I always talk about what’s in the news, and I’d advise people not to necessarily believe everything they read on a 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, Mister Phillips is head of the Human Rights Commission — the Human Rights and Equality 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 trans-sexuality or persons of transgender non-specificity, it’s concerned with disability; it’s concerned with all sorts of things. It receives a hundred million pounds a year, this organisation, of your money. And Brown says that he wants to cut the budget deficit and that he wants to reduce the overspends which he’s spent to get us out of this recession which he’s been digging away for the last ten to twelve years — and I think he could start with the Human Rights and Equality Commission! Get rid of them all! Starting with Mister Phillips!
Now, Mister Phillips says he’s not an extremist, but in his office at 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 favour of militant equality, he’s in favour of militant egalitarianism — but there are certain groups that he doesn’t like. He doesn’t like people who vote for this party; he doesn’t like white working-class people, 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 U.K.I.P.. 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 Elections — one for the northwest of England, and one for Yorkshire and Humber. I’m very pleased to see the re-emergence of Mister Andrew Bronze, who was the former chairman of an organisation called “the National Front,” and has been involved in Right-wing British politics for many decades.
Now, 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 meted the better part of four to five years ago. Phillips himself is under a great deal of pressure because half of his executive board inside his bureaucratic group have resigned, and there’s lot 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 a lot of these people fight in these bureaus like rats in a sack, even though they’re pathologically opposed to what this country once was, to a portion 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 eighty-thousand and then you get the costs 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 tip-toe 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 round. I don’t think you can just wave your hand in the air and say “We’re totally against it, whoops, we surrender!” I think you’ve got to actually do something, even if you’re forced to do it, partly because you’re seen then, to be acting 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 defence 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, than just sort of dropping dead as soon as Phillips waves his bit of paper in the air.
But make no boast about it that various laws have been passed by New Labour since they came in, in ’97. There’s probably been eight through ten 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, in my case anyway, is abstract to a degree — and it has to be. The point of these laws, anyway, is to prevent people speaking emotionally, or from the heart, rather than in a philosophical, or an abstract, or an intellectual, or in a semi-intellectual way. Freedom of speech to intellectuals who have liberal 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 forty to fifty years. This is why these laws have been introduced — the laws that created the Race Relations Board, the laws that intended the creation of the Commission for Racial Equality, and its intended Commission for Sexual Equality, and this new hyper-ministry led by Phillips.
In the old days, white elitist liberals used to lead these organisations; lords and liberal peers — usually executive members of the Liberal Party, as it then was. Now, after Usely, we have Phillips, and Phillips is under pressure because the British National Party has risen. Usely who was, of course, chairman of this commission, or the C.R.E. which preceded it before Phillips, criticises Phillips because the British National Party has won elections — as if his remit is actually to stop one particular 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.
Now, the key test whenever the Conservatives win — 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 that they’re 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 realise that they have groups to which they’re antagonistic, they have individuals drawn from those groups to which they’re even more antagonistic, and they wish to deny such persons freedom of speech.
Now, earlier in the twentieth century, our fathers and grandfathers were told that they fought; they fought against Germany, they fought against Fascism; they fought against Imperial Germany in the First War between 1914 and 1918. You may have seen some of the very elderly veterans who are basically dying now; ninety-three, eighty-nine, ninety-six, hundred and nine, hundred and six, hundred and four. As these men went over the top in 1914-18, in Flanders’ Fields, at the Somme, at Passchendaele, and Ypres, and elsewhere, were they fighting for tolerance and inclusion? Were they fighting for Mister 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 War, were they fighting for tolerance and inclusion? Were they fighting for Mister 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 racial and ethnic pride that was unstated because the whole English conspectus was you didn’t really go on about that because it was accepted as a norm to begin with, and 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.