- Counter-Currents Publishing - https://www.counter-currents.com -

The Economic Crisis Caused by Speculation

7,132 words

Transcribed by V. S.

[1]Editor’s Note: The following is the transcript of a British National Party stump speech that Jonathan Bowden delivered in Leicestershire in late 2008. You can view the video here [2].

Right, thanks very much! First of all, I’d like to start by thanking Jeff Dickens and the people who have arranged for me to come up and speak to you here in Leicestershire today, because I’m from the south, of course.

Now, I’d like to begin with just a few remarks about certain national events that have occurred in quite close proximity to here. I shan’t mention any names and I shan’t talk about any specifics, but I would like to say something about the leaking of the list and its appearance on the Internet only for a minute before I start. Politics always has a dubious side to it, but it is my experience that all of these things come about because of internal strife and dissension between people, much of which has nothing to do with politics at all, nothing to do with philosophy, nothing to do with why political organizations are formed. It’s because people grate against each other over time, particularly if they’re involved in sort of constant activity.

Politics has an impersonal side. If certain people are guilty of certain offenses . . . I was on the advisory council, which is the party’s ruling group, with them when some of these things were going on. All I would advise people is that when our forebears did national service with each other, you don’t necessarily like everybody, you don’t necessarily have to go home afterwards with everybody, but you have to pursue a reasonable standard of civility and impersonality. As long as you do that, everything will be fine. What tends to happen is that people fall out, they’ve got slightly authoritarian personalities – Right-wing people tend to – they tend to think that anything goes when they start brawling with each other, and things that they would have regarded as monstrous in terms of their personal behavior, they then think they’re entitled to do them because they’ve fallen out with various other unnamed persons. This leads to retribution of a similar sort and it gets worse and worse and worse, and it can only be purged by a parting of the ways. People then end up, at the end of this travelogue, in a far worse state than they were in the beginning, and they feel that everything they’ve done they were morally entitled to do, which is often the complete reverse. They would have been the first to condemn these sorts of antics had they come into it cold from the very beginning.

So, all I will say is always try to keep personalia and differences to an absolute minimum and behave as you would as if you were in the Forces. As long as that’s the case, there shouldn’t be these sorts of problems. And that’s all I’ll say about it.

Now, what’s been happening to our country in the year and a bit since I’ve probably come up to Leicestershire to speak to you all? The credit crunch looms and the economy sinks, and eight weeks ago much of the Western banking system almost collapsed, something which I never thought I’d see in my own lifetime. The crash that could have occurred eight weeks ago and which, in a slower way, is ongoing now is similar to the one in 1929/1930, although government responses to it are different because we’re living in a different age, and many of them have learned things from that era.

In ’29, when it crashed and large undersections of the fiscal underpinning of Western societies just went down into the mire, millions were thrown out of work instantly. Unemployment went up to sort of ten million in many Western societies. Twenty-five percent effectively unemployed without much social welfare. The radical ’30s and what they led to was the result of that sort of thing.

Now, Western politicians have learned a trick or two since then. They’ve learned how to manage demand. They’ve learned a certain degree of Keynesian economics, which kept Western societies and their economies together and on track to a degree until it looked very shopworn by the 1970s, when the model was beginning to fray at the edges and come apart.

Thatcher came along in the 1980s and reversed the spectrum and went back to the sort of economic underpinnings that preceded the crash in ’29, albeit in a different way, because things never recur. Certain people who’ve been giving people nasty phone calls in relation to that list accuse people on it of being various things, and one of the things that they say is a word that begins with F and is a political word, but the truth is that radical types of politics, when they come back, like radical economic chaos when it comes back, always comes back in a different way. No era is the same and the crisis that we’re going to face in the next couple of years when unemployment goes from two million at the end of this year to three million on most establishment prerequisites by the end of next, to maybe five million when you add in all the people who are effectively unemployed in a Western society, will be very, very severe. Whether it gets as deep and as dark and as nasty as the early ’30s and thereafter remains to be seen, but it could well.

Why has this occurred? It’s occurred because the mainstream economy, which people work and save in, is now connected through international institutions to endless and extremely complicated games of roulette. Much of the economic wealth of the West since the late 1980s is based on extreme forms of gambling. What has occurred is a type of economics which has a sort of chaos-based element to it, a deconstructive element.

Take this podium that I’m standing on. Somebody made this. Somebody crafted it. Somebody put some value into it. It was sold to this hall through the local authority for a certain price. This is the sort of economics that most people can understand. The sort of economics that has been going on in the City of London for the last quarter of a century is completely different to the economics that has produced this thing that I’m knocking at the moment. It would say that this has a price if it was a stock or a share or a concept about money, and you can change its price into an idea about a price of the object, and once you have an idea of the price you can sell and buy the nature of the price of the object, and you can bet on the price as it goes up and as you expect it to fall.

There’s a park and market in the City of London called the grey market where people bet on the prospect of bets which may actually occur, and so what you’re seeing is that money ceases to have any relationship with something that’s physical, something that’s been crafted, something that’s been made, something that exists. Money becomes a concept that breeds itself, and people buy and sell concepts about money. These so-called shares, derivatives, which have led to this crash, are concepts about money in relation to debt.

Clinton introduced a law when he was President in his second term of his eight years, when he was a center-Left American President of yesteryear. There was an attempt to give the American Dream to a large number of persons of color and a large number of poor whites in the United States. They could all take out a mortgage that they couldn’t afford to repay if there was the slightest degree of a downturn, and they were prioritized in law, but somebody had the clever idea that this wasn’t debt. No, it’s not debt, because they had pledged to repay it. So, you treat it as something that is actually equity, because they’ve pledged to repay it and then you can build leverage by it. You can build loans on the fact that they had not yet repaid it, but they were going to, and they were tied into a system where they were going to, and then you can bet on the fact that the values of these instruments might go up or might go down. And then you’re going to be worried about them and you securitize them, which means banks swap them with each other.

Now, a child would tell you that this is all rather dubious, but this is what many, many people in the City of London, in Frankfurt, in the Far East, and throughout the American markets have been doing for the last eight to twelve years, to fifteen years, and anyone who spoke against it was a reactionary or a conservative or not a happening person, or a person who was against their firm making money. And don’t think that many of the security traders thought that when all of this was going on there wouldn’t be a downturn, there wouldn’t be a crash. They’re sort of thirty-second junkies. People who do a deal every thirty seconds, every minute and a half. Rupert Murdoch once told somebody that he got actually depressed if he didn’t make a business deal every three minutes.

This short attention span type of thinking linked to this type of economics has led to a situation where someone I used to know who was a Tory councilor in Westminster, and when he was at Merrill Lynch the average salary was four hundred twenty thousand a year. A year! They used to order champagne sixteen crates at a time, they would light Havana cigars, which you can’t import to the United States because they have an embargo to Communist Cuba, but the City of London would light them all the time and they would light them with ten-pound notes. This is what it was like in the 1980s and the early 1990s. This sort of post-Thatcherite bubble – Major was Premier then – of greed and cupidity and short-sightedness and all the rest of it. Four hundred twenty thousand! The average salary at Lehman’s when it collapsed was three hundred ten thousand. That’s the average per year! A year! Now, on that day’s trading the managers came onto the floor and they said, “You’re all out. You’re all out in an hour and you get three grand or less. There’s no pension for any of you. You can keep your mobiles. You clear your desks.” And they were out a half an hour later in the street, in the cold, with a box, and that’s all they had. And that’s what that type of capitalism is like. It’s in and out and you sell at the top, and if it goes crash you get out and there’s nothing. But there’s not much sympathy for them, of course.

But what they’ve left is an extraordinary mess of toxic debt in banks, including all our high-street banks. People think it’s just obscure City institutions with strange names that they haven’t heard of before until they click onto CNN or BBC24. Barclays is in debt, less so than the others, NatWest, Royal Bank of Scotland is heavily so, Lloyd’s TSB, although they have actually scooped up other institutions, are as well. They’re writing off tens of billions, and that’s what’s on their own bank account. That’s what’s on their own balance sheet. You have to understand that most of this economics happened off the sheet. It’s not actually in the accounts of the bank. That’s why it’s even more toxic.

Now, Bush has spent two and a quarter trillion dollars to try to retrieve this. That’s a trillion dollars. Not a million. A trillion dollars to try to retrieve this. An enormous insurance group that couldn’t be allowed to collapse, because it was underwriting all of this. Lehman’s, which went to the wall because they had to allow one to go to the wall to prove that it’s still a capitalist system and not a state socialist one . . .

Don’t forget that the ideology has now gone completely out of the window. Bush used to declare . . . This is Bush II. His father was head of the Central Intelligence Agency and they’ve been an establishment family in America since the very beginning. Forget all the Texan “I’m running against the corrupt system in Washington.” There was a Bush in Washington’s army that fought against us two hundred years ago and more. Bush is a village in Essex. It’s where they come from originally. Now, he adopted state socialist ideas, which he spent his entire lifetime ridiculing and regarded as anathema. He actually intervened with ideas that were to the Left of any Democratic candidate for the Presidency since the Second World War, because when the system’s crashing around you and when it’s on fire, you’re not bothered by whether or not it’s a Right-wing view or a Left-wing view. You just need an extinguisher, and that’s what’s been happening.

Now, the United States of America is on the point, I believe, of extraordinary decline, and we in this country have tied ourselves to the US and we’ve tied ourselves since the Suez Crisis, if not even before, because although we “won the Second World War” we emerged bankrupt and with a socialist government in charge between 1945 and 1951, when Labour was Old Labour. And when you go to Leicester now, and when you realize that we’re in the minority in Leicester now, and when you realize that there is no aggregated community in Leicester now that is in the majority, this is all the result of a law that the Labour government passed in 1948 called the Nationality Act. When Attlee, who was Churchill’s deputy during the war, stood up in the House of Commons and said, “The races of the world need to be mixed together. They need to be mixed together, because if they are, there will be no more war.” No more war! This is the rhetoric of the anti-colonial movement from the ‘20s and ‘30s and before, it’s the rhetoric of the radical Left, it’s the rhetoric of the Left in the trade unions of that time.

Now, many people thought, and still think, that Attlee was a good egg, that post-war Labour wasn’t so bad, “It’s the New Labour that we don’t like,” and that sort of thing. You will hear that on the doorstep many times. But this sort of rot began under them, and it began a long time ago! People noticed that their cities were changing. They noticed that Leicester was changing, certainly by the early ‘60s. Certainly. But even then it was a trickle in relation to what has occurred. England is fifteen percent non-white now, and in the cities much, much more so. Two million people have left London in the last quarter of a century. They were largely white British people who sort of “fled” into the hinterland around London.

And this sort of economic chaos that we’re seeing more than the beginnings of now, and this type of migration of peoples, are all interlinked, because if you have an international system, and increasingly since the war we’ve been plugged into an international system like the plugs in this room . . . Before, people used to have rather self-sufficient ways of doing things up to a point, even though we’ve always been a trading and a maritime nation. But now Old Labour, never mind New Labour, and the conservatives since the war, if not before, have plugged us into international structures, and as capital goes around the world and capital is bought and sold as an idea, and as the lad in the City of London or in an exchange in Leeds, its northern equivalent, puts his thumb on a screen and twenty million dollars goes to another exchange just because he’s put his thumb on a particular square of a computer screen.

Labor moves just like the money moves. Capital moves around the world. Labor moves around the world. Immigration is labor. Labor is immigration. So, these systems of money and people, men and measures, men and coins, and currencies and credit, move all around the world. The immigrants who come in have come in to work, but they also come in through other mechanisms, because the mechanisms through which they have come in differ. Some have come in as refugees, some have come in as economic migrants, some have come in as illegals, some have had a right to settle because of post-imperial treaties, and so on.

In the early 1970s, a large number of Asians in Uganda and elsewhere, Kenya, became the victims of [break in audio] nationalism. Various dictators whose economies were going to pieces and so on . . . The Asians run the shops and they provide a lot of the credit. They didn’t like the look of them, so they played populism with their own tribes and they had to be carted out. Didn’t really want to go back to the Asian subcontinent then, although probably if the situation had occurred now, a proportion of them given the bourgeois opportunities in India and to a lesser extent Pakistan and Bangladesh, would do so. But Heath allowed them in here. That was an exception.

Thatcher in ’79, when she made a few radical remarks and got into quite a lot of trouble with the international set, which were deliberately designed to undercut the National Front vote at that time, which she needed to undercut in ’79 but not thereafter . . . She said there would be no more primary immigration, but of course passports for fifty thousand Hong Kong Chinese, before Hong Kong was handed back to Communist China, were distributed. The irony is that most of them didn’t want to come here. They wanted to go straight to the United States.

Now, just as we’ve yoked ourselves to the United States since the Second World War, we could face an extraordinary decline, because we’ve got no independence of judgment at all. The only people in our establishment who don’t want to go with America on everything are those that want to go with the European Union on everything, and most of them actually balance between the two, because they think this country’s finished and we’ve got to have a powerful friend or a group of mates or a gang, and if we don’t have the US then we have Europe. But, as Blair said, it’s best to be with both at one and the same time.

Blair’s always on everyone’s side, if you remember. He came in in ’97. He tells you what you want to hear him say. Working class audience, it’s one line. Immigrant audience, it’s another line. Middle class audience in the south of England or elsewhere, it’s another line. Because he’s an actor. He’s a political actor and a pathological liar. He can actually argue for two points of view even against each other. And that’s his training. He was trained in employment law. You actually go around one side of the table and you argue for your client, and then go around the other side of the table and argue against, and you split the difference. And that’s his attitude. He’s in favor of nuclear weapons, he’s against them. He’s in favor of abortion, he’s against it. He’s in favor of immigration, and at times it’s, “British Jobs for British Workers,” a slogan from the National Front, which Brown now trundles out and Cameron has now accused him of xenophobia for using that sort of a slogan.

Because as many people have realized, the old class-based allegiances, where it’s Tory and Labour and it’s really vicious and it’s red, or it’s blue depending on your background or the region of the country you come from, that’s all over. They’ve all merged into each other to the degree that we have a sort of one-party rule, but we can change the seating arrangements every four years. And this is what it is. And you notice the phenomenon where they all run against what they’re supposed to stand for. Center-Right politicians have red ties and center-Left politicians have blue ties. Center-Left politicians, like Mandelson for example, or “Lord Mandelson” as we should call him, they know a lot about how much they are [break in audio] he’s a “socialist” don’t forget, the market will cure everything. Cameron says he’s not really a Tory leader, he’s not really a conservative at all, and he slightly despises the conservatives. He’s really an upper-class liberal who’s above party. Increasingly, they become interchangeable one against another.

Skinner and these people out in the back benches are dinosaurs of yesteryear, because their front benches are swapping over all the time and on all the core issues – membership in the European Union, support of American foreign policy, support of Israel, involvement in the Iraq War, mass migration into this country and other Western European societies all based on the American precedent, and so on, they all agree. They all agree! There’s nothing about which, apart from a few minor matters, they really disagree.

The liberals never get in, but it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter who’s leader. It’s Clegg now. It could have been an old chap called Menzies Campbell a while back and all the rest of it. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter that the liberals don’t technically get in, although at other levels of government they do, of course, because their ideas are in power.

Liberal ideas dominate the ideology of the main two parties to such a degree that you could almost consider Tory-Labour as firms now, as sort of franchises. The liberals give them their ideas and they’re essentially different versions of each other. Different groups of bourgeois people who split about and swap over every four or five years.

Gradually, English and British people have begun to realize that they’re ruled by a group, by a set, that these parties don’t really matter. But when you go on the doorstep, people go, “I been Labour all me life, mate.” Labour all me life! A chap once said to me, “Labour . . . I was Labour, me father was Labour, his father was Labour.” I said, “Hold on, he wouldn’t have had the vote!” “But he would have been Labour anyway! Cut me open and it’s red! But, mind you, I’m not a Communist!” It’s Labour. Labour, Labour, Labour!

And it’s the same the other way around, you know. I once knocked on a very posh Tory woman’s door in Essex. You knew she was a Tory. She handed you the leaflet back. She had pearls on. She handed you the leaflet back and said, “Oh, no . . . Not at all.” She said, “Are you with them?” I said, “Yes.” And she went, “Oh . . . No.” Clunk and the door was in your face. But that same afternoon . . . It was a funny afternoon. It was in an area called Hornchurch, where there is now a BNP councilor, because of course in that part of Essex, the East Enders moved out. The East End of London, the old Cockney East Enders moved out. Why have they moved out? They’ve moved out because of the extraordinary, and almost revolutionary, demographic changes which have occurred in our capitol city and in Birmingham and in Leicester to a smaller, and yet maybe more radical degree, in the last thirty to forty years. That’s where the East Enders have gone. They’ve gone up into Essex. But you do get them at the door.

On that afternoon, the first door, an old lady answered, and before I could almost even get the leaflet out, she was screaming, “Nazi!” Just screaming! “NAZI!” she screamed, and then she ran across the road to talk to her mate. You could see that English look in her eyes, “Oh no, she’s coming.” And her little old friend tried to get away, but she cornered her, saying, “The Nazis are here! The Nazis are here! The Nazis are here!” And I said, “Look, can I put you down as a possible?” As Eddy Butler, the National Elections officer, says, “It’s Y, yes; N, no, not at all; and P, possible.”

But, of course, you get the other reaction as well. People bring their entire families out and want to shake hands with you and all the rest of it. But there’s a problem even with that, because of course that slows you down, really. In a way, it’s nice, but that’s not what electioneering is about, I’m afraid. And then you find that all these people who are all over you, of course, aren’t even on the register and can’t vote anyway, because they’re attempting to avoid Council tax. All nonsense, because they know where they are, anyway. So, it’s one thing after another, isn’t it?

But it’s quite palpable that certainly a large number of white working-class people have woken up to the reality of New Labour, which is why in some ways they are worried. When some of our Liverpudlian activists were arrested recently handing out National leaflets, that is because Labour is in radical decline in their own rotten boroughs, in their own areas where the Tories never go. There are parts of this county – Newcastle, the northeast, Merseyside, parts of the industrial north, parts to a slightly lesser extent but still palpable of the industrial Midlands, the Strathclyde belt in Scotland, South Wales – the Tories don’t exist. You know, it’s a couple of old ladies having a coffee morning. The Right, if you like, of the center doesn’t exist. Labour, in parts of Cumbria and certain areas, have stood without opposition for forty years. These are rotten boroughs. These are sort of Third World scenarios, eighteenth-century scenarios in our past. Labour is so used to ruling in these areas that when they are challenged by a sort of, if you like, Right-wing party, the masses of working-class people can vote for . . . It’s not that they don’t like it. They hate and detest it to a degree which is extraordinary. And when people are arrested, it is largely because elements of the police have been politicized in those areas by cronies of theirs in the Labour Party. These arrests have often occurred in core Labour areas, such as Swansea. You know, “The valleys are ours! They’re ours! These areas have never voted anything but Labour since 1900!” And that was when the Labour Party was set up by the Representation Committee on behalf of the trade unions who’ve financed them since that day. These are their areas! And they’re going to get very dirty if these areas are taken away from them. You know, they wouldn’t go to these lengths if it was the Tories, even though they say they hate them as well. It’s because it’s the radical Right. It’s because it’s the people who are, in a sense, to the Right of the conservatives. Sometimes by quite a long way, sometimes by less. But they are the range of opinion they detest more than anything else, and they will fight tooth and nail for these sorts of areas. And that’s what a lot of these naughties and nasties are actually about. It’s Labour in its partial death throes in some of their core areas thrashing about.

Hazel Blears, the Secretary of State for Communities, said a couple of weeks ago that the British National Party is a great danger and white working-class people in particular are looking at it as an alternative. She means “an alternative to us.”

Brown’s Queen’s Speech had hardly any bills in it at all. This means that he’s preparing to go to the country anytime between now and 2010. He will go and say it’s chaos, it’s uncertain, I’ve been in charge for eleven years, but trust me to make more of a mess of it, because you don’t know what Cameron will do. And he will trade on that.

Western people are in an odd situation. They despise their politicians, they blaggard them all the time, there’s shows on the television whereby the politicians and the political class are held in such contempt that even if you hinted at that in some Third World society, you’d be executed if you described your social and political leaders in that sort of a way. And yet simultaneously with this, many of our people will cling on to these people that they hate and despise, because they’re in a worrisome state. People have become depressed, but when you’re depressed, why not become manically so and cling onto nerves for fear of something worse?

Paradoxically, when America was attacked by Islamic extremists in 2001, Bush’s ratings soared. Similarly, Brown, who looked down and out, now that people are worried, now that the house relatives of mine live in is worth about a quarter to a third less than it was a year ago, many of them are thinking, “Oh well, we’ll just cling on to Brown, because at least he’s riding the tiger.” Because many of our people are bereft, in a way, because the society’s changed out of all recognition to what they really want and they wonder why it’s occurred. They’ve been left leaderless, because we have a political class that’s disassociated itself from the bulk of English and British people. They’re off somewhere else. They’re in an international set of their own.

If you notice how much of the news is dominated by what’s going on in other countries. Starvation in Zimbabwe, a once successful white-ruled country, of course, which had the highest standard of living in southern Africa. Now, there is no bread and any loaves that remain cost a million Zimbabwean dollars. Mugabe’s dictatorship is in trouble, because he can’t pay the military anymore and that is the moment, that’s the tipping point. When the soldiers, the thugs he has to keep control can’t be paid. That’s the moment. But that country’s a basket case. An utter basket case. But when we ruled it through this sort of ex-English called Ian Smith . . . When we ruled it, it was run efficaciously and well, and the Africans were well-treated, but there was no talk of equality because we didn’t believe in all that nonsense then. But we’ve changed and we’ve declined quite a bit since then.

It’s very evident with conservatives. Conservatives laughed at the Left for forty to fifty years. Lesbian marriage? What a hoot, eh? Hilarious! Then it becomes a reality. Then saying you don’t agree with it in too forceful a manner becomes illegal! And they stare at their televisions wondering what’s happened to this entire society. “Islamist doctors blown themselves up outside Glaswegian airport.” You know, because they’re concerned about our involvement in foreign wars dictated by the United States. Our people sit watching the television sort of wondering what’s going on. They think it’s some film. They’ve put the DVD in. But this is what has happened in our country in the last fifty to sixty years, because one thing has led to another has led to another.

If the National Front, when it was a realistic organization, had broken through in the 1970s, maybe some of these tendencies would have been arrested or would have been slowed, but in many ways we’re talking about slowing.

The response to Enoch Powell when he spoke in the Midlands in 1968/1969 was enormous. One million letters, because people used to write to their MPs then. They thought it would make a difference, you know. One million in favor, nine against. One of the nine abusive, Powell said. That was the response of England and Britain then. That’s why he had a mass following among working-class people for a Tory center-Right politician. Hitherto unheard of. Certainly in a post-war scenario. People don’t remember Enoch, although he was a great man on all sorts of fronts. For his economic policy, for his later Ulster Unionism, or for his opposition to the European Union or the European Community as it then was in its earlier incarnatory stages, because it morphed over time.

The new American President . . . Yes, the new American President-Elect says he doesn’t like the EU in its present form. Some of his spokesmen have indicated they’d like to deal with a European state. He said the other week, “I’m fed up with dealing with twenty-seven countries. I want to talk to one.” That means America is looking to have a USE, one currency United States of Europe. One currency and you can have two blocs on either side of the Atlantic against the trouble that’s looming, as they perceive it, from Russia, from Iran, which will have nuclear weapons within eighteen months, from the new China, from the new India, and of course from the Islamic world.

Now, America has elected its first non-white president in its history. I mentioned Bush earlier and he’s descended from a village in Essex. Whites will be a minority in the United States before too long. The Kennedys in the 1960s . . . Remember all that? Marilyn Monroe and all the drugs and the orgies and alleged fun they had. That’s all unimportant. The important thing about the Kennedys is that they reversed the all-white immigration policy into the United States, which had been outstanding and upstanding since the early 1920s. Since then seventy million – that’s right! – seventy million persons of color have entered the United States. The United States has changed out of all recognition. One-third of America is non-white now, and whites are minorities in most of the cities. So, this idea that it’s an extension of Europe, that John Wayne’s America is still up and around, except on old videos, isn’t true. Isn’t true at all! Obama’s been elected because a third of the society resembles him! And looks to him to look after their interests. Seventy percent of whites didn’t vote for him. An interesting statistic, but thirty percent did, because amongst our own people liberalism is semi-endemic. Always seeing the other chap’s point of view, always wanting to be fair, never having a tribal or communitarian attitude of their own, avoiding anything that could smack of racism. Dear, dear, dear, no, no, no.

And if ever our people think illicit thoughts, there’s a doctrine called political correctness, which brings them back to the true path allegedly, so that even if they have a thought – they don’t even need to speak it – this sort of spider comes out of the box and says, “No! No! You’re being incorrect, my friend!” People look behind them even when they’re with their mates to be sure there’s no one around them so they can come out with an incorrect verbalized thought. People are tyrannized in this way, but that’s because they’re self-policing. Don’t need secret police like the Stasi where some dissident would go down to the shops and there’d be eight of them in one of those little Trabi cars, the Eastern equivalent of a disabled car that the Soviet secret police used to zip around in in their leather jackets and all this, you know, before the Wall came down. There’d be eight following some dissident musician to the shop where you can get one type of cheese and one type of sausage, and then he’d come back again. You don’t need this in Western societies. People police themselves by thinking, “This thought I’ve had is incorrect and I shouldn’t speak it, and I certainly shouldn’t speak it at work. No, no, no.”

I saw a prison officer’s entry form to enter into the civil service, to enter into being a prison officer. The lowest rung of entering in as a prison officer. You had to sign this form saying, “I am hereby certifying that I will not discriminate against any person, prisoner or not, on grounds of race, ethnicity, class, gender, intellectual capacity, sexuality, transsexuality, disability . . .” And it went on and on and on for a whole paragraph. Of course, most people don’t even read this. They just sign it at the bottom. It’s just a job. What they don’t realize is they’re signing up to all of this, because it’s a system. It’s a viewpoint that’s been imposed. It stems from the cultural revolutions of the 1960s.

The generation that has imposed it, the Greg Dyke generation when he was head of the BBC, the Tony Blair generation when he was Premier . . . Brown’s a slightly Old Labour relic. Blair is the real one. Blair is the real instigator of what exists now, but much of what they put forward was actually coming under the Tories but in a slower, more broken-down, slightly more reserved, dare I say more English way. The Tories have had many chances to reverse the wrong since 1948 and the Nationality Act that I mentioned earlier. They’ve been in government 1970 to ’74. I was born in 1962, although of course I look much younger, but there’s a degree to which the Tories were in power up until ’64. They were in power, a great swathe of power, under Thatcher and Major from 1979 until ’97, and they’ve done virtually nothing to reverse the Leftwards drift that Labour, that they with their radical ideas and increasing radicalism have put forward. Between ’45 and ’51, between ’64 and ’70, between ’74 and ’79, and then between ’97 and the year that we’re in now, the tail end of 2008. And Brown hopes to extend it for another four or five.

But it will be no different if Cameron gets in, because what we need is a clearout. We need a removal of the present establishment. They’ve had their day. They failed in all sorts of ways. They’re increasingly unpatriotic to a degree that’s embarrassingly obvious even to themselves, they’re loyal to international and transnational institutions and structures that have little to do with us, and there needs to be a clearing out of these sorts of people. And the only way that it can be done is through electoral politics, such as the European elections which are coming up next time. Let’s hope that all the usual questions that people say, “Oh, you can’t win. I do agree with you, but I’ve got to protect my job.” As if voting is going to affect that. There’s always UKIP. “In any case, I don’t like European elections. Why should I vote in them?” “You don’t stand everywhere.” “You can’t win a seat.” And so on and the rest of it. All of these are false, because this party is standing everywhere, every region, in every nationality of the United Kingdom, without going into the rather tedious details of it. There’s proportionality in these elections. This means that every vote matters. Every vote matters! It doesn’t go into the bin, because it’s proportionate. Therefore, if you vote British National Party, it has an effect. And if you go into work the day after and say, “I voted for the British National Party,” it will be much less of a shock then in the past, because everyone knows who you are after those lists were published, anyway.

When that blog went up, people couldn’t get on it, because so many people were trying to get on that blog it crashed all the time, like computers twenty years ago. So, in a strange way, whatever the motivations – personal bile, revenge, internal disputes manifested externally, hostility from without in any sense – whatever the motivations of whosoever was behind all that, in a way, it backfired. Because when people are fired on from without, they will resist from within. When you put a bit of pressure on English and British people from without, they usually respond to that in a more courageous and noble-hearted way.

My understanding is that since these revelations, thirty people have left the Party nationally, and a week or two back, a regional organizer in the south of England told me that one hundred had joined. In other words, there’s no change. So, whatever was posited by that event and these people ringing up with inner Birmingham accents saying, “I’m going to do something terrible to you.” And clunk the phone goes down, because their hands are shaking when they’re ringing the number, because we make them nervous, you see. We’re making them nervous. And why are they nervous? They’re nervous because they are, in a small, little way in their own lives, the legacy of the failures of 1945 and thereafter. Labour, Tory, using liberal ideas.

This era has come to an end. Not everyone, obviously, but the generation that sponsored those sorts of ideas is itself leaving the institutions of power. People say the young are totally indoctrinated in liberal ideas and will never change now. Well, let’s see. And let’s see what these sudden jolts of economic chaos that are ricocheting around our own island and the rest of the world do to people and their expectations of what they want in the future.

I’ll close by saying this: there is only really one political organization that can change this society, that can take this country back, that can in a different and future way base this country upon the values it once held. We can never go back, but you can bring what was in the past forward to have a new dispensation in the present. So, I’ll ask you in relation to the run-up to the European elections and wrap-around local elections, and also in relation to the possibility of a sudden national poll that Brown in desperation may spring upon the country at any time between now and the middle of 2010, to leaflet for this organization, to canvas for this organization, to stand for this organization – they know where you are anyway, given that blog – to raise money for this organization, for in the future to come up to the front and give a short speech on behalf of your local area in relation to this organization, to attend events such as this, to attend other fundraising and social events, and to do what you can for the future of this part of the Midlands, because England will always exist even though our people are now in the minority in Leicester. We are still here. We are still there. We are still everywhere. There are over one hundred fifty million people of British descent in the diaspora, although we’ve never seen it in those terms, elsewhere in the world in North America, in southern Africa still, in Australasia. We are still here. We are still English. We are still British. We are still fighting.

Thank you very much!