Clearly there's no sense in giving 'aid' to countries that are wealthier than we are. So there must be some other reason. What is called 'aid' is nothing more than kick-back at the highest level: BAE Systems was hauled over the coals for doing what our governments are doing and intend to carry on doing: ie. bribing foreign states and heads of states, to allow our out-sourced industries to remain in their countries.

Once you understand that Politics is 99% corrupt, you are 99% on the way to understanding politicians.

Little mention has been made in these pages of the stunning revelation by Andrew Neather that
the Blair government deliberately upped immigration into the UK for two reasons: to turn the UK
into a multicultural country - and to allow the Blairites to brand the Tories as racists, when or if they
objected.

Andrew Neather was one of the insiders in the Blair government. The BNP conspiracy theory is
no longer a theory.

Just one more point: is it accurate to call the liberal-left Marxist? I think it would be fair to say they
stand for Human Rights. That's a fine principle, and we know how highly principled our politicians
are, but can Human Rights trump all other considerations in the daily running of a country?

I may have 'human rights', but it's a bare and meagre dole of basic needs. The rights I care about
are richer: quality of life and national identity, for example.

I feel I have rights as an Englishman in my own country. When I look again, I have only 'human
rights' exactly level with the man who arrived from Ghana last week. Which view is 'right'?

Think it over and vote.

My father (b.1899) was in two world wars. He was a warrant officer in WW2, was at the fall of
Singapore, and later took part in the Normandy landing. I never once heard him say he was fighting
Nazism or anti-Semeticism. I feel certain that he and all service men and women joined battle
because the British Isles were under threat of invasion.

Let me make it clearer: those men and women were patriots, or nationalists. They were not
not driven by any ideology.

Trevelyan, in one of his histories of the English Civil War, made a penetrating analysis which
has profound relevance to today: 'The Democrats (he was referring to the leadership) when they rode
to battle, knew more of the needs and rights than of the mind and character of the people'.

There are not many better ways of describing modern Britain under the rule of the liberal elites.

My money is on the minds and character of the British people.

Can someone try and explain to me how you can talk about Immigration
without being ‘racist’? An English man or woman can’t emigrate to England - he or she can only go back home to England.

Trying to talk about immigration without referring to race is like trying to talk about ‘procreation’ without referring to ‘sex’.

The BNP is probably the only political party which calls for an end to mass immigration into the UK. Which demands an end to ‘asylum’. Which promises to remove people who have no right to be here, or who have forfeited the right to be here.

As I hope I’ve shown above: immigrants everywhere are foreigners, whatever country they move to, unless it’s their own country.

How then can any political party lay out its agenda for Immigration
without being accused of Racism? Can a biologist talk about procreation without revealing some interest in sex?

If the EHRC succeeds in forcing the BNP to broaden its intake, the BNP can comply - and simply continue with its programme. When the BNP is forced by the EHRC to cease talking about immigration, then the EHRC can turn its attention to all those biologists who keep going on about sex.

Can't let go by the chance to possibly talk to Nick. The QUESTION TIME occasion: please don't let
them steer you into an argument over racial definitions. The important issues are the over-
population of the UK and the Islamification of the UK. The establishment hirelings will have
a field day if they can force the debate into a defence of 'Norsemen' and 'Vikings'. I know, we
know, where your heart lies, but the broad public is probably less concerned about its past
than it is about its future. The rational arguments are on our side.

I wouldn't venture to make these
points, but we've seen how the media deals with these opportunities.

Pay up or be terrorised? The Mafia have been running that racket for centuries. It seems to have
worked very well (for the Mafiosi). Ok it isn't democratic, but when you're running a global
industry (Wahabisim in this case), who cares about democracy?

Maybe there's an solution here to the BNP's problems: put a horse's head in Gordon's bed. We
can have secret handshakes and cash in brown envelopes passed in the street. If that's what
it has descended to. I preferred the ballot box and honest government.

All the time in the back of mind there's a feeling that we are not getting to grips. There's something
else, something more, that we should be doing. We are the vast majority in this country. Why aren't
we using this?

Our judges are a product of the 60's. They began their careers at a time when the memories of
Empire (the British Empire) and Fascisim were still fresh. For the last 40 years and more our
nation and people have had to efface themselves and forgo their due rights in order to salve the
consciences of a new elite. Let's be clear: these liberal judges are a passing phenomenon. Change
is in the air. We can't wait 40 years for a new breed of judges, and there's no need to wait: the men
and women who will take back ownership of their nation, our nation, are already there, and it only needs a change of political will to put them in place. I want judges whose primary concern is the human rights of the British people. I'm not ashamed to say I put my concern for the British victim of crime above the human rights of a criminal youth from Serbia. He, and others like him, have no
human right to stay in this country.

I need a legal answer to this question: is an individual permitted to express racial preference? I accept, I have to accept, that an employer or organisation (the BBC for example) must accord with the law which insists on equitable representation of all ethnic groups in our society. An employer opens himself to prosecution if he rejects an applicant on racial grounds.

If a white man or woman declines the unwanted approaches of a black or Asian, on overtly racial grounds, can he or she be prosecuted under Discrimination Law?

Quite simply: can I be prosecuted for enacting my racial preferences? I would be interested to hear the answer to this question.

If I am allowed (as an individual) to enact my racial preferences, then allow the BNP leadership to be elected by the membership. I wouldn't vote for a black or Asian candidate. Could that leave me open to prosecution? If the BNP leadership turns out to be 100% white British, who could be 'had' under anti-discrimination laws? Me? You? The BNP would not be 'a racist Party', but 'a Party supported
by racists'. Could a Socialist Party be prohibited because it is blatantly supported by Socialists?
It could be prohibited if the existing establishment didn't like Socialism.

The 100% white administration would be expected to meet their members' aspirations (or be
replaced).

I realise that the BNP could be flooded with non-white new members, but I think it's unlikely that they would out-number whites.

Don't worry about the athletes: 10 million visitors to the UK are expected to watch the Olympics. I'd
guess at least 10% won't be going home. I wonder what preparations the government is making
to deal with a sudden increase in the UK population? But then what preparations could there be?

Mass immigration is a problem that requires drastic remedies, but no European or Western
government dares make the first move. The crack will appear somewhere - and Europe will
convulse. How do you get the message through to our leaders?

They prefer to shoot the messenger.

If the BNP is unable to meet the cost of contesting the next election, could the leadership offer
a million votes to the party that comes closest to BNP policies? For example, if the Green Party
finally saw sense and broadened its interpretation of 'environment'. Green policies will all be
negated by population increase.

Alternatively: we are now facing our party being taken over by new members who are not entirely committed to our programme, who will be entitled to change BNP policies and leadership. Could we merge with UKIP - and make a new party with new leadership? UKIP members couldn't prevent it could they? What's good for the goose... We might add our million to the millions that voted for
UKIP. I think there's no doubt that UKIP get their share of attention from the media because they
are seen as neutral on race issues. Then let's be neutral on race issues, and concentrate on the
main issues: excessive immigration into the UK and rule by EU ideologues.

We are at a point where the BNP can begin to grow - not just in numbers. A strong voice in the
nation, in defence of our values and history. Schools teaching British history, teaching standard English; no faith schools of any faith; changes to social benefits to favour small, nuclear families.

The BNP would be the party that defends British culture. Race has been its Achilles heel.
I