This is the transcript by V. S. of Jonathan Bowden’s September 17, 2009 British National Party stump speech in from somewhere in the North of England. A few unintelligible words are marked ???. If you can make out what Bowden is saying, please post a comment below.
To listen in a player, click here .
To download the mp3, right-click here  and choose “save link as” or “save target as.”
To subscribe to our podcasts, click here .
Thanks very much! I always talk about what’s in the news and I advise people not to necessarily believe everything they read on the site called UAF.
Now, what’s been going on in the world since I was up this way last? Well, Trevor Phillips has announced that he wants to change the constitution of this political party. For those who don’t know, Mr. Phillips is head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is the successor body to the Commission for Racial Equality or what in the late 1960s was the Race Relations Board. It’s also merged with all sorts of other alleged oppressions in relation to gender, in relation to age to a degree — although that’s been enforced by the European Union — in relation to homosexuality, in relation to transsexuality, or persons of transgendered non-specificity; it’s concerned with disability; it’s concerned with all sorts of things. It receives a hundred million pounds a year, this organization, of your money, and Brown says he wants to cut the budget deficit, and he wants to reduce the overspends that he’s spent to get us out of this recession, which has been digging away for the last 10-12 years. I think he could start with the Equality and Human Rights Commission! Get rid of them all! Starting with Mr Phillips!
Mr. Phillips says he is not an extremist, but in his office, in his bureau in the middle of London, he’s got a portrait of Karl Marx on his wall. So, what is he saying by that? He’s saying that he’s in favor of militant equality; he’s in favor of militant egalitarianism.
But there are certain groups that he doesn’t like. He doesn’t like the people who vote for this party. He doesn’t like white working class people particularly, particularly in the north of England but elsewhere will do. He doesn’t care for anyone, irrespective of social background, who votes to the Right of UKIP.
He regards one of his jobs as preventing this party winning seats, and obviously he’s having a bit of trouble internally and bureaucratically for many reasons, one of which was the return of two British National Party members of the European Parliament in the last European election. One for the northwest of England and one for Yorkshire and Humber. I’m very pleased to see the reemergence of Mr. Andrew Brons, who is the former chairman of an organization called the National Front and has been involved in Right-wing British politics for many decades.
Phillips and his clique are attempting to impose a constitutional change on this party that will open the door, allegedly, to non-white members. Now, he’s been planning this for a long time, and it was first mooted the better part of 4-5 years ago. Philips himself is under a great deal of pressure because half of his executive board inside his bureaucratic group have resigned and there’s lots of scandals over where the money’s gone and over management practice and so on within this particular institution.
It has to be said that lots of these people fight in these bureaus like rats in a sack even though they are pathologically opposed to what this country once was, to a proportion of its indigenous population and to what it might be again.
There’s no need for Phillips, there’s no need for his bureaucracy, there’s no need for the boards and committees out of which they came, there’s no need for these politically correct laws and there’s no need to change this party’s constitution in my opinion. I believe the members should decide the constitution, and it’s quite clear what they’ve decided hitherto.
It is understandable that one of the reasons this sort of weapon has been fired at the party is to drag the party into the courts, is to entrammel it in legal procedure where only the lawyers win, where you rack up a case of £80,000 and then you get the cost against you because the case has been prior arranged so that you can’t win. So, a bear trap has been dug out in the sand, and the gravel before you, and like an idiot, like the charge of the Light Brigade, you go straight down into it. So, there’s a degree to which it’s quite obvious people want to tiptoe around the side and not go down into that tiger trap and be embroiled in the nets.
I personally think, though, that the case ought to be defended at least the first time around. I don’t think you can just wave your hand in the air and say, “We’re totally against it. Oops! We surrender.” I think you’ve got to actually do something even if you’re forced to do it. Partly because you’re seen to be acting then under distrait, you’re seen to be pushed into it, you’re seen not to fire your pop-gun in non-anger and then sulk in the corner.
So, I think even if a senior party official defends it, which would obviate barristers’ and solicitors’ costs on the defense side, and even if you then go down to defeat, you budget for the nature of that defeat and spread it over a certain time. I think that would be better, personally, then just sort of dropping dead as soon as Phillips waves his bit of paper in the air.
But make no bones about it, various laws have been passed by New Labour since they came in in ’97. There’s probably been 8 through 10 acts which deal with militant equality of various sorts. There’s a degree to which anyone who speaks in public, or semi-public in relation to this meeting now, has to make sure that anything they say is well within the remit of all the laws that have been passed. This is why the language that people use is, in my case anyway, abstract to a degree and it has to be. The point of these laws is to prevent people from speaking emotionally or from the heart rather than in a philosophical or abstract or intellectual or semi-intellectual way. Freedom of speech to intellectuals who have illiberal opinions has been allowed. The point of these laws is to prevent particularly, but not exclusively, indigenous working class people from saying the truth as they see it about the way in which the country has changed around them in the last 40 to 50 years. This is why these laws have been introduced: the laws that created the Race Relations Board, the laws that portended the creation of the Commission for Racial Equality and its attendant Commission for Sexual Equality and this new hyper-ministry led by Phillips.
In the old days, white elitist liberals used to lead these organizations, lords and liberal peers, usually executive members of the Liberal Party, as it then was. Now, after Ouseley, we have Phillips, and Phillips is under pressure because the British National Party has risen. Ouseley, who of course was chairman of this commission or the CRE that preceded it before Phillips, criticizes Phillips because the British National Party’s won elections as if his remit is actually to stop one political party in the country. Phillips’ remit is to impose equality in relation to alleged oppression and/or “discrimination” in all areas of the society, but one of his prime textual, down-in-the-basement targets is to make sure that parties that stand for a different set of values, such as prior patriotism, don’t get anywhere.
The key test whenever the conservatives win, and most media pundits think that Cameron will be leader in under a year, is whether they will sweep away all this. Margaret Thatcher and Michael Portillo in the late 1980s did actually have a few internal governmental policy papers about abolishing these quangos, which are anti-white and anti-British and anti-English and anti-Welsh and anti-Ulster Irish and anti-post-Irish in Britain and anti-Scottish and anti-white proletarian and anti-bourgeois and anti-heterosexual and anti-disabled.
You see, these are quite discriminatory bodies! Even though they say they are for love and justice and inclusion and tolerance and they love everybody to death and they dislike nobody at all. But if you actually look at them in a different way and you cast the ideology that comes out of Phillips’ bureaucracy in a different light, you realize that they have groups to which they are antagonistic, they have individuals drawn from those groups to which they are even more antagonistic, and they wish to deny such persons freedom of speech.
Earlier in the 20th century, our fathers and grandfathers were told that they had fought, they fought against Germany, they fought against fascism, they fought against imperial Germany in the First World War between 1914-18, you may have seen some of the very elderly veterans who are basically dying now (93, 89, 96, 109, 106, 104). As these men went over the top in 1914-18, in Flanders fields, at the Somme, at Passchendaele, at Ypres and elsewhere, were they fighting for tolerance and inclusion? Were they fighting for Mr. Phillips to impose his bureaucratic remit upon future generations of this country? When men got out of their tanks and fried an egg on the side of it in the North African desert in the Second World War, were they fighting for tolerance and inclusion? Were they fighting for Mr. Phillips to impose laws upon them here in the north of England and elsewhere to describe what they can say even in private, even in a text message between friends, even in an office in the public or the private sector?
No, they weren’t fighting for tolerance and inclusion! They were fighting for glory! They were fighting for this country! They were fighting for England and Britain! They were fighting for what their old rulers had told them about what the future would be like if they lost. They were fighting for a degree of ethnic and racial pride that was unstated because the whole English conspectus that you didn’t really go on about that because it was accepted as a norm to begin with and therefore you didn’t need to illustrate it too much because it was a given before you even started. They were fighting for the flags that were behind them.
Many of them didn’t know what was coming and certainly didn’t know that the Great War was a form of mechanized death in which we would lose 800,000 men. 800,000! And look around this country now! What did they die for? And many more maimed and injured on top of that core 800,000, and that’s just in the First World War.
What did they die for? Did they die for a multicultural Britain? Did they die for a multi-ethnic Britain? Did they die for a politically correct Britain? Did they die for 200,000 abortions a year? Did they die for the absence of the death penalty? Did they die for liberal-Left censorship that denies the rights even of a private conversation up to a certain perspective? Did they die for the right of men to marry each other and adopt children? Did they die for all of these things? Or did they actually fight for something different?
I would hazard to guess that they actually fought for a society that we had a proportion of but which has now been dipped down to such a degree that even to mention it is incorrect, is transgressive, is anti-system, is mentally criminal or treated largely as such.
This society was once relatively free of drugs. Never free of crime, but freer than it is now. Look at the center of some of our cities like Birmingham and elsewhere, England’s second city. In the center of Handsworth in the middle of Birmingham, criminal gangs control large parts of the economy there. There are two gangs in Handsworth, both Afro-Caribbean gangs. One’s called the Johnson Crew, and the other’s called the Burger Bar Boys. They’re gangs. They have buildings in the center of Handsworth. These aren’t just lads sort of skulking around in car parks; they own property. They have criminal mafias. These things are developing in our cities fueled by the drug economy.
One in four youths between 16 and 25 is now unemployed. This country is technically bankrupt despite the actual coin that seems to be still in people’s pockets. Unemployment is 2.5 million, but will rise to 3 million by the turn of the year, beginning of the next. If you add in all the people who are claiming, all the people who don’t want to work, all the people who are on the sick, all the people who have been miscalculated as to whether they are unemployed or not . . . Don’t forget: Thatcher changed how you calculate unemployment 17 times between ’79 and ’90, and Major did nothing to change it, and Prescott and the others screamed and jumped up and down in the House of Commons, but they kept those statistical analyses when they came in in ’97. So, unemployment is well over 3 million now.
And don’t forget that at least a million Polish people have gone back to Poland, so there’s a degree to which there’s a certain element of unemployment that’s sort of been farmed out. They came because of EU laws that permitted such travel by persons across European boundaries in the last couple of years when the economy was booming.
But was it really booming? Or was it just a trash capitalist boom fueled by debt? You got up in the morning and there was 3 new credit cards on the mat. “Zero percent!” “Buy now! Worry later!” After six months the APR is 29.5%. Do you remember all those letters and all those cards? Everyone in this room is 55 grand in debt. That’s after the bail-out and in relation to the actual corporate debt. Add up the Waitrose and the debit and the co-op and the Tesco and the store cards and the debt that has been put in to save the banks, all of which crashed around a year ago, and we’re all in debt to this degree.
Brown was lying recently when he said that the Tories would only cut and they would invest prior to a form of non-cut. Labour will cut 10% off all budgets after the election if they win, and they’re not going to win, and the Tories will cut it deeper and harsher.
But I think that these depressive times, economically enable you to look at a broader and a wider picture: there’s all sort of things that could be cut in this society, aren’t there? The special hospitals cost a billion a year for large numbers of psychopaths and those who are the equivalent of the murderers of Baby P. Hang them, and close these institutions.
Get rid of every politically correct item on the governmental agenda at the local level: multiple language translations at the regional and sub-parliamentary and devolved level, similar sorts of bureaucracies, Phillips’ bureaucracy at a higher level. Get rid of all of the panoply of EU laws and regulation that restricts business, that denies the rights of English and British people to do what they want in their own country, leave the European Union, which frees you from an enormous forest of laws and which enables you to decide again who is British and who is not, who is English and who is not, who is patriotic and who is not, who is in favor of the country’s development and who is not, who has the best interests of the society at heart and who in turn does not.
Because the people who do not have the interests of this country at heart are running the BBC, are running the Labour government, are running the Commission for Human Equality. Some of them are running the NHS, some of them are running the Bank of England, fewer of them are in our armed forces, which is why our armed forces are always on the other side of the world, always fighting other people’s wars at the behest of the United States.
Michael Portillo was asked in the 1990s when he was Defence Minister, which is an important post in a Tory government to a degree, unlike a Labour government, “What’s our foreign policy?” and he once replied, “We don’t have a foreign policy. It’s decided for us by the United States.”
And the United States in particular, amongst many other initiatives all over the world, even though it’s in radical decline, is obsessed with the fate of a particular society in the Middle East and is determined that it must be defended at all costs, and we’ve had a war tangentially in Afghanistan and ruinously in Iraq in relation to a proportion of those measures, putting it as moderately as possible, and there are many who would like to attack Iran as a third option, as World War Four, as some people call it. We will be dragged into these disputes and into these wars on the tail end of American power.
I don’t need to tell you that America has changed a great deal. Since 1968-69, 70 million persons of color have entered the United States. 70 million! The election of Barack Obama isn’t a strange fluke. He is representative of most American cities and what they have become. America is teetering on the bridge of not the Second World, but the Third World. When Obama became president, the CIA gave him a report. That report said that America will be in the Third World by the end of this century, that China and India will be more important by 2050, and that there will be a nuclear war in the Middle East in the next 25 years on present trends.
The CIA gets many things wrong and did not predict 9/11, but they did predict the war between Russia and Georgia a year ago, so they get the odd one right. If you throw enough darts at the board, you occasionally get a 180, you see what I mean? But Obama is typical of what that country has become, and we are such an Americanized society now, look around you, in the country and the culture as a whole that what often goes there happens here.
The gang culture which I mentioned in Birmingham proliferated in Los Angeles and other big cities in the United States and has come here after a lag of 10 to 20 years. Mass abortion, civil rights, rights for minorities, sexual and otherwise, partly an American prerequisite, came here, although there were Western European tendencies in that regard simultaneously with the social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s. The pressure to conform to international bodies, such as the EU and the United Nations, and to push us in various ways and deny nation-state sovereignty so that we can’t make independent decisions about our economy and about our military usage. This again imprisons us in various ways.
Most liberals believe it’s unthinkable to get out of these structures, unthinkable to think in another way about political reality. It’s not unthinkable at all! But our people need the will to grasp it, the will to not always reach for the beer in front of them, the will to turn Sky Sports off for a moment, the will to wonder why Cameron and Clegg and Brown always sound the same and always say the same things. They’re all in favor of these wars; they’re all in favor of US power; they’re all in favor of our troops being abroad in wars that are directly not in our ultimate self-interest; they’re all in favor of membership in the EU; they’re all in favor of bailing the banks out; they’re all in favor of the economics that led to those bail-outs; they’re all in favor of mass immigration. Why? Because they’re all liberals! And because liberalism is a system.
Most people look at the box and they think, “Why are Labour and Tories so near? Why are they so close? Why does Brown occasionally make conservative remarks, and Cameron wears a red tie and says he’s a progressive? Why is this political transvestism going on as they launch into each other and exchange garments?” And you’ve got Mandelson stood in between Brown and Cameron exchanging even more garments, because he wants to. People wonder, “Why are they there, and why are they similar? Why is the political tension that for previous generations between the red and the blue was very intense, where’s it all gone?” It’s all gone and all been dissipated because they stand basically for the same thing!
Whatever one thinks of the Tories, can you imagine Sir Alec Douglas-Home, he was Tory leader the year I was born in the early 1960s, being a member of United Against Fascism? Can you imagine that? He would think that they were persons who needed a wash. When Alec Douglas-Home, who was regarded as being very “out of touch,” was asked on the equivalent of Panorama in 1963, “What do you think of the recent rise in unemployment?” Raising a stick, he said, “Oh, there’s room for a new gamekeeper on my estate.” That was when the Tories were something different, weren’t they really? Quite clearly living in another world to most of the people in this country, even in the early 1960s. But can you imagine him being, like Cameron, a member of United Against Fascism?
I saw a few pictures of the Red, White, and Blue which happened in Derbyshire a couple of weeks back in this year of the United Against Fascism, and it’s very odd. The first thing I noticed about them is that a new generation has emerged. The second thing I noticed was that they were very small in number. The third thing I noticed was that they all had red flags massed together in their paucity of their number, and many of those flags had the hammer and sickle on them. The hammer and sickle, yes! We haven’t seen that for a long time!
Now, what does that stand for? Militant egalitarianism, the destruction of Western society, death to everything this country once stood for, the desecration of what people basically fought for in both of those wars I mentioned earlier. This is what the sort of Communism that these people stand for is about! So, when people look at these sorts of sites and this sort of propaganda, they ought to remember this is Communist propaganda that is opposed to everything this country has ever stood for and has been and can be in the future and of which these people are totally unrepresentative.
As I looked on the internet in a local library, I saw various transvestites and people in bondage gear and this sort of thing leaping about. I thought I’d put in Liza Minnelli’s Cabaret by mistake. But in actual fact it was United Against Fascism down in Derbyshire with police looking tight-lipped as they sort of danced around them. Interestingly, there’s the odd sort of quite believing Muslim in the crowd. Not many, but there were a few. What they make of these sorts of shenanigans about which their religion is extraordinarily Right-wing and intolerant, one doesn’t know. They probably compartmentalize it and say it’s all a delinquent Western fun fair that their just observing from one side.
But the truth of the matter is that, to be serious for a moment, we have a mass recession. We have mass unemployment. And where is the Left? Where is the Left? The Left that represents the working man, the Left that represents the British working class, the Left that represents the international proletariat inside Britain? In the ’30s, they were in the streets! They were in the unions! They were thinking about how to take power in this society. Every time you had an economic dip in the early ’90s, to a degree . . . In the early ’80s under Thatcher, remember the Right to Work marches? “Right to work!” Many of the people on those marches never worked a day in their lives, but they wanted the right to work! They could mass tens of thousands in the streets. Where are they now? They’re finished. The Left is gone from history. The Soviet Union was an utter disaster, a genocidal disaster, and nobody, even radicals who are anti-system in the West, wants to touch them now.
The only way in which they can be radical is to oppose us, because the next 20 to 50 years will see the rise of the Right in various forms all over the world in all groups. What we have to make sure is that the Right that comes up in our society represents us and our values and our traditions, because we know who we are. We don’t need laws to describe who we are. We don’t need little a priori prejudicial statements which prevent us from saying what we are. We know who we are. Kipling once said, “The English deep down know who they are. The English that only the English know.” And we know what we are, we know what we’ve been capable of and we know what we can do again.
Nearly all of our people agree with us in a subtle way, but they’re afraid. They’re afraid, their establishment has betrayed them, and they wonder what to do. They feel helpless and bereft. An organization like this has to lift people up. It has to give them strength and hope in their hearts. This country can be changed. Only the democratic ballot box can do it.
The next census will reveal that the country’s only 80% indigenous now, but many of the people who have come in can go out economically as easy and quickly as they arrived. Things are going to change in the next 25 to 50 years very radically. Ecological damage, economic stress, the collapse of versions of capitalism without the Left as a safe and actual alternative. We’re going to see benefits cut in the next couple of years. We’re going to see the easy years, if they were easy, and they weren’t for many, in the ’60s and ’70s go. The idea that there are jobs to be had is going. There’s 200 who apply for every McDonald’s job now. That’s a job paying £5.65 to flip over an American burger that makes you obese and die of a coronary before you’re 60, and 200 are applying for each of those jobs and probably about a quarter of them aren’t European. So, there’s underneath the surface of Sky News and happy-clappy and Amy Winehouse snorting drugs, under the surface of that, there’s a great tension in this society and there’s a great sense of foreboding.
Deep polling by the BBC thinks that many people are deeply worried that there will be conflict in this culture, worried that there’s no one to lead them, worried about the collapse of our identity in various forms . . . And we are in considerable collapse. You only have to go around many of our cities. You notice the decay in the infrastructure, you notice the amounts of blatant criminality . . .
Where are the police? Do you see the police? They drive around in their cars and they fly over cities in their numbered helicopters. They’re all dressed in yellow now, so you can see them from a distance. But they’re firemen! They come at the end! They come after it’s kicked off. They get out of the wagon when people are lying on the ground. They come at the end, not at the beginning. They’re just to put it out and dampen it down. They see their remit is partly preventing inter-community tension rather than solving crime and dealing with some of the gangs that I’ve talked about proliferating in inner Birmingham and elsewhere.
So, this country’s in trouble, and Cameron has no solutions at all. He will cut public expenditure, because they don’t like spending money. The Tories will be a little bit more honest about that. But they’ll invest in wars like the coming one that might come over Iran and the one that’s already petering out into oblivion and defeat like the one in the 1890s before it in Afghanistan. He says he’s against the European Union, but will you have a vote on any of these treaties? At the last election, Brown said he would give us a vote on that constitution and he’s completely reneged. So, yet another lie from the man who said he would be straight. Do you remember when he came in? He said, “I’m Gordon Brown and I’m going to be sincere with you.” With his head on one side, you know. Every time I see Gordon Brown he looks older. One eyes up here, one eyes down here, the hair gets whiter and grayer, the chins get more brought to the left. He looks sadder and more alone, doesn’t he? Every time you see him you know he’s a man in decline.
New Labour has had it! Old Labour died before ’97, and New Labour is now in the dust bin! New Labour’s probably as hated now as Major was in ’97, but our people have got to stop moaning and switching from group to group and hoping that somebody new and cheesy like Blair back ten years will sort it out for them.
They’ve got to choose something new! They’ve got to choose something radical! They’ve got to cease being afraid! You say to people, “Oh, will you vote for this party over there?” And they say, “Oh no, no. They’re extreme. I didn’t like what I read about them in The Daily Mirror. I didn’t like this remark that this chap made about historical events that are 60 years old. I’m worried, I’m worried. I want to go and sit on the toilet.” A lot of our people, unfortunately, are like this. The spirit of the egg frying on the North African tank in the 8th Army in the early ’40s has, unfortunately, receded a bit, but deep down it’s because the English and British have been betrayed. They’ve always wanted to moan a bit, but otherwise trust their leaders and they realize now that they can’t trust their leaders.
If this country is to have any future and we are not to slide into the Second and into the Third World over this century, we have a choice to make and we have to create a new ruling group drawn from the body of the population, people who don’t just get into parliament so they can cheat on expenses the first day they’re in there. Because they’ve been cheating with those expenses for 30 to 50 years. Thatcher introduced those changes about 25 to 30 years ago. When Michael Foot was asked about pay… Remember Michael Foot? Duffle-coated at the Cenotaph, and that sort of thing, picking his nose. When Foot was in and Labour politicians said, “I need a bigger salary.” He said, “Oh, don’t bother about that. Just claim it on expenses.” So, they doubled up their pay on expenses and in comparison to the cheating over money that goes on in the city of London that parliamentary cheating is actually small beer. It’s their resentment over that and those sorts of things that leads them to behave in that way.
So, there’s a total disconnect now between the ruling group and the masses and the masses have got to show some stomach for once, and they’ve got to be prepared to vote for radical people who will clear out New Labour. Here in the north, in the south, in the east and the west outside England, within Britain and elsewhere. Clear them out! And the Tories will do no good either. You’ve got to clear them out. The Liberals are just a bloc in between the two that give the other two their ideas, all the sort of destructive ideas that Phillips is in favor of and that I talked about earlier. You’ve got to clear them out as well.
There needs to be a new start! And it won’t be UKIP and it won’t be the Greens, even though there are good ideas which are Green and the idea of leaving the European Union (the UKIP option) is an attractive one that should be supported. But there is only really one option for this country and that is to vote for a party that is patriotic, which is British, which is elitist, which is nationalistic, which believes that the only socialism or the only social concern that really is validated by history, by genetics, by identity is patriotism.
Patriotism is the only thing that ties together people within the group in their difference and it aligns people together to overcome the breaches and divisions of class within our society.
The blue of social conservatism opposed in shorthand to everything UAF says that they stand for. The red of socio-economic concern particularly for people at the bottom of the prior economic pyramid. The Tories have no concern about such people at all. The Conservative definition of patriotism excludes half the population from the very beginning. We must bring the two classes together. We must bring the North and the South together. We must bring the red and the blue together. And if you look at the Union flag, there’s plenty of white in the red, white, and blue.
I say, let’s have an all white party! Let’s have an all white world as we configure it within our own homelands in northern Europe and elsewhere. Let’s say to all of the politicians who’ve ruled us for 45 or 50 or 60 years that we don’t like Mr. Phillips and his Equality Commission, that equality in relation to others in relation to us is inequality in relation to us and we don’t favor it, that we don’t favor political correctness, that we don’t favor the ideologies that have been imposed on us, which are a soft form of Marxism peddled by New Labour and their friends whether they’re in the trade unions or even in the boardrooms of European companies that have friendly contacts in the European Union, that we don’t agree with what has been done in the last 50 or 60 years and there is only one way in which that can change. There is only one way in which our people can rescue the plight in which they find themselves and that is to vote for this political party to support tendencies of the Right and of patriotism and of national renewal. To realize what will this country be like in 120 years on present trends? What will the Health Service be like? What will the level of taxation be like? What will an average inner comprehensive school be like in 80 years, never mind 120? Look at what they’re like now!
In south London now, schools have 200 cameras inside them. Schools have metal detectors to take the coshes, the knives, and the guns off the students before they go in! And that’s before they’ve even got in! But as we’re told, GCSE and other standards rise every year. The standards go up, but they can’t read and write, and there isn’t a job for them to go to and when they emerge from these pits they end up talking like Jamaican gangsters on imported US television programs! This needs to change! And the only way it will change isn’t through fantasies, isn’t through marching like the English Defence League in the city streets, it’s through voting and it’s through politics. It’s the only chance we’ve got and two thirds of our people won’t even vote in the European elections.
They can’t moan if they don’t vote! And the only vote that’s meaningful is for the British National Party! The only vote that threatens the establishment is for this party, is for the tendencies of opinion that it represents! And when you vote you’re voting against what Brown stands for, you’re voting against what Obama institutionalizes, you’re voting against what the European Union stands for, but you’re not just voting against, you’re voting for! You’re voting for what you are! You’re voting for this land! You’re voting for this village/town! You’re voting for this region! You’re voting for what your grandfather and father fought for! Vote for them! Vote for yourself! Vote for the generations who are coming! And always support strength and identity and freedom of speech and England and Britain forever!
Thank you very much!