, declaring its nomination a week before the meeting.

Council leader Ross Irving, who also leads the Conservative group, said the Tories had been unable to find a suitable candidate for Edensor.

But he admitted that he was disappointed that none of the other groups had put up a nomination either, allowing Mr Batkin to be elected unopposed. He said: “I think this shows how difficult it can be to get people to commit to being a school governor. It isn’t like it used to be when the role wasn’t very onerous”.

“It is worrying that the BNP were the only group which could find a candidate. I certainly hope Mr Batkin will bear in mind the educational mix found at that particular school.”

In October the BNP failed to get two of its members elected as governors at Longton High School and St Augustine’s Primary School, both in Meir.

Although the BNP group waited until halfway through a full council meeting to make its nominations, the Labour group also put up candidates, who were both elected.

But this time there were no nominations forthcoming from the group.

Labour leader Mohammed Pervez said: “I very much hope that other mainstream political parties will now join forces to ensure that more people put their names forward for these important positions.”

BNP group leader councillor Michael Coleman says he has been left disappointed by members of his party being blocked from joining schools.

Mr Coleman, a governor at Longton High School, said: “It’s disappointing that other groups don’t back us being governors. I have voted for members of other parties in the past as it is important vacancies for governors are filled”.

“It seems they would rather see them left empty or get the wrong people in just to keep us out. It’s essential if the city is to progress to get the governing bodies working correctly”.

“Steve Batkin will do his best for Edensor.”

There are now seven schools in Stoke-on-Trent which have BNP councillors as governors.

The other six are: Longton High, Meir; Carmountside Primary School, Abbey Hulton; Mitchell Business and Enterprise College, Bucknall; Middlehurst School, Chell; Maple Court Primary, Bentilee; and Park Hall Primary.

Having BNP members as school governors is the first step in preventing schools being used as a tool of political indoctrination that has damaged students and British society.

This is not a racial issue because any parent, white British, Black or Asian will agree with us that teaching six-year old kids about gay sex and promoting homosexuality to them is socially wrong and totally reprehensible.

The same can be said for lack of discipline and other topics parents and the BNP are concerned about, this article has nothing to do with ethnicity, and therefore I see no reason for anyone to disagree with us.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

Nationalists will remember how a few days ago we reported how UNITE, a union that is bankrolling the Labour party, called off a debate because one of the panellists was a BNP member.

Below there is an article from Ian Lucas in Eastbourne Today that blasts this decision.

He is not fan of the BNP and he mistakenly believes that our policies can be exposed and voters can be easily convinced not to support us.

It’s a nonsense, as ordinary people who are struggling and suffering because of immigration will carry on supporting us, whatever people like Mr Lucas write in their articles.

Nonetheless it’s worth a read as he makes some good points that will surely upset many antifascists, nothing makes them more furious that a local paper defending the right of BNP members to express their views.

It is no surprise to me that UNITE, one of the Unions bankrolling the Labour Party, is afraid of democracy.
They stopped a political debate going ahead in Eastbourne the other day because the BNP were due to take part.

This is ridiculous, reminiscent of those who didn’t want the BNP on Question Time a few months ago.

Just because we don’t like what they stand for doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to say it. All that does is gives the BNP a notoriety that they thrive upon.

The Herald itself said this was not an easy decision. I disagree. I think it was.

The debate should have gone ahead.

Whether you like or loathe them, the BNP are a legal political party, and if we really do live in a tolerant country that believes in free speech it is an outrage that we try to keep views we may not like quiet.

The UNITE union seem to think that the BNP will go away if we ignore them.

I’ve got news for them. They won’t.

Even Labour is in on this. I don’t know what they are frightened of?

The Hastings Labour MP Michael Foster, a very decent man, has also said he won’t share a platform with the BNP. Again a bad decision.

We are only a few weeks away from a general election campaign. I am sad that we have to put up with a BNP candidate in Eastbourne – but make no mistake they have an absolute right to stand. And if we don’t challenge them for their views, exposing the issues upon which we disagree, we can be pretty sure they will have a higher vote than they deserve, and we will have to put up with them at every election.

If we challenge them and expose that their policies don’t stack up to scrutiny, they won’t survive for long.

In Eastbourne we normally have a few public hustings meetings in Churches and the Town Hall. I hope that happens again this year and that organisers don’t bottle out because they don’t like the ‘far right’ BNP (who are actually a far left organisation).

Now just for the record, I believe the BNP to be small minded and fundamentally misguided, and they wouldn’t get my vote in a million years. But I would absolutely defend their right to say what they believe. How else can democracy thrive?

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

Image via Wikipedia

Probably few nationalists are aware that France held regional elections last Sunday but the results will delight plenty of them as one of the winners is Jean Marie Le Pen’s  National Front.

All but crushed after the 2007 presidential elections, the National Front, or FN, confounded polling predictions to reap almost 12 per cent of the national vote.

Mr Sarkozy’s Right-wing UMP group scored a worse-than-expected 26.18 per cent and is heading for a drubbing in next Sunday’s run off.

The opposition Socialists came in first with 29.48 per cent of the vote and are expected to join forces with the green-minded Europe Ecologie party, which came third with 12.7 per cent.

But the FN result was Sunday night’s biggest surprise, coming in the wake of a year-long recession in France and a regional campaign in which Mr Sarkozy’s camp has repeatedly beaten the drum of national identity and immigration.

Mr Le Pen, 81, who founded the FN in 1972 and is probably fighting his last electoral battle was jubilant after Sunday’s result.

“The National Front was declared beaten, dead, buried by the president,” Mr Le Pen said late on Sunday.

“This shows that it is still a national force, and probably destined to become greater and greater.

It got a record 20.29% of votes in the Provence-Alpes Cote d’Azur region; this was its highest ever in a first-round regional ballot. In 12 of the 22 mainland French regions the FN won more than the 10% necessary to go through to the second round.

The showing is a far cry from the dismal 6.8 per cent the FN mustered in European elections last year and the just 4.3 per cent Le Pen won in the 2007 presidential vote.

Martine Aubry, the Socialist leader, instantly accused Mr Sarkozy of “re-opening a door for the FN”. The President, she said, “led this debate on national identity aimed at opposing French from here with French from elsewhere or foreigners, well (in doing so) he opened a door”.

Mr Sarkozy, via his immigration minister, Eric Besson, launched a national identity debate aimed at getting citizens to define what it means to be French on Internet forums and public meetings.

These often descended into anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rants. France has around six million Muslims, Europe’s biggest minority.

Critics said the debate was a ploy to woo back the FN electorate, which Mr Sarkozy did successfully during the presidential campaign. His party has also led a campaign to ban the wearing of the full Islamic veil in France.

During its campaign, the FN played on fears by releasing a poster that read “No to Islamism”, and depicting woman wearing a full Islamic veil and an Algerian flag superimposed on a map of France with minarets portrayed as missiles.

A French court banned the poster in a ruling two days before the first round vote, saying it was offensive to Muslims. Mr Le Pen, however, displayed it during his television appearance.

The strong FN score puts Mr Le Pen’s daughter, Marine, in a strong position to succeed him as head of the party; the 41-year-old boosted her credentials by winning 18.3 per cent in the poor northern Pas-de-Calais region.

The abstention rate for the ballot was put at 52 per cent – a record low for a French regional election.

Anyone who is familiar with France knows that there is a problem of young second-third generation Muslims who riot on the street very often.

Even if French MSM do their best to don’t report those incidents, ordinary people know there is a problem and government has a tough job trying to strike a balance between secularism and integration of the Muslim minority.

Any attempt to force Muslims to accept western way of life, even if is supported by the majority of French voters, is strongly opposed by many Muslims that in many seats can decide the outcome of an election.

It wouldn’t be a surprise if the increase in support for the Socialists is due entirely to the Muslims who decided to vote for them en masse.

Let’s hope Mr Le Pen can consolidate his supports in the second round of the regional ballots.

GIUSEPPE DE SANTIS

Share

All BNP members, and if not members then nationalists, will be pleased to hear that the famed Welshman, ‘The Green Arrow’ has a new media stream.

http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/index.php/extras/voice-of-the-british-resistance

Here is the link to his inestimable blog.

http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/

Enjoy, and disseminate.

Share

We are looking for more contributors to help bring news and information to the patriotic people of London. Do you have an interest in news and events in and around London and want to share this with others?

Ideally we are looking for people to contribute items with a London theme, whether that be reporting on events or commentary on news items relating to immigration, crime, education, health, transport or indeed anything else affecting Londoners.

Although we are happy to accept contributions of a more national or international nature, as you are aware we already have some able contributors dealing with such issues and we are now looking to add a more London focussed feel to the site.

If this interests you then please send an email to admin@londonpatriot.org and we will set you up with a contributor account.

Help us to make London Patriot the number one resource for London nationalists.

Share