The very arrest of the man for the "racism" inherent in making a monkey gesture is in itself "racist". If I was him I would immediately report the arresting officer and he who had ordered the arrest.

In the interview room my opening gambit would be:

"Officer, the person who has ordered my arrest is racist. How dare he insinuate that my impression of a monkey --made in allusion to the stupidity of opposing fans-- is in any relation to Black people. I am deeply sickened by this racism and your comparison of Black people to monkeys. Before we go any further I would like to report as a Hate Crime to actions of the officer who has ordered my arrest. Furthermore, I would like to request a counsellor as I am extremely upset by this racism."

Turn the tables, people.

Yet again, we can use the System's tools against itself --either that or continue taking it up the arse.

Yes, the same old platitudes are there: "waycist, fascist, Naaaaaartseeee (always in a bourgeois accent)".

Reds: Care in the Community in overdrive.

1) I have attended a BCG meeting where there were several blacks;

2) Mr. Gerrish has previously given talks to groups of Muslims as well as Nationalists (there is no discrimination on political, religious or ideological grounds);

3) Zahid Raja provides not one iota of evidence to substantiate his claims that Mr. Gerrish is a "known fascist" and "racist" (what do these terms mean?);

4) Zahid Raja would be devoid of the political awareness in defining fascism (and "racism"). They are to him, and his fellow travellers, meaningless buzzwords, clichés of which without their "Leftist" position is effete, defunct and left wanting (these are the only tools in their armoury).

5) This is categorical proof (if ever it was needed) that the modus operandi of modern-day Reds is little more than Capitalists' running dogs, Establishment footsoldiers, and clerical dog collars of the international bourgeoisie. They have taken their side and joined the Establishment's whores (media) in the same whore house).

Now, which meeting (of which their puppet and pay masters do not approve) will these doggies next attack? One which Mr. Gerrish, et al blow the whistle on Establishment paedophilia? Most likely.

Woof, woof... down boy, back in your basket. Your master has a bone of reward for executing its dirty work.

REDS: CANNOT, AND MUST NOT, BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

Thank you very much, Zahid Raja et al, for proving --to the general public, semi-anarchists, and anti-Establishment types who attend the BCG meeting-- who's side you are really on.

A priceless coup for Mr. Gerrish and the BCG, I think. I really can't see "We are Change", "Anonymous", etc (who invariably attend these meetings and support Mr. Gerrish/BCG) taking very well to the strong-arm tactics of the Reds. Their eyes will now be wide open.

Thanks again, little doggies. Woof, woof.

Albion, I was moved to post here due to some significant flaws and points:

1) Ayn Rand is female;

2) "repudiates individualism and that sovereignty is not vested in the people but in the nation state, and that all individuals and associations exist only to enhance the power, prestige and well-being of the state. It exalts the nation as an organic body headed by the Supreme Leader and nurtured by unity, force, and discipline in the nation state." --This is taken from an authoritarian or fascistic conception of the State and is not reflective of ours;

3) "freedom or dictatorship, capitalism or statism." --It should be remembered that Ayn Rand was a libertarian, economically favourable to the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Subjectively then, her definition of "freedom" is anything but the State --but it is certainly true that there is little or no freedom (either economically and by direct influence socially) within the confines of capitalism. I will advance that economic and social freedom lies in the (economic) Third Position of Distributism --which transcends both State and capitalism and where economic production is in the hands of the People.

4) " there is something more reprehensible still: the policy of the “conservatives,” who are trying to defend freedom by stealth." --a typo? Surely it is not reprehensible to defend freedom. Perhaps you mean "freedom" with regard to capitalist might.

5) "Her party also attracted voters from the National Front." --No. Many hard-line Tories had defected to the NF but soon returned when, in 1979, Thatcher made mendacious and appeasing platitudes on immigration. The Tories, therefore, simply regained their own --and they dutifully went crawling back to the bosom of Thatcher.

6) "Statism, whether government, Political and diplomatic is the theory or practice of concentrating economic and political power in the state, resulting in a weak position for the individual or community with respect to the government." --This, of course, overlooks the Tories' fundamental manifesto for small state, free enterprise, and free markets --all of which are by definition outside the confines of the State. This definition also doesn't take account of the power of the City of London in bypassing both government and State. The "austerity" measures and the rolling back of the State is also overlooked. Privatisation --especially of the NHS-- is another issue not taken cognizance of.

Albion, your definition of Statism does not apply to today's Britain. There is no longer a nation state, nationalised amenities, nationalised companies, or even nationalised (central banks). The State is large only in State security.

In conclusion, Albion, this is (for you) a below-par article. Might I suggest you listen to this:

Creative Destruction --Jonathan Bowden on Libertarianism: http://www.alternativeright.com/altright-radio/cr...

Thanks. I'll look forward to your next article.

1) Germany simply tried to regain her territory taken from her by the egregious and blatant theft of the Treaty of Versailles. ("The former eastern territories of Germany were ceded to Poland and the Soviet Union and the Oder and Neisse Rivers became Germany's new eastern boundary.")

2) The USSR also invaded Poland that same year -why did we not invade them? http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviet...

Who made millions out of spreading lies that Britain had lost the Napoleonic War --thus reducing immediately the worth and price of its gold which was subsequently bought up by the Rothschilds? What race were highly prominent and disproportionate in the Bolsheviks, later the Communist Party? Just who was pulling the strings of Western powers prior to and after the Great War & WW2? Just who funded both Hitler and the Stalin? From whom was Lord Balfour (prominent figure in the creation of Israel) in receipt of millions of pounds? Who gave the USA a suitcase of millions of dollars to compel it to recognise Israel in 14 minutes?

I could go on --but we all know (or should know) the answer.

Quite right, too.

Who, exactly, are these persons posting negative comments both here and on the BNP Ideas site? Why no user account --you know, the one that stores for posterity all previous posts that are available to anyone to read and at any time (Discuss, Intense Debate, etc)?

This is the rule of thumb by which I work: negative comments from a name with no user account are largely dismissed; negative comments from one with a user account will be investigated by a quick glance at his previous.

Likewise, I didn't pay much attention to "Stone Turner"'s article on Andrew Moffat (a personal attack such as that should have carried a name; as it did not I consider it, in that context, unworthy of much attention). That is not to say "Stone Turner" is malevolent; but it is suggestive of having an axe to grind.

Same shit, different day... and we haven't learnt a thing about how Reds lurk in the shadows and foment discord.

@ GA: A topic worthy of a today's post:

Internet strikes back: Anonymous' Operation Megaupload explained: http://rt.com/usa/news/anonymous-barrettbrown-sop...

THE PEOPLE KICK BACK -HARDER!

I'm delighted that Mr. Gerrish has again agreed to call in the room; I hope he has an update regarding my previous enquiry into the necessity of publishing arm for the BCG, etc.

This is the kind of information that will resonate well with people if it is reproduced on leaflets and pamphlets:

PAEDOPHILES IN POWER: http://eotp.org/tag/paedophilia/

RAPISTS IN POWER: http://eotp.org/tag/rapists/

SEX CRIMINALS IN POWER: http://eotp.org/tag/sex-criminals/

The material on the Enemies of the People and the Liars, Buggers and Thieves websites is, much to my consternation, languishing on the internet, out of view of the public. Watch the marked difference when this information hits the streets, schools, women's groups, etc.

Well done, BF, on yet another tremendous and worthy undertaking.

Perhaps BF would also care to supplant this initiative with the action of reporting ALL acts of "racism" (as defined by the Establishment) to the relevant "authorities". This will produce reverberations in the System and will also at least illicit a response from the body. Collate the responses and show their subjectivity and crass bias in using "racism" to mean an act committed only by a White.

Might I suggest you start now with these two snippets of evidence: http://order-order.com/2012/01/05/diane-abbotts-w...
http://eotp.org/2010/06/28/video-diane-abbott-mp-...

The ambiguity and meaninglessness of "racism" and, indeed, "terrorism" presents us with endless opportunities: what is good enough for them and their witch hunts is also a workable tool for us.

Why not report David Cameron and David Milliband for sympathies to terrorism: (2006) Blast from the Past: Prime Minster David Cameron -TERRORIST APOLOGIST; (2009) New Labour David Miliband M.P. -PARASITE AND SUPPORTER OF TERRORISM: http://eotp.org/tag/terrorist-apologist/

TAKE THE FIGHT TO THE SYSTEM and use its own tools against itself. We have suffered long enough precisely because we have not done this and not hit back --HARDER.

The opportunities for disruption of the System are endless. Start also to question what is "racism" and thus present it as the cliche it is. Place a question mark over "racism" --this mechanism of social control and operant conditioning-- and undermine its power.

Such an accusatory article ought carry the name of the author... or is he too "being scrupulously careful not to raise his own head too much above the parapet."?

An interesting point raised above: "As someone who was in the heart of things for many years I can say this is a very truthful account of the situation, but the question remains what to do about it, how much more can we do to convince people that Britain First is the only viable option."

I really do hope this article is not mudslinging by BF. As most know, I am a supporter of BF --especially their new direction and activity outside of the ballot box, and also their reaching out to patriotic and anti-Establishment groups such as the British Constitution Group. However, I am averse to needless besmirchment of others in the Cause.