© by Rob Ager 2009





The British National Party

The double standards and hypocrisy of New Labour "equality" policies are so pervasive that the only ways not to notice them are to be disinterested, biased or naive. Public disatisfaction, opposition and feedback is ignored almost completely as New Labour soldiers on. They consider themselves to be superior to the average UK citizen, both morally and intellectually. Their logic is in line with that of most totalitarian regimes ... leader knows best and those who disagree are to be ignored or demonized.

Another aspect of New Labour that is in line with totalitarian regimes is the power tactic of divide and conquer. Different social groups are pitted against each other in a competition as to who is the most victimized and the most entitled to special economic privelege. New Labour policies have a polarizing effect that causes British people to bunch up into "us and them" groups. These groups can then be easily played off against each other to create a mass state of panic ... and in that state of panic, questionable new policies are put on the table for public acceptance, the logic being that they will be accepted for emotional reasons (primarily fear) and will be less subject to intelligent debate. This is true of British terror laws, which were passed on the basis of shadowy networks of terrorists lurking among us. It was true of the Iraq war, kickstarted by falsified WMD threats. It's true of racial laws that discriminate against innocent white people, passed into law on the strength of biased media coverage that installs a false sense of guilt in people who weren't even racist to begin with.

One of the most basic benefits of the divide and conquer, or engineered conflict, tactic is that it prevents the general public from achieving mass solidarity in opposition to government corruption. But if this was the primary motive of New Labour then surely it would be best to balance out the conflict by occassionally siding with Britain's white male population. That way New Labour could pass themselves off as neutral peacemakers. No. The New Labour bias is consistently against British born people, especially white people, and with a focused disregard of white males (apart from the rich ones and pro-EU ones).

Let's explore some major examples of New Labour's conflict engineering in Britain.

One of the most pervasive engineered conflicts is the combined government and media opposition to the BNP (British National Party) ... take note of your immediate emotional response to that last sentence. Did you suddenly feel a tinge of panic that you might be reading an article by a closet-BNP supporter? If you did then I suggest you delay your judgement at least until the end of this chapter. That hasty emotional response is exactly what New Labour and the EU wants you to feel towards anyone who suggests BNP are anything but a fascist and racist organisation ... the polarization effect.

During and after the 2009 European Parliamentary elections I noticed an interesting sentiment being repeated in the British media. Readers were being reminded across the board not to vote for or support BNP [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Here's Harriet Harman giving BNP maximum exposure prior to the EU elections. In fact the British media has consistently been giving BNP all the coverage it can in the past year [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].

One of the consistent rules of party political campaigns (and almost any other self-promoting group) is to show strength in the face of opposition. Parties almost universally claim that they are headed for impressive victories when facing an election. Harriet Harman, who exaggerated to newspapers the threat of BNP in the EU elections, can be seen below in the 2009 New Labour conference displaying supposed party strength in the run up to the 2010 UK general elections ... this is in spite of severe New Labour losses in the EU elections and the party's presently abysmal popularity ratings. The video itself is an official New Labour youtube release, but has its ratings disabled and has gathered less than 1,000 viewings (ironically, this article may give it a boost).

New Labour really was losing a great deal of support in the years building up to the EU parliamentary elections, so why did they make it worse for themselves by running a campaign that amounted to little more than "Don't vote for BNP as a protest vote"? Do we ever hear moans of "Don't vote Conservative as a protest vote!"?

Harriet Harman, the self-proclaimed New Labour champion of "equality", paved the way for widespread media coverage of BNP. She helped the BNP to win its two, first ever, EU parliamentary seats. Can she really be this stupid?

An important motivational clue can be found in this report, which reveals that the three main parties (Conservatives, New Labour, Liberal Democrats), who are supposedly opponents for political office, met to arrange a joint strategy to defeat BNP. Notice that UKIP (UK Independence Party) were left out of this meeting, yet came second in the EU elections with 13 seats and slightly more votes than New Labour. The fact is that BNP were not a major threat. As the EU election results showed, UKIP was the rising threat. Despite being given minimum media coverage in the EU elections UKIP knocked New Labour into third place. The significance of this is enormous. If this shift is reflected in the 2010 general elections then Britain's political landscape will have changed into a battle between Conservatives and UKIP, which in turn will bring EU withdrawal to the table as a major political issue.

The problem for New Labour in trying to defeat UKIP is that spouting "racist" accusations won't work because UKIP party membership requires non-racism. Harman didn't have any ammunition to fire so she instead encouraged the media to focus its attention on BNP instead of UKIP. Conservative and Liberal Democrats went along with this strategy because the real issue at hand is Britain's role in the EU. All of the three major parties that met up to tackle the "BNP threat" are pro-EU parties. This has since become evident in that the Conservatives backed out of their promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty [1] [2] [3] [4]. The Conservative party leaders even upheld their no referendum stance when newly elected UKIP leader Lord Pearson offered to withdraw UKIP from the next general election in return for a legal promise that Conservatives would hold a referendum on EU membership [1] [2]. Conservative leader David Cameron ordered his own MPs not to favor the UKIP offer despite threats from existing Conservative MPs and Lords to defect to UKIP [1].

Like New Labour, Conservative leaders value EU integration more than they do the votes of the British public. The cross-party alliance of New Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats was an attempt to defeat the threat of UKIP - and their strategy was to redirect public opposition (on matters such as immigration and the financial costs of EU membership) away from UKIP and towards BNP. The mass emphasis of BNP as a "protest vote" choice was reverse psychology - a simple device to polarize public opinion into extreme left and right camps.

By helping BNP to win two EU parliamentary seats, New Labour generated a polarizing backlash across Britain against an illusionary "fascist and racist" threat that the three main parties helped to manufacture. Anti-BNP groups have been popping up and gaining support all over the country [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] - sucking people back into New Labour's tunnel vision "equality and diversity" corner at the expense of more important issues. It was a nice try, but a few months later New Labour's partner in crime, the BBC, tried another tactic along the same lines and shot themselves in the foot ... they invited BNP leader Nick Griffin to appear on the prime time political tv show Question Time. You can watch the video on youtube.

Like with the EU election buildup, maximum media coverage was given to Nick Griffin's BNP appearance well ahead of the Question Time broadcast [1] [2] [3] [4] thus ensuring millions of viewers. The media reports that followed after the broadcast were almost universally attempts to polarize public opinion into camps of extreme right and left [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], the unspoken message being you're either with the political stance (pro-EU integration) of the three major parties in Britain or you're a BNP supporting racist.

The Question Time show started out as a debate clearly designed to further the cause for New Labour's supposed "racial equality" agenda and to support their open door immigration laws. The BNP leader was a scarecrow on display, supposedly personifying all Euroskeptics and critics of mass immigration. Gradually, it turned into a mudslinging match between the three pro-EU party representatives who were supposed to be in alliance against the BNP. They were dragged into a debate on immigration policy and subsequently accused each other of either causing or supporting the problem.

Here is a list of details in the Question Time debate that demonstrate the pro-EU bias of the broadcast with the three main parties and the BBC attempting to polarize public opinion into extreme left and right camps.

Another chapter in this polarized BNP versus New Labour fiasco is the "leaking" of BNP member details online, along with full media coverage [1] [2] [3] [4]. The Guardian newspaper even went to the lengths of providing a sohisticated map of Britain's BNP members on it's website. People of specific professions supposedly having joined the BNP have been smeared in this process, including police, the forces, teachers and even doctors [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. This mass smearing of individuals as racists has shades of 1950's McCarthyism, in which people who opposed the political establishment were accused of being communists and had their careers destroyed. Now the New Labour government is banning police from joining the BNP [1] [2] and is trying to achieve the same in the teaching professions [1] [2] [3] and even the nursing profession [1]. This is clearly undemocratic. The amazing thing about it is that across the board BNP members are assumed to be racists, but the truth is that many BNP members have joined the organisation as a desperate attempt to find a political alternative to the three main parties - New Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat. If those parties were democratically dealing with the issues that British people are concerned about then BNP's membership would dramatically fall.


The English Defence League

The English Defence League appeared out of the blue in 2009, holding a series of demonstrations against Muslim extremism. Within months these demonstrations received widespread media coverage [1] [2] [3] [4]. On its website the EDL lists its previously held demonstrations in chronological order, beginning with a demonstration in Luton on May 24th 2009. The EDL website claims this first demontration was in response to a group of Muslim men in Luton earlier in the same month who demonstrated at a homecoming for British soldiers returning from Afghanistan. Here is a video clip of the homecoming demonstration at which a group of Muslims protested.

The difficulty of the situation is immedietely apparent. One of the signs held by the Muslims simply says "ILLEGAL WAR IN IRAQ". Two more say "BRITISH GOVERNMENT TERROR GOVERNMENT". Another sign shows pictures of Iraqi casualties along with the slogan "IRAQ WAR CASUALTIES". Another says "ANGLIAN SOLDIERS ARE WAR CRIMINALS" and another "ANGLIAN SOLDIERS: CRIMINALS MURDERERS TERRORISTS". (Apologies for the picture quality. They're taken from a poor quality video recording).

With the exception of the branding of Anglian soldiers as war criminals, these slogans are valid criticisms of the Labour government's warmongering foreign policy, but the context in which it is expressed is unfortunate. There will likely have been relatives of the serving soldiers waiting to see their loved ones return, who would be deeply offended at the Muslim slogans. The slogans would be more appropriate outside the houses of parliament, but due to new British laws regarding demonstrations [1] [2] these Muslim men may have felt confined to holding their demonstration in the wrong context. The returning soldiers didn't create the policies that led to the war and so what follows is an angry burst of verbal abuse and physical threats from the crowd, who we can assume to be members of Luton's population. However, several of the crowd begin chanting simple football-type slogans of "ENGLAND ENGLAND ENGLAND" ... not a particularly relevant response.

Here is the BBC's coverage of the event, which came months later at the beginning of the Muslim demonstrators' trial. Notice that the BBC avoids quoting the more valid placards held at the demonstration such as "ILLEGAL WAR IN IRAQ", "BRITISH GOVERNMENT TERROR GOVERNMENT", or "IRAQ WAR CASUALTIES" and instead focuses on the slogans that are most offensive to the British troops and their families. The BBC reporters certainly saw the other placards.

And so, a couple of weeks later is the first EDL "demonstration", apparently a knee-jerk angry response to the homecoming demonstration by Muslims. A batch of videos of the event can be found at the Youtube channel lutonmay24th2009.

The footage shows a large group of mostly young, white men in defiance of the police chanting occasional slogans such as "We want our country back" and carrying the occasional placard. The footage contains very little verbal content to support the EDL claim that the prior Muslim demonstration "led to the formation of the English Defence League"[1] nor does it show much in the way of placard content.

Next up is a demonstration in Whitechappel, London on June 27th 2009. The footage shows a gang of mostly very young white men, many of whom look like they're in their teens. There are almost no placards and their police escorted march consists of little more than football chants of "England" and the occasional "We want out country back". This appears to be a small group of maybe two dozen white males who have made their way from Luton to hold the demonstration in a location that the EDL describes as having been "converted into a 'mini-Islamic State' by local muslim extremists".

This video of the same event is posted with a title description that describes the group as an "English & Welsh Defence League".

The next demonstration is at Woodgreen on the 4th July 2009. There doesn't seem to be much information or footage available for this event.

Note that several of these videos are hosted by a youtube user called lutonlionheart. This youtube channel is significant to unravelling the hostory of the EDL.

Lutonlionheart's youtube account was created on Feb 1st 2008. On the same day, he uploaded a three part video of himself being interviewed by an unidentified American [1] [2] [3]. The interviewer introduces him as follows, "Today is February 1st 2008 and I'm here with Paul Ray, otherwise known as LionHeart". Paul Ray has a British accent and claims to have been in the US "since December". Paul then explains he has been arrested on suspiscion of "stirring up racial hatred through written material on my blog".

On youtube he posts very little information about the detailed political views and opinions that are the motivational drive of the EDL demonstrations, apart from an overwhelming fear of Islamic extremism. He posts lots of videos emphasizing a perceived Islamification of Britain. He also posts videos calling for people to rally and attend anti-Muslim extremist demonstrations. One of his rally calls predates the May 2009 homecoming demonstration (the one where the Muslims demonstrated in Luton) by two months, yet the EDL website claims the formation of the EDL was a reaction to the May homecoming demonstration. One of his videos also shows photos of a Luton demonstration with captions stating that it took place in April. So it appears that the belief systems driving the EDL were present in Luton before the homecoming demonstration by Muslims.

During his youtube interview, Paul describes in detail what he perceives as Muslims pumping drugs into his community, committing rapes, planning bombings etc. He seems genuinely concerned and afraid "I've got these al queda in Luton who want to kill me". I could see no indication in the video of him lying about his fears. How much truth there is to his stories of a Muslim extremist takeover or whether he is simply a misguided and paranoid individual I can't say with authority. However, the evidence he cites to support his perception of a network of terrorism in his Luton community mostly comes from the British media - stories of Al Queda, terror plots etc. He talks about the London bombings with total conviction that the perpetrators were part of a larger and still existent Al Queda network in Luton. But something that seems to have bypassed his attention is that there hasn't even been a public enquiry into the London bombings yet [1] [2] [3]. The true story of that event is yet to be established as there is a great deal of conflicting evidence out there [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Paul Ray describes his distrust of the British government, yet he seems to believe every scaremongering terrorist story that comes out from that same government.

Is Paul Ray the ideological and organisational source from which the EDL sprang? Maybe. His fearful belief structures about networks of terrorists seem to be shared by the write-ups on the EDL website, yet the footage of their demonstrations seems more in line with football fans seeking the tense thrill of group opposition. My guess is that it's a combination of the two. The EDL isn't a political party and it can barely even be called an organisation as it seems to operate on the same level of sophistication as gangs of football fans getting together to attend a match and taunt each other.

Regardless of all these factors, the EDL gained notoriety across Britain in the latter half of 2009 as a rising racist threat to British democracy. The sensationalist coverage of the EDL by the British media fanned the flames of left versus right ideological polarization, while distracting from important issues such as immigration fuelled over-population and the cost of EU membership.

On the same day as the Woodgreen demonstration, 4th July 2009, was another EDL demonstration in Birmingham, for which there doesn't appear to be much information available. A second Birmingham demonstration was then arranged at the same location, to be held on August 8th 2009. This time Unite Against Fascism (UAF), an organisation formed in 2003 to combat the growth of the British National Party, planned and announced a counter demonstration at the same time and place. The logic of this is bizarre. The previous EDL demonstrations were obviously a combination of misled, youthful thrill seeking mob mentality (of the football variety) combined with media induced paranoia of Muslim extremism, which New Labour have overwhelmingly been the driving force of with their War on Terror. And the most significant detail that media reports have completely ignored are that the EDL group comes from Luton, which is where the london bombers were reported to have travelled from to carry out their attack [1]. That factor is crucial because, as the footage of Paul Ray reveals, the media coverage of the London bombings has resulted in deep rooted fears of local Al Queda terror networks in the white population of Luton. That isn't evidence of a rising racist threat. It's simply a community response to a perceived terror network and differs little from the misguided, and in some cases exploitative, establishment reaction to the london bombings [1] [2] [3] [4]. The EDL is an expression of media induced fear by frustrated young men who have little understanding of the political agendas of the War on Terror and little knowledge of how to run an effective political campaign. In an interview with the telegraph they wore black masks to hide their identities and burned a Nazi flag, while surrounded by banners saying "BLACK AND WHITE UNITE" (not the most racist slogan) and "SAY 'NO' TO MORE SHARIA LAW" [1]. New Labour expects us to believe the EDL are racists for demonstrating against muslim extremism, yet over several years New Labour has caused mass destruction, fear and erosion of civil liberties in it's own response to that very same issue.

The UAF would have known these facts as they are a well funded, coalition organisation with powerful political ties to New Labour (Ken Livingston is the chairman, the Anti-Nazi League and Socialist Worker's Party are among its coalition partners). This political organisation seized upon the opportunity to sensationalize the August 8th EDL demonstration and promote its own existence. The result was a predictably violent demonstration that was misrepresented by New Labour and its allied media sources as a clash between "right wing / racists" and "anti-fascists" [1] [2] [3] [4]. It was a clash between "anti- Muslim extremists" and "anti-fascists", each blaming each other for social problems caused by the New Labour government.

The anger fuelled by the August 8th demonstration led to a third demonstration by the EDL, again in Birmingham. There were calls to have the demonstration banned [1] [2], but of all people it was a local New Labour MP, Steve McCabe, who opposed the ban. Was he doing this in defence of British free speech or because he saw the propaganda gains for his own party if another violent demonstration could be pinned on a "right wing" group? I'd put my money on the latter because the EDL dermonstrations have since been used as a tool to attack New Labour's proclaimed enemies, the BNP [1] [2] [3] [4]. Luton council saw fit to ban further EDL demonstrations [1], but the next Birmingham demonstration went ahead on the 5th September anyway. It was even more violent, resulting in 90 arrests [1].

The same thing occurred again on the 10th October in Manchester, but this time it wasn't just the UAF who beefed up the conflict potential [1] [2]. Manchester City Council allowed the protest to go ahead despite reports of earlier EDL demonstration violence in other cities. Not only that, but this time newspapers, socialist groups (and even the police) basically advertised the demonstrations in advance [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. This of course fueled Manchester black and Asian fears that a "fascist / racist " organisation was coming to town, thus ensuring that an angry counter-mob would show up and violence would ensue.

The next two EDL demonstrations occured simultaneously in London and Leeds on 31st October. In Leeds, there was advance advertising through the media of the planned demonstrations [1] [2] [3] although this time police control appears to have been more effective.

At the Leeds event the following speeches were made. One speaker cites incidences of what he describes as the islamification of Britain. Another makes the following statements regarding his fears of Islamification "... we will have an Islamic inquisition. The laws of this England are built on human rights and the friends we have invited into the commonwealth are apparently to end the bedrock of our culture and throw us back into the middle ages with arcane extreme religious beliefs." and he names specific Muslim campaigners as being the people he is resisting. At the same rally the EDL are taunted by "anti-fascists" shouting terms such as "Nazi fascist scum". Several of the videos on youtube show the "anti-fascist" protestors complaining to the police for protecting the EDL. The UAF led oppostion was as hate-filled and ready for violence as the EDL.

At the time of writing, the last demonstration by the EDL was in Nottingham on December 5th ... again, advance media advertisement of the event [1] [2] [3] as well as by the police [1] resulting in a counter demonstration and violence.

It's also interesting that reports consistently describe the EDL as having lost their protest battles or of being "run out of town" by "anti-fascists" [1] [2] [3] [4], yet the EDL kept up its momentum and held protest after protest in city after city in 2009, even returning to the same cities despite the resistance they encountered. Rather than being run out of town, they were escorted to train stations by the police as arranged. EDL protests also seem to have been timed to co-incide with football matches and home coming parades [1] [2] [3], thus drawing people into the battles who somewhat agreed with the EDL's messages, but weren't members. This gave off the impression that the EDL is a larger and more well organized group.

As an intellectual exercize both sides fail ridiculously. This is the kind of polarized public opinion that serves the interests of New Labour and the EU. These sensationalized and violent clashes have been used to whip up mass paranoia of a rising "far right / racist" threat across Britain. The oversensationalized coverage and engineered conflict are attempts to justify a clamp down on free speech by smearing patriots / nationalists as fascists, racists [1] [2] [3] and if New Labour has their way - terrorists. In particular, the BBC have been manipulative in their coverage of this issue [1] [2] [3]. This BBC interview with an EDL member is laughable. The interviewee doesn't put forward much logic, but the presenter is absolutely determined to smear him and the EDL as racist thugs. The same is also true of this BBC interview, in which the presenter states that a government minister has claimed the EDL is "using the tactics of the fascists from the 1930's". The same could also be said of the New Labour government's use of terrorism laws to erode civil liberties, support for concentration camps at Guantanamo Bay and illegal invasion of Iraq based upon a fabricated threat - those were all Nazi tactics as well. Notice also how the BBC reporter asks questions and then speaks over the young man before he can even give a full answer. It's a smear report veiled as an interview.

The thuggish elements associated with the EDL are nothing new. Football violence and riots have occurred for decades not just in Britain, but across Europe. The difference here is that the New Labour government has given footballers a series of political issues to shout about. The EDL may not understand the core political and economic factors that are the source of their frustrations, but they're certainly feeling them.

Here is a more constructive meeting between critics of perceived Muslim extremism and Muslims themselves. Notice that the person ejected from the debate and the people giving verbal abuse outside of the building aren't the nationalists. There appear to be no national media reports of the event.


These two "right wing" groups have been used as political pawns by the supposedly "left wing" New Labour and their pro-EU allies. The growth of BNP membership and the creation of the EDL stem directly from social tension created by New Labour policies ... the Iraq war, the war on terror, anti-white legislation, mass immigration policy and the surrendering of British sovereignty to the EU without a referendum.