YouTube and Freedom of Speech

A disturbing incident happened to my channel last week concerning a video which YouTube decided to remove after a complaint from a Pakistani Muslim.

I've never had a problem with YouTube in the past, and have always thought they were pro Freedom of Speech and fairly tolerant and laid back in their approach to peoples content. Particularly when it comes to politics. However this incident has alerted me to a possible problem and I would like to warn other nationalists.

Basically the incident concerned a video I uploaded from Channel 4 News concerning the recent conviction of 9 Pakistani Muslim men in Manchester for grooming a 14 year old girl and having under age sex with her as well as pimping her out as a prostitute to other older Pakistani Muslim men. No doubt many will be familiar with this story, despite efforts by the mainstream media to keep it low profile.

Anyway I uploaded the video and put some commentary alongside it together with the names and addresses of the perpetrators. I also pointed out they were Pakistani Muslims, something which the mainstream media seem willing to keep quiet.

My video soon caught the attention of Pakistani Muslims who visit my channel to leave their usual abuse, and one of them reported it to YouTube as being racist. YouTube agreed it was racist and removed the video without any warning or notice just on the basis of one complaint from a Muslim. They also issued me with a warning that the video had contravened their rules and that further videos of this nature might result in my channel being closed down.

The video itself was the actual news story from Channel 4 and was completely unchanged, nothing added. So one can I only assume it was the text commentary I added for the video description which YouTube objected to. Admittedly I used some strong words and called the men "vile Muslim scum" and said I hoped they would be dealt with in prison for being peadophiles. I also highlighted the nationwide organised child abuse of white teenage girls by Muslim gangs and provide further links to videos and news stories.

Obviously the Muslim who saw this probably was angered by my comments, but I expect his motivation at complaining was more because he didn't want this video on Youtube and the truth out there.

Whatever the reason, YouTube took his side and didn't explain why the video had broke the rules. No opportunity was given to amend the video. They could of simply pointed out that they objected to the strong language and I would of toned it down or removed the text.

Up until this point I had not kept copies of my uploaded videos simply due to limited storage space and the time it takes to archive onto DVDs. So unfortunately after the video was removed I had no way to re-upload it. Being an important news story I was forced to make my own video using text and pictures.

There's a couple of lessons to be learned here.

Firstly, be careful about your video commentary. Whilst it's easy to get angry by these appalling crimes and use strong language or highlight the ethnicity and Muslim link, I think it's counter-productive. Not only does it jeopardise the video content but also the entire channel. It's surely more important to keep the message out there, so better to keep commentary minimal and factual. We should avoid giving our enemies any ammunition they can use against us.

And lastly, always keep backups so if a video does get pulled by YouTube you can always re-upload it!

Trawling through the Media

This weekend I've been sifting through loads of recent news stories and sorting out what it is useful and in the public interest. I usually monitor several news sources and various TV shows that highlight problems with immigration and urban crime. As a consequence, I usually have a load of recordings to edit and archive which takes up a great deal of time. I usually do it at the end of the week on weekends which is the only spare time I have as I run a business during the week. I have begun grouping and archiving material on a week by week basis which is useful as it provides a weekly snapshot of "multicultural Britain" and makes it easier to find stories at a later date.

The amount of material available just keeps on increasing week by week. It's getting increasing difficult to keep up with it. It just goes to show the level of problems Britain faces and what an uphill struggle we face. In many ways it's quite depressing and does get you down having to keep reading so many bad stories. Illegal immigrants, inner city drugs and prostitution, child abuse and rape, terrorism, as well as all the usual failings of mainstream politics and all that "politically correct" nonsense we have to deal with. Has anyone noticed how the news is increasingly dominated by Pakistan and Pakistani's in the UK? Hardly a day goes by you don't hear something in the news and it's nearly always bad.

Britain is indeed becoming quite a depressing place to live. Unless that is you're able to bury your head in the sand and have enough money to live somewhere less affected.

It occurred to me while doing my media sifting over the weekend that fellow nationalists are probably doing the same thing. There is a great deal of overlap and repetition which is basically time wasted. Wouldn't it be a good idea to cooperate more by setting up a "National Media Archive" whereby news stories and videos could be pooled, and individuals could take responsibility for monitoring specific news or media sources. That way, we'd have wider media reach and less repetition. We'd also have a centralised archive which anyone could use on their channels and sites to spread the message.

Just a thought..

Labour's Marxist Brothers

The two Jewish Miliband brothers who are the favourites for Labour's leadership have a secret communist past and Marxist political background.



Labour (or should that be Liebour) just keeps going from bad to worse, but has now sunk to an all time low by allowing David and Ed Miliband to run for leadership of their rotten party. It seems the party is no longer making any secret of it's Marxist leanings now, after the failings of it's "New Labour" image makeover.

The two Miliband brothers, one of whom is poised to lead the Liebour Party, are the children of Polish Jewish immigrants. More interesting than that though is the fact their father, Ralph Miliband (originally Adolphe Miliband) was a prominent Marxist intellectual. Born in Belgium he eventually ended up in the UK (lucky us) and became a Marxist activist, engaged in various Socialist activities here including publishing Socialist material. He's actually buried alongside Karl Marx in Highgate cemetery, London.

If that is not proof enough of the Miliband family communist credentials, taking a look further back into their family history is even more revealing. The grandfather of the Miliband's, Samuel Miliband, who entered Belgium illegally with forged documents actually fought in the Red Army in the Polish–Soviet War.

All the UAF social-misfits and other Marxist members of the Liebour Party must be rubbing their hands with glee at the opportunity of getting some real Red leadership for a change.

As for the Miliband's, from relative obscurity to leadership of the biggest opposition political party in the UK. Not bad for the sons of a Jewish Marxist illegal immigrant eh.

Copycat Filmed Jihad Rape in Thames Valley

Two rapes with an identical modus operandi have been carried out by muslims 6 months and 200 miles apart, in Oxford.

In May last year a rape of a drunken teenager in Rochdale seemed to surprise nobody, in fact the case was reported shortly after another rape involving 4 Pakistanis in a local supermarket carpark, the victim reported that she had pleaded with passes-by for help and they had refused her.

In Rochdale there are regular rapes by muslim pakistanis on white english women, some are not reported in the media, but having been a reporter living in Rochdale, for 3 years I have witnessed first hand the ways of this weird town whose mayor, senior council official and police chief are Pakistani Muslims.

The rape in Oxford is identical in detail to the earlier rape in Rochdale.
Is it any wonder then, that rochdale remains a ghost town despite huge efforts to blow life into the corpse of a town? When the towns folk just shrug in response to another rape in the town or another paedophile detected.

Rochdale, as a town is sick, and it is in the condition it is through bad leadership and a despondant populace. Now this sickness is spreading, in terms of copycat criminals, to far flung corners of the country.

CEHR v BNP: Round 2 (update)

Nick Griffin speaking to John Walker at the BNP's Radio RWB, discussed earlier today the outcome of the court hearing yesterday and where the BNP goes from here in it's ongoing battle with the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR).

After the trial was adjourned and prostponed yesterday until 8 November, Nick Griffin took the opportunity to request a meeting with the CEHR and their barristers at the court, to sort out exactly what their complaint is concerning the BNP's revised
constitution.

The CEHR never fully explained their original complaint and what exactly they expected the BNP to do originally, and subsequently, in order to be compliant with the law and the court ruling. Despite several requests from Nick Griffin in writing for a meeting or dialogue, all of which were ignored by the CEHR.

The BNP made every effort from the very start to avoid costly litigation and tried to settle this dispute with the CEHR (then known as the EHRC) through co-operation and dialogue. However it was clear they did not want any dialogue with the BNP and wanted to pursue the court action, no doubt motivated by the intention to inflict damage on the BNP.

This is an important point here, because Nick Griffin has come under a lot criticism for not settling the complaint about of court, and he has been accussed of causing the party large and unnecessary legal costs. In fairness to Griffin, it would seem he did make some effort to avoid this.

Now that Nick Griffin as Chairman of the BNP has been granted executive powers to amend the constitution at any time by the members, he is planning to use those powers to quote "slam the door shut" on the CEHR and stop any further litigation. The CEHR have until now, disputed the fact the Chairman has this power, which is why they brought litigation rather than entered into dialogue with the Chairman, they claim. They now concede that he does in fact have the power to amend the constitution and negotiate with them on any issue without the need for further litigation.

Accordingly, the BNP plans to get rid of the whole constitutional issue alltogether before November 8th by going even further with they have already and meeting all the fresh demands set out by the CEHR at the meeting yesterday. This should then render the complaint of “contempt of court” by the CEHR completely empty and without a shred of evidence.

The CEHR indicated at the meeting to Nick Griffin that they were fully intending to bring new litigation after the contempt of court hearing, so it is wise and prudent of the Chairman to close this vulnerability of the BNP properly, once and for all.

The CEHR have also attempted to embarrass and expose the BNP by dictating that the BNP must make a statement which has to appear prominently on it's website indicating that the consitution has been amended due to a court judgement (which also must be shown) so that it no longer discriminates on the grounds of ethnicity or political beliefs, and that anyone is able to join. Nick Griffin has said he's happy to do this and claims rather than embarassing the BNP, it's seen as an advantage for the BNP, since ethnic minority patriots who felt they were excluded from the BNP will be more inclined to join.

One remaining major bone of contention still between the CEHR and the BNP is the fact the CEHR thinks that BNP's requirement in the consitution for members to be opposed to mass immigration, and supportive of repatriation for non-indigenous people, is unlawful and discriminatory. It's an outrage, that a government quango can basically dictate to a political party what it's members can or cannot believe, and what policies are acceptable or unacceptable. The constitution and any changes to it, are afterall
democratically approved by majority member vote. Anyone who fundamentally doesn't agree with the constitution or the policies of the BNP, obviously wouldn't be joining the BNP in the first place!

The CEHR also has complained that the change to constitution requiring new members to be visited in their home before they're allowed to attend meetings or vote is also discriminatory. This is completely bizarre because this rule applies to all new and existing members of the party who have less than 2 years membership, regardless of ethnicity or skin colour.

It also perfectly reasonable for the BNP to make this provision to protect the party and it's members against threats it has received in the past from BNP opposition groups concerning a mass trojan membership.

The BNP intends to defend and assert it's rights on these issues which Nick Griffin claims is necessary and unavoidable. Nick Griffin also plans to bring a counter-legal challenge to the CEHR claiming they should be responsible for the substantial legal costs in bringing the “contempt of court” action, because the BNP wasn't given any information or time to provide a proper defence, and neither was the CEHR willing to cooperate. Nick has stated that he believes this is contrary to English law and the right to a fair hearing which will form the basis of the BNP's action on the CEHR.

Unfortunately this litigation is going to cost more money and is not without considerable risk, since if the BNP loses it will be responsible for the CEHR's defence costs.

CEHR v BNP: Round 2

The EHRC case against the BNP was adjourned yesterday and has been prostponed until 8 November due to a legal blunder by the court. The court has also agreed to bear the legal costs of both parties. Nick Griffin has applied to have the case struck off.



What a complete farce. This second legal action from the EHRC was extremely weak when I looked at it. This is why they had to bring a civil (as opposed to a criminal) action for contempt of court, even though Nick did what they asked in a manner and timetable that was both unavoidable and reasonable. What is the point of bringing this second action, what do they possibly hope to achieve by sending the BNP leadership to prison for 3 months? The party will continue as normal regardless.

The first legal action should never have occurred in the first place, simply because the BNP surely has the legal and fundamental right to exist to exclusively represent the interests of the indigenous population of Britain. This right is enshrined in the UN Charter of Human Rights (Articles 2, 20 and 21). The rights of indigenous people, specifically, was reaffirmed again in UN General Assembly Resolution 61/295 in 2007. The BNP's constitution has never attempted to intentionally discriminate against people on the grounds of their skin colour. Indigenous people happen to be white, which is an obvious unavoidable fact. The party was established to represent the indigenous people and their interests and the motivation is purely political and not discriminatory or prejudicial. Ethnic minorities and non-indigenous peoples are also free to form their own political associations and parties. Would the EHRC then consider them discriminatory towards white indigenous people?

It's obviously ethnic discrimination concerns from the BNP's constitution and membership criteria are not the EHRC's primary motivation in bringing these legal actions. Their motivation is political and their intention is to inflict collateral damage on the BNP, being the only real opposition to mass immigration and mainstream politics. If this was not the case, and their motivation was genuine concerns over discrimination, why wait 20 odd years to bring a legal action when the laws against discrimination have been around all this time? Could it be the BNP's organisational growth, financial and political, and the fact the BNP now has two MEP's, which has them more concerned?

Action! Race War to Door Wars: Review

I have just finished reading a book by a prominent nationalist and former bodyguard to Nick Griffin, Joe Owens. I thought I would write a review for anyone who hasn't read it.

The book describes in sometimes graphic detail Joe's violent life in Liverpool from his early days in the National Front in the late 1970's to the BNP in the 1980s and the lead up to the Toxteth riots, the most violent rioting the UK has ever seen. Joe quickly learned how to fight and defend himself from an early age in order to survive, in what is perhaps the UK's most violent city with a myriad of criminal gangs, and mostly black, dominating Liverpool fighting turf wars for control of the highly lucrative drugs trade. Motivated by his father's political views, Joe became interested in nationalist politics from quite an early age and joined the National Front. He would regularly find himself in violent clashes with “anti-fascist” groups while selling nationalist newspapers in the street as an activist. He did not shy away from these clashes, on the contrary, he positively thrived on it and seemed to enjoy violence. Violence and fighting became a way of life for Joe and he was in and out of prison for various offences. The police took a dislike to him and he was constantly hounded and framed for crimes he didn't do, including a couple of murders for which he served time as a category A prisoner, before being cleared and released. Joe thinks some of this may have been politically motivated.

After a break from politics and working as a doorman in the emerging club scene in Liverpool during the 1990's. Joe worked his way up in the door security business and eventually ran his own security firm but found himself again drawn into increasignly violent conflicts. This time with violent gang thugs and rivals fighting for control of club doors. His growing criminal record made it harder for him to work as a doorman and eventually Joe decided to go back into politics and re-joined the BNP under Nick Griffin, having previously been involved in the 1980's when John Tyndall was leader.

Joe was able to deploy his extensive experience and skills in personal security from his years working the club doors into providing security for the BNP and eventually became Nick Griffin's personal bodyguard. He describes close scrapes where he protected Nick Griffin from potentially very dangerous situations, at a time when Nick Griffin was somewhat compliacent about his own personal safety. One such incident he recalls is the visit of the French National Front leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen to the UK which was hosted by the BNP and turned out to be a disaster. A violent UAF mob surrounded and tried to attack Griffin and Le Pen while leaving a hotel. Bundled into Joe's car, they were very lucky to get away unscathered, had it not been for Joe's quick thinking and intervention.

Unfortunately due to internal disputes and what many may consider a terrible judgement by Nick Griffin, Joe was snubbed as security chief for the BNP in favour of Warren Bennett, and was eventually alienated and pushed out of the BNP completely. This despite his solid background as a true nationalist, his generousity and dedication to the party was obviously a bitter pill to swallow for Joe. He had even worked unpaid for a while when he acted as Nick Griffin's personal bodyguard.

As a fellow nationalist I found the book a fascinating and enjoyable read. Particularly the insight into the early background of the nationalist movement and what people like Joe Owens were up against back then. Thirty years on and nothing much has changed really. The violence has lessened, however the anti-fascists are more or less exactly the same, using the same tactics as Joe describes from 30 years ago. Although the violence he describes is often shockingly brutal and at times very sad, his bravery and determination are admirable. He also has a great way of recalling stories and using humour to see the irony in things.

Some might dismiss Joe a mindless thug, and no doubt opponents are quick to call him such. However, reading his book it's clear the man is articulate and politically seasoned. People should not be quick to dismiss him and should look beyond his violent past. In his book he presents some inteligent reasoning on politics and is not only perceptive on the struggles the BNP faces but offers insights into what the nationalist movement needs to do, to go forward. Definitely one for the reading list for nationalists everywhere.