Jonathan Bowden, Lancashire BNP meeting, Sept ’09, Pt. 2


Many of them didn’t know what was coming, and certainly didn’t know that the Great War was a form of mechanised death in which we would lose eight-hundred-thousand men. Eight-hundred-thousand! And look around this country now — what did they die for? (And many more maimed and injured on top of that core eight-hundred-thousand — and that’s just in the first war.) But 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 two-hundred-thousand abortions a year? Did they die for the absence of the death penalty? Did they die for liberal-Left censorship that denies even the rights of a private conversation up to a certain perspective? Did they die for the rights of men to marry eachother and adopt children? Did they die for all of these things, or did they actually fight for something different? I have the 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 to even 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 centres of some of our cities like Birmingham and elsewhere — England’s second city. In the centre of Hansworth in the middle of Birmingham, criminal gangs control large parts of the economy there. There are two gangs in Hansworth: both Afro-Caribbean gangs. One’s called “the Johnson Crew” and the other is called “the Burger Bar Boys.” They’re gangs; they have buildings in the centre of Hansworth. 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 fuelled by the drug economy.

One in four youths between sixteen and twenty-five is now unemployed. This country is technically bankrupt despite the actual coin that seems to be still in people’s pockets. Unemployment is two and a half million, but will rise to three million by the turn of the year/beginning of the next. If you add in all the people that are claiming, if you add in all the people that don’t want to work, all the people that are on the sick, all the people that have been miscalculated as to whether they’re unemployed or not. Don’t forget Thatcher changed how you count unemployment seventeen 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’ve kept those statistical analyses when they came in, in ’97. So unemployment is well-over three million now — and don’t forget, at least a million Polish 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 E.U. laws that permitted such a 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 fuelled by debt? You got up in the morning and there were three new credit cards on the mat! “Zero percent! Buy now — worry later after six months the A.P.R. is twenty-nine-point-five percent…” Do you remember all those letters and all those cards? Everyone in this room is fifty-five grand in debt. That’s after the bailout, and in relation to the actual corporate debt — add up the Waitrose, and the Debenhams, 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.

Now, Brown was lying recently when he said that the Tories would only cut and they will invest prior to a form of non-cut, Labour will cut ten percent off all budgets after they election if they’re going to 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 wider and a broader picture. There’s all sorts 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 local level (multiple language translations); at the regionary and sub-parliamentary and devolved level; similar sorts of bureaucracies (Phillips’ bureaucracy) at the higher level. Get rid of all of the panoply of E.U. laws and regulation that restricts business and denies the rights of English and British people to do what they want in their own country. Leave the European Union, which leaves you free of an enormous sort of 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 favour of the country’s development and who is not; who has the best interest 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 B.B.C., are running the Labour government, are running the Commission for Human Equality, some of them are running the N.H.S., 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 — and 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 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. And we will be dragged into these disputes, adding to 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, seventy million persons of colour have entered the United States. Seventy 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 C.I.A. 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 there will be a nuclear war in the Middle East in the next twenty-five years on present trends. The C.I.A. gets many things wrong — and did not predict 9/11 — but they did predict the war between Georgia and Russia a year ago, so they get the odd one right. If you throw enough darts at the board you occasionally get a one-eight-zero! See what I mean?

But Obama is typical of what that country has become, and we are such an Americanised 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, has now come here after a lag of ten to twenty years; mass abortion; civil rights; rights for minorities, sexual and otherwise — partly an American prerequisite — came here (although they 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 E.U. 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 not always to 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 favour of these wars; they’re all in favour of US power; they’re all in favour of our troops being abroad in wars which are directly not in our ultimate self-interest; they’re all in favour of membership of the EU; they’re all in favour of bailing the banks out; they’re all in favour of the economics which led to those bail-outs; they’re all in favour of mass immigration. Why? Because they’re all liberals! And because liberalism is a system!

Most people look at the box and go, “Why are Labour and the Tories so near? Why are they so close? Why does Brown occasionally make conservative remarks, and why does Cameron wear a red tie and occasionally says he’s a progressive? Why is this political transvestism going on as if they sort of launch into eachother and exchange garments?” And you’ve got Mandelson in-between Brown and Cameron exchanging even more garments because he wants to, you know? And people wonder, “Why are they there and why are they so similar? Why is the political tension of the previous generations, between red and blue — which was very intense — where’s it all gone?” And it’s all gone, all been dissipated, because they stand basically for the same thing.

When anyone thinks of the Tories can you imagine Sir Alec Douglas-Home, who was Tory leader the year I was born in the early 1960s, being a member of United Against Fascism? Can you imagine that?

Part 1 > Part 3


One thought on “Jonathan Bowden, Lancashire BNP meeting, Sept ’09, Pt. 2

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s