Being a former Rifleman in the Green Jackets our Regiment now the Rifles are often asked why we do not toast our Majesty? When other regiments do? This goes back to the Napoleonic wars and the answer dear friend is the following, [Because our Loyalty has never been in question].
Being in the military from the young age of sixteen I have seen both good leadership and bad leadership and can say being a leader is not easy no matter what position you are in. People make mistakes and in war mistakes can indeed cost lives.
But also, being a soldier, you have comradeship, this sadly seems a quality lost both in this country and at times within this party, which is believe the only party which can save this country.
So, I urge the members to stop infighting because the ukip which we all serve should now be the strongest than it has ever been and can only be with your support and your loyalty.
Put an end to bickering and the dragging of heels and Gnashing of teeth.!
I came to ukip not for political ambition fame and fortune I came because I care about my country and this party is the only party which cares.
This is a political war and in war there will be casualties on both sides that’s true, we already see the dirty tricks being played labeling us racist etc and the enemy will throw everything at us because it is us that they fear.
We need to focus and unite for the common goal.!
I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK.!
WE WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK.!
For as long as there shall be but one hundred of us remaining alive in this party we will never give consent to subject ourselves to the domination of Europe or be subject to those that wish our people and our children harm.
For it is not glory it is not riches of honours, but it is with liberty alone that we fight and contend for, which no honest man will lose but with his life.
Chris J Prevett
Celer Et Audax
PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENSURE THAT THEIR CHILDREN DO NOT HAVE SEX UNTIL THE LEGAL AGE OF 16
by Mike Walker BSc [Hons] PGCE [retired Science and Maths teacher]
UKIP Branch Secretary North Wiltshire and Chippenham
This week I was lambasted on Twitter for saying that school children should not be having underaged sex. They should wait until the legal age of 16. Furthermore, I believe that should a school suspect that a pupil is having sex then the parents must be informed.
The attack from the progressive liberal elite came as an avalanche.
It was amazing how linguistically limited some people can be – readily peppering their outbursts with ‘expletives such as he is talking a load of bollocks!’ I noticed how they also tend to demand immediate answers that must be acceptable to their way of thinking.
If not, they kept repeating the same question. [Under extreme interrogation always remember to limit responses to name, rank and serial number!!!].
I was a secondary school teacher for 28 years. I was responsible for the teaching of sex education in one school for 10 years.
In my opinion, the problem we have in this country is a subject called Personal, Social, Health and Economic education [PSHE]
Personal + Social = how the state believes that individuals should be allowed to personally express their feelings and behave within the context of others in society. The personal dimension also influences Health education and advice. Here I have a problem! Thankfully this is a non-statutory subject.
Economic [Financial] awareness = being taught how to be financially independent as an adult tax paying member of society = great idea! Here I have no problem!
Now sex education comes under the PSHE remit, but it doesn’t have to.
I quote the passages from the PSHE Association which offers advice to teachers:
“Though a vital element of the PSHE curriculum, teachers often feel nervous about teaching SRE [Sexual Relationships Education].
Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) involves learning about emotional, social and physical aspects of growing up, relationships, sex, human sexuality and sexual health in an age appropriate and sensitive way. As well as providing accurate information on human biology and sexual reproduction, it gives pupils essential skills for building positive, respectful, non-exploitative relationships and staying safe both on and offline.
The interesting points of reference raise the following questions:
- Who exactly is teaching this subject and are they adequately trained properly?
- What kind of message is being taught with regards to sex education? No mention of the law?
- At what age are children being taught the different aspects of sex education?
I have taught in three different secondary schools and after 28 years of experience in education I can say with some authority that non-specialists are teaching PSHE.
When you go to university, after graduating with a degree [not PSHE] you take a Post Graduate Diploma in Education [PSHE] specialising usually in the subject that you took your degree in e.g. maths. Any training in PSHE is superficial and cursory. It is not your main concern unless you are one of the few taking a PGCE in PSHE.
You then get a job in a school and usually teach a full timetable in your main subject whilst expected to teach PSHE and Citizenship as a tutor. The tutor is the one who registers a class each morning and administers their pastoral / care needs [possibly 15-minute slot each morning].
This means that History subject specialists are expected to show how to put condoms onto boiling tubes to 13-year-old pupils. Art teachers are supposed to explain the difference between syphilis and herpes. French teachers are expected to discuss the emotional and physical changes that occur during puberty.
In doing this badly, this offers the freedom to express ill-informed opinions on a very sensitive subject during a person’s formative years.
These non-specialists also are expected to show expertise in other aspects of the curriculum for example when it comes to the effects of drug taking, express opinions on the legality of drugs and the difference between a soft and hard drug and how it affects the body.
Some schools may organise science teachers to spend 5-10-minute slots going around different tutor groups to help on a rota basis. It is not particularly helpful when they then leave the class to an unwilling non-specialist to fill in the remaining 40 minutes themselves after being given a worksheet or video to show.
The law states that the age of consent for sexual relations is 16. In my experience the subliminal message for the teaching of this subject in PSHE is the following:
Statistics show that many young people want to have sex before the legal age of 16. This being the case, lets teach them how to do it safely with the right person in a loving kind of way. That way they won’t get hurt emotionally and will not get pregnant and catch a sexually transmitted disease. We must not be judgemental and condone their actions in any way, even though they are breaking the law.
I say this is wrong and results from an acceptance that our society has now reneged on the necessary commitment between the state and individual for a balance between Rights and Responsibilities.
There are several reasons why the age of 16 was made as the legal age for sex:
 Should an underage teenage girl get pregnant; she has probably not undergone puberty fully. If her partner is a tall Year 11 boy and she is a demure small built 13-year-old Year 8 girl, then her pelvic girdle may not have developed enough around her womb to cope with a big baby. There is a greater chance of medical problems during childbirth.
 The girl’s education will be affected detrimentally missing lessons during pregnancy and caring for her baby.
 The girl may experience psychological trauma with abortions
 The partner /boy may be a pupil and cannot support his partner financially. The ownness is then transferred to family members such as the girl’s parents.
I find it appalling that the State can now interfere with a parent’s desire that their son or daughter should comply with the law fully. This carefree, nonchalant attitude that it is an irrelevance in today’s society is a form of social engineering in the extreme. A girl can even be offered contraception by a school nurse and not inform her parents that she is starting to have underage sex.
‘young people should be encouraged to inform their parent/carer of the consultation and the school nurse should explore the reasons if the young person is unwilling to do so. If, however, following counselling, the young person does not want to involve their parent/carer, the school nurse will respect their confidentiality’
Sex education could be totally taught within the remit of National Curriculum Key Stage 4 Science lessons in a non-personal manner by experts in biology. There are no value judgements in these lessons – no opinions that the law on consent is irrelevant and it doesn’t matter when you have sex. No discussion about personal feelings. The demonstration of how to use various forms of contraction and prevention of STIs could be during science lessons at the right time in Year 11.
Imagine this scenario which is happening every day
 Girls at the ages of 12 and 13 are being shown how to use contraceptive devices and given leaflets on different forms of contraception to keep [personally witnessed this].
 Some of these girls are being supplied by school nurses with hormonal or other types of contraception and parents are not aware. If informed these parents could have intervened and prevented further sexual activity. This would prevent possible pregnancy and STIs.
 The increased medical problems associated with an adolescent giving birth to a baby, her loss of education and the financial implications thereafter.
The State has no right to intervene with the Rights and Responsibilities of the parent over their children!
UKIP REPRESENTS THE THIN RED LINE PROTECTING OUR TRADITIONAL VALUES AND CULTURE
by Mike Walker BSc [Hons] PGCE [retired Science and Maths teacher]
UKIP Branch Secretary North Wiltshire and Chippenham
We are not perfect – fight within the party and help us to become better than what we are!
Come back! Watch this video and remember that UKIP stands between these traitors and the people on Brexit and many other issues.
UKIP believes in traditional values of fairness and freedom based on an appreciation of responsibility to our society. We do not pander to the whims of the current interest group which screams loudest on social media as do the liberal political Establishment.
We believe that this is a sovereign independent country and that parliamentary representatives voted for by the people should serve the needs of the people.
We believe that laws produced by these MPs should be given Royal Assent by our Monarchy. We respect and care for our Queen.
We live in a beautiful country. We do not want it covered in tarmac and concrete to satiate the greed of the corporate giants, the puppet masters of the political classes. They care nothing for the effects of mass uncontrolled immigration which is devastating our environment and wounding our people with high housing costs, long hospital waiting lists and a soft touch policy towards crime.
We are the thin red line prepared to stand and fight against the social cancer of self interest and greed for the sake of our children.
We are British – We are UKIP. The following narrative summaries my beliefs:
ukip4government: A Philosophy
UKIP has forgotten why it exists.
It comprises of the best of this nation. But we need to remind ourselves why we came together.
We are the thin red line that is prepared to hold back the gradual destruction of everything we care for.
The time is coming when every member will be required to go to war. This war will not be won with bullets and bombs. We must win this with words and ideas.
Gandhi brought down an empire in this manner.
Preparation must start with self-reflection. We must remember who we are and what we believe in. Then we will realise what we are about to lose.
We must reflect on our core beliefs and values. With that realisation and self-belief, we can then turn to the enormous yet necessary task ahead.
UKIP must not only get MPs into the next government, but we must also form that government.
I truly believe that we can do this. The following document outlines some of the ways which I believe can start moving this Party towards realising that aim.
We British value our rights for freedom of expression as much as the oxygen that we breath. Our philosophy to life emulates that of Voltaire! (Reference 1)
Since the magna carta in 1215 there has been a gradual move towards establishing a balance between the rights and responsibilities between the state and the individual. A construct called ‘democracy’ helped to forge this equilibrium in a manner which became the envy of the world. So sacrosanct became this relationship that our relatives were willing to die to maintain it during two world wars.
However, the last twenty years has seen a fundamental change in the relationship between the ruling government and the people. Labour and Conservative Parties have both been willing to pander to the needs of various self-indulgent interest groups that have absolutely no concern for their actions on wider society.
The political parties themselves have jumped onto this band wagon and joined this amorphous ‘blob’ of self-motivated and self-appointed army of censors. Together they now include internet trolls, angry students, lobby groups, town hall officials ideologically driven politicians and lawyers and Establishment figures. Their numbers are bolstered by a host of other busy bodies that have taken to police what we can and cannot say.
Collectively they are known as ‘the establishment’.
There is a term for their inane sanctimonious rantings. It is known as political correctness or ‘Cultural Marxism’.
Cultural Marxism is a form of mind control. It is used by the Establishment to suppress freedom of expression which in turn would adversely affect their interests. In doing so the recipient population become willing prisoners of a fixed mindset. They will then react to certain statements and events in a ‘programmed way’ by become quiet, docile, subservient and obedient’.
The Conservatives fear Cultural Marxism and have become slaves to its will. To challenge these interest groups any issue would perhaps draw negative attention to their policies. Social media and the BBC provide an immediate forum to their whining and moaning (Reference 2)
Sometimes a government policy has unavoidable painful implications for society. Interest rates may need to be raised to offset an increase in the inflation rate or public expenditure must be curbed to prevent the National debt increasing. That promised increase in the state pension cannot be realised. Central government funding to local government may need to be reduced with consequences to public services.
Such were the days when our government put the future well-being of our country first!
Our country is now full of individuals demanding their rights but refusing to accept any responsibility. To go against this tidal wave of selfishness may lose the Conservatives votes. Consequently, we see policy change after policy change. The Centre-Right Party that existed before the election has now become a Centre-Left Party to placate the masses.
Often to accommodate the needs of the Establishment would require an increase in public spending.
This is building up an ‘economic time-bomb’ for our future generations.
- Spend more on tower block claddings everywhere immediately to show that you do not have hate and contempt for the Working classes after the Grenfell tower tragedy. This is before the findings of the public enquiry!
- Spend more on all public-sector workers such as teachers, nurses and the police. If not, you are directly responsible for our children’s poor academic achievements, the growing NHS waiting list and the next terror attack.
- Spend more on welfare payments for immigrants and the unemployed even if they refuse to accept any job offered to them. It is better to adopt a policy of ‘mass uncontrolled immigration to maintain the work force then enforce the responsibilities expected from the masses. This shows that you are humanitarian and caring.
There are three ways to accommodate this increase in spending by the government:
- Increase taxes – not likely! The electorate will not be pleased!
- Decrease public spending in other areas! Well we tried that. For a while it worked with the mantra that ‘We are all in it together!’ Then the electorate found out that apparently, we were not! (David Cameron investing in off shore accounts etc).
- Increase borrowing!!!! That’s the one!!! Hurray!!!! Live for today and don’t worry about the future generations. The fact that the national debt has now risen to above 80% GDP has affects that can be masked. Let’s hope for the best and that there will not be a worldwide economic down turn as in 2008. This time it really will be end-game!!!
The Labour Party (by name – though they are Communists) have been opportunistic and have seized the initiative and ‘weaponised’ these interest groups for their personal use. The students that were promised to have their debts cleared, the public-sector workers who would be given wage rises, our NHS and schools that would be funded without limit and the marginalised minority interest groups that would be given further support and protection. Anything you ask for we will provide as soon as we in in power!
The doctrine of Cultural Marxism is becoming etched into stone daily as laws are made to placate the masses.
UKIP must stand firm against Cultural Marxism and challenge it forcefully and directly!
In September 2017 on TV ex Shadow Labour Business Secretary Chuka Umunna, referred to some Leave supporters as ‘Pedlars of division and hate with regards to immigration in this country!’ He was not specific with his condemnation, it was just a vague assessment of our attitudes with regard the recent referendum on with drawl from the E.U.
The Establishment feel empowered now to do this. They stand up there on the lofty moral high ground where they can condemn at will anyone who opposes their sanctimonious claptrap.
Question mass uncontrolled illegal immigration and you are judged as racist
Question the ethics and biology of the transgender realignment operation and you are insensitive, stupid and probably homophobic
Question the conclusions produced by the Establishment on the recent race audit by Theresa May and you are racist.
Question the legality of our membership of the E.U and suddenly the oxygen of publicity is removed from you and they move to a different topic.
I believe that we should fight the Establishment where ever and whenever on any issue we feel compelled to do so.
We should never be afraid to express our concerns because that is what free people do in a true democracy according to that great French philosopher Voltaire
Voltaire said ‘I totally disagree with everything that you are saying, but I defend to the death your right to say these things’.
In a true democracy, this is possible. In a fascist state, everyone must agree with the directives of that state and there must be no dissent. To facilitate this, opposing political parties are banned. Individuals who express contrary opinions are disciplined by the state until they comply. The transition between democracy to fascism begins with Cultural Marxism. Politically, both left Wing or Right-Wing governments can become intolerant fascist dictatorships. Indeed, technically speaking Hitler’s ‘National Socialists were Left Wing Fascists!
The fundamental human right of freedom of expression is gradually being eroded from our society and is being replaced by the doctrine that is Cultural Marxism.
Everyone in UKIP must fight to protect this freedom. We have the right to say anything, but it must be said within a moral framework and not meant to offend. To win an argument we need to give it context with supporting evidence.
This is what Voltaire said and we must follow his example.
To put theory into practice on the 16 October 2017, I sent an email to my local Conservative M.P. who voted ‘Remain’ in the referendum to withdraw the UK from the E.U. I was concerned about the direct and indirect effects of uncontrolled immigration resulting from the membership of the E.U.
To validate my argument, I quoted extracts from official government sources:
‘In view of the dangerous overcrowding of prisons, where a sentence of imprisonment is necessary, it should be as short as possible, consistent with public protection and the punishment and deterrence of the offender.’
There is a direct quote from Guideline Judgments Case Compendium S G C (reference 3 page 11)
Another source recommended releasing prisoners early:
‘good behaviour’ most prisoners are released after half their sentence is served (Reference 4).
I further explained that under the Conservative government stewardship mass uncontrolled immigration has got totally out of control (both EU and non-EU) and has resulted in this problem with the prison population.
The ‘Remainers’ (Brexit reference) within the Conservative Party have started to break the will of Theresa May with Brexit negotiations and blackmailed her into a prolonged transition period (unspecified) before we can finally control our borders.
More UK citizens will die from murder or manslaughter in the future as a result because of this soft approach towards criminals (Reference 5 and 6).
Criminals from EU countries who have served serious prison sentences cannot be stopped from coming to this country once they have served their sentences abroad under EU directive unlike Australia (References 7 and 8)
I finally ended my email by outlining further consequences:
Hospital waiting lists will continue to grow.
Schools will cry out for more public funding and the Communists under Corbyn will prosaically scream ‘Throw money at the problem!’
When standing firm for our beliefs and engaging the enemy on the battle field of intellectual debate, we must do so within context.
We can say that certain ethnic groups receive more prison sentences than any other. However, this must now be given context.
Context is needed to justify this statement. We need to explain why this is the case. For instance, we could develop our reasoning by linking the problem to cultural factors. If we do not, then this leaves the narrative open for the Establishment to justify the reasoning for us and use it to confirm for example that we are racist.
There are interest groups that want uncontrolled mass immigration to serve their personal aims. For this reason, they will try to suppress any dissent against immigrants and dismiss it as racist.
(1) All those political parties which want to see uncontrolled mass immigration to maintain a high labour reservoir to support the economy. They know that failures in the education and welfare system have created this problem (Reference 9).
(2) The Labour Party – There is documentary evidence showing ‘Lets promote mass immigration into this country to ‘rub the noses of the Right into the ‘diversity which results from it’ – it will also get us votes” (reference 10).
The Establishment is cunning and has no honour. Any statement issued without reference to context is given one which is derogatory and can be turned back against us.
As soon as they read / hear this statement they dovetail into it.
They will say ‘The reason he is saying this is that he is racist and bigoted’.
This is a prosaic rationale which as well as being wrong underlines that the Establishment cannot fight us on a deeper intellectual level – that’s the level where we need to hit them! We need to fight the establishment by expressing our thoughts within appropriate context. For example, we should frame the argument like this:
‘Actions not words define a person’s morality. You sanctimoniously defend the most racist construct which has ever suppressed the developing world i.e. The EU. Right now, millions are in poverty and dying from famine in Africa because they cannot to trade on an equal footing because of their economically debilitating trade tariffs. If it were not for them, Africa would be able to feed itself within a generation’ Reference 11.
There are many examples of how society has changed to accept that which we cannot accept. When we hear or see these injustices or moral, ethical or logical anomalies, it is in our DNA to object and say ‘No! This is wrong!’
In summary, we must never feel afraid to express our opinion on any matter as long as we do so based on a moral framework. If we do so with reference to context, then we can also win the argument and persuade others to think and believe as we do.
We are often called Right Wing extremists. These are terms that I gladly embrace.
An extremist cannot accept the cultural norms of the society in which he lives. The Establishment expects that we comply to their ever-changing hypocritical whims. To resist immediately incurs their sanctimonious wrath.
We must stop ‘the mission creep’ that is the imposition of the will of the establishment over our lives by preventing free speech using Cultural Marxism whose aims then become enforced within the law.
We must challenge their irrational rantings. Judges are not racist, and the disproportionate sentencing of black people is a cultural manifestation (Reference 12). Transgender alignment operations with associated supplementary hormone treatment can lead to physiological problems and harm in the future. Nature did not design our bodies for this (Reference (Reference 13, 14 and 15). Uncontrolled mass immigration is having disastrous consequences and people are dying as a result (References 16)
In the spirit of Voltaire, we must stand firm in our beliefs and fight them at every opportunity. We do so for our children and grandchildren. We owe this not only to the largest unrepresented group in our country – the white working class (Reference 17), but all Britons that believe in freedom and fairness to all.
Individuals who believe that they have the ‘fire and determination’ to represent our noble cause should be helped to develop certain skills.
Firstly, it would them to take journalism courses. They would then become adept at expressing our ideology in a meaningful literate manner. We turn UKIP into a ‘University for aspiring MPs’ those willing to become so.
This in turn would enable us to re-establish our links back with the National newspapers again such as The Daily Express. The grass roots can create an opening for these aspiring MPs who now get exposure in the press writing articles about the debates we are creating in the House of Commons.
Most importantly we need to focus our attack by concentrating on promoting all aspects of our manifesto and highlighting its difference with the manifestos of other parties.
The Labour Party are an open goal. Corbyn is such an easy obvious target – they are all communists and its time we woke everyone up to this fact. By discrediting the Labour Party our supporters will turn back to us not the Tories. In fact, Conservative voters will start turning back to us once they realise how pathetic their Party has become. We ignore the Liberal Democrats totally – they are a complete waste of time. Once a Liberal Democrat voter – always a Liberal Democrat voter – they do not make their decisions based on any logic.
We need to follow up the debates with peaceful street marches and speeches. Their effect per-se may be minimal. However, this will give our aspiring MPs an opportunity to develop their ‘oratory skills’ on the soap box to the public!
Prospective UKIP MPs should also be encouraged to stand as Councillors and be given full and effective training to do so. They should be encouraged to attend as many public events as possible and write columns in local papers.
We have excellent ideas for all aspects of government in the UKIP. Our education policy for example, as developed by David Kurten is superb and needs the oxygen of publicity which our prospective candidates can give it. They could be extoling the virtues of a zero-tolerance behaviour policy in all schools as encouraged by certain Academy Trusts (Excalibur) and having great benefits in many schools (Reference 21). The recent education consultation exercise has highlighted all the advantages of a three-tier system at Key Stage 4 as in German schools that was included in our recent manifesto. There are immediate serious concerns with many aspects of the UK’s education system (References 22, 23) but the recent education consultation exercise showed that we have excellent ideas for improvement (References 24 and 25).
Explaining in the media how we have superb ideas to take this country forward will help increase our support enormously.
Subject: Judicial Review Claim No: CO/4310/2017 Re: VOID ECA1972
David Davis MP has been given a Judicial Review which states that our membership with the European Union is illegal. When Ted Heath signed this country up to become members of the Common Market he did so without the people’s official mandate – a referendum had not taken place. It was only later under a Labour government that Harold Wilson held and won the referendum so retrospectively attempting to validate a document which in effect was not legally binding. Detail of the legal implications and how this all relates to the 1689 Bill of Rights is explained by the historian Verne Coleman (Reference 18).
David Davis, ex Brexit Secretary, is in possession of this Judicial Review. We also know that it has been accepted, signed and sealed by the High Court and clearly shows our membership of the EU is void.
As a Brexiteer we expect him to stand behind us and the 17.4 million people who voted in a majority for Brexit. We are a Constitutional Law Group (Open Source Law). He must let this Judicial Review go through to be verified by The High Court.
UKIP must now prioritise this claim and ensure that the High Court validate what is clearly the truth. Once this is done, all the arguments of the Remainers become shallow and pathetic. It would give the Brexit cause momentum. We would have shown that our cause is both just and legal.
Brexit is important, but it is just one battle in a war for the freedom to life as we want to live. There is much pressure within UKIP to fight this battle without reference to immigration. The perception being that this will bring us bad publicity.
I disagree. I think that we win the argument with a complete socio-economic approach and WE SHOULD pull no punches.
We are being black mailed by the E.U over the single market. They attach multiple unfair caveats to any final deal – continued free movement of the labour force, special rights for E.U citizens and a multi-billion-pound divorce bill pay-out.
We must use the courts to re emphasise the legal judgement that we owe the E.U nothing (Reference 19).
Gerald Batten MEP on twitter states that: “If Mrs May offers the EU money to secure an agreement, she would be committing an offence under the Bribery Act 2010, Chapter 23, Section 6”
Peter Lilly has explained that we would not be economically worse off if we were to trade according to Word Trade Organisation rules (Reference 20). The government could also reduce VAT on imports. This would offset the economic impact on businesses with the imposition of import tariff charges.
The Brexit negotiations are being administered by MPs who voted ‘Remain’ in the referendum. They sanctimoniously claim that:
- They are doing so because they believe in the democratic mandate of the people.
- They will try to get the best deal possible for the people.
On both claims I accuse them of hypocrisy.
Never have they acknowledged the ideological belief that Brexit is the right and proper cause for this country to take to re-establish power back to our monarchy.
Never will they acknowledge that membership of the E.U was wrong in the first place or that it has caused devastating cultural and socio-economic problems.
They cleverly engineer all arguments away from this and concentrate totally on the ‘potential of new future trade agreements world-wide’ – a total abdication of all responsibility.
Their motivation is purely self-centred – ‘Do and say whatever is necessary to get the votes at the next election’.
What is to stop the surrender of power to a foreign government happening again in the future?
The Brexit referendum was just one battle in a war that UKIP must always be prepared to fit.
In summary, we now live in a world where morality, responsibility and traditional values have been cast aside for the cocaine of instant self-gratification and appeasement. It is a kind of night mare where someone like Jeremy Corbyn can present the ‘Pride of Britain Awards’ (Reference 26). The bullying tactics of the Establishment interest groups using the jack boot of Cultural Marxism and supported by their soul less lawyers bereft of any conscience, must be challenged. If not, their agenda becomes cemented into law by weak governments and then everything this country fought for over hundreds of years has been lost.
I really believe that every single member of UKIP can actively play their part in getting our MPs into Parliament. We must train up prospective councillors and MPs as a priority (Reference 27).
We must now start working together in a unified homogeneous unit of over 30 000 and smash into the ranks of the Establishment and force our agenda back into the mainstream before it is too late. The alternative is to become willing prisoners of a fixed mindset in a fascist pseudo democratic state (Reference 28).
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke
Chairman UKIP Devizes Branch