Brave Ballerina: Al-Guardian Organizes a Witch Hunt

A quote from al-Guardian, 1 January 2007


Officials from the English National Ballet [ENB] faced calls to sack one of their leading dancers yesterday after Simone Clarke defied criticism and gave a detailed interview defending her support for the British National party. Two weeks after she was named by the Guardian as a card-carrying member of the far right group, the ballerina hit out at her critics, voicing her belief that the BNP seemed to be the only party “willing to take a stand” against immigration.
[...] Clarke, 36, who will take the lead in the ENB's production of Giselle at the London Coliseum next week, said she had been called a “racist and a fascist” since her decision to join the BNP 18 months ago became public. One report claimed that following the Guardian’s revelations, fellow dancers confronted her before a matinee performance of The Nutcracker. She told the Mail on Sunday: “Everything will be different now. I will be known as the BNP Ballerina. I think that will stick with me for life.” But she added: “I don’t regret anything. I will stay a member.”
The interview has caused fresh difficulties for the ENB, which was able to deflect criticism about Clarke’s BNP membership by insisting that her stance was an entirely private one. The company, which is publicly funded and is therefore obliged by the Race Relations Act of 2000 to promote good race relations, will be asked to explain how one of its highest profile employees was able to use her position as a platform for the far right party. [...]
Lee Jasper, equalities director for the mayor of London and chairman of the National Assembly Against Racism, […] called on funders and David Lammy, the arts minister, to intervene. Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said people had a right to their private political views but added: “This will taint the ENB in the eyes of many minority communities. Questions need to be asked about how someone in that position can be allowed to abuse that position to promote the BNP.” […] Clarke’s membership became public in reports by Guardian reporter Ian Cobain, who used a pseudonym to join the far right party and was quickly selected to become its central London organiser. During his seven months undercover, Clarke told him that immigration “has really got out of hand”.


A quote from Tim Worstall on his blog, 1 January 2007

Ahh, we can see where this is going, can’t we? If you take money from the State then you must ascribe to the ideological purities of the State? [...] It could be argued that the BNP is in fact desirous of promoting good race relations by having as little of them as possible. Not an argument I would ascribe to, to be sure, but the problem is that those doling out the cash only see one possible way of such promotion. If you don’t, in your private thoughts, think like we say you should, then you don’t get the cash. […]

The correct action to take is none. Or, if action must be taken by the ENB, then it should simply state that as we are a free society, one without the crime of sedition, then whatever passes for political thought in the brain of one trained since childhood to dance on tippy toe is her own business and nothing to do with them. Or any other branch of the State. Private individuals are entirely free to react (within the bounds of libel and incitement to violence) as they wish.

It’s one of the basics of a free society, that we have the right to think and speak as we damn well please. It’s one of the duties that we should also take the consequences. Such consequences do not include tax funded prodnoses depriving you of your living for failing to sign up to current bien pensant opinion.

H/T: Gene Miller



More on al-Guardian:

The Hidden Agenda of al-Guardian, 24 July 2005

Guarding the Guardian, 30 July 2005

Appeasing Oslo Strikes at Press, Al-Guardian Strikes at Danes, 7 February 2006

In Response to M.I.

Firstly, I have not stated a clear personal opinion on the British National Party. Secondly, actually in theory, the British National Party has a great deal in common with National Socialism and its derivative National Social Democracy, namely that:

  1. Its economic values are opposed to laissez-faire economics; rather it promotes the Third Position (exemplified by early National Socialist economic policy under Strasser), involving national command of the economy, nationalisation of major industries, worker control over businesses, and protectionist trade policies
  2. Its social values are far more communitarian than contemporary mainstream political ideologies, subordinating individuals to the national community
  3. Its social values promote ethnocentrism, national unity, racial segregation, and compulsory military service
  4. It advocates considerable government intervention in economic, social, and individual life
  5. Its programme is beyond right or left and rejects both equally
  6. Like National Socialism it holds the nation as the arbiter of human affairs


Thirdly, the Bloc Québécois represents Francophone Quebecors, rather than French Canadians, Francophone Canadians, or White Quebecors. The province has been supportive of non-White immigration from Francophone countries in Africa and the Caribbean and thus is home to a considerable Hatian population from which the Canadian Governor General hails from. Québécois nationalism is cultural and lingual rather than ethnic, even though this was not always so before the early 1970s.

In Response to George2...

I am afraid that you were misinformed, please take note of these elements of the BNP programme:

  • Firstly, according to its constitution, the BNP "stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples."
  • Secondly, it is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948".
  • Thirdly, membership of the party is restricted to "Indigenous Caucasians."

Political Programmes

I am amused by the extraordinary effort that routinely goes into super-analysing the BNP's constitution (which, in my view, is about 10 pages too long anyway) and its "programme."

With the possible exception of the first post-war Labour government, I don't know of any political party programme that has ever been implemented following their election. So, to argue over the fine detail of the BNP's "programme" is a nonsense, as we know they will be unable to realize it. Parts of it, yes; elements of it, most certainly. But not the whole programme. If the BNP were ever to enter No 10, Downing Street, the realities of power and the impracticalities of implementing the more contentious parts of their programme would quickly become apparent.

Kapitein Andre could repeat his detective excercise with the published programmes of all the mainstream parties, and still find particular issues we could then rhetorically shred. So if the can BNP offer up the same ... so what?

I still believe most people's initial response to the BNP is entirely Pavlov in nature ... in that the spectre of "Adolf Hitler and the Nazis" is immediately recalled by the mind's eye. Which just goes to show how successful the leftist policy of associating Naziism with right-wing politics since 1945 has been. Quite a feat when you consider that German Naziism was essentially a left-wing project.

The fact is, British politics will be far healthier once its Parliament contains 10 to 50 BNP political representatives. Only then could we at last begin to see honest debates about all issues.

I wonder if by posting those three elements of the BNP programme, Kapitein is offering his reasons for banning the BNP, a step he alluded to earlier. A rather tenuous justification to say the least.

Now, let's take a quick note of the "elements" hightlighted by Kapitein:

If Membership of the party is restricted to "Indigenous Caucasians" then that stipulation needs to be respected, and indeed celebrated. What a wonderful idea. And it corresponds (as I wrote in my previous 2 comments) with the stances taken by a considerable number of political parties in countries all around the world.

If the BNP is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948," then I don't see why we must use the word racist in response. It is a noble goal. The first part (stemming and reversing the tide of none-white immigration) is what we already know must happen. The second part could be interpreted as restoring a sense of community and national identity the indigenous majority once unself-consciously enjoyed, prior to 1948.

If the BNP "stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples" then it would find the second part of this policy too difficult to implement. For example, many otherwise nationalist British men have discovered the delights of Asian women, and they aren't likely to give that up. With today's global communications and accessible travel, it isn't going to happen. But, by implementing the first part of their policy, the levels of miscegenation would fall down to sustainable levels, last seen during the 1960s. The most important goal is to end the embarrassing insanity of English middle-class women marrying grass-skirted citizens of Kenya, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, etc.

Singapore became Chinese because the British once encouraged Chinese economic migrants to settle there. If you truly wanted to emulate Hong Kong on, say, the Isle of White, the last race of people you'd want to invite in would be black African immigrants. It's just the way nature has worked out. Hence, the BNP's contribution to Britain is vital.

@ Jordan

"Membership of the British National Party is open to those of British or kindred European ethnic descent."


Where is it said that people from another race cannot join the BNP? So the BNP is not racist? I guess it feels good to wave with "racist" word.

In my family, there are several members of an Asian race but of European ethnic descent. They speak European but no Asian languages. I love them. For me agreeing with the BNP, does that make a racist of me?

It is your Clothes, Not your skin

It seemed to me that Mission Impossible identified you correctly, Jordan. Your skin may not show but your clothing does and it is that of a relativist and an apologist for multicultural leftist thought. You cannot define British or kindred descent and choose automatically to ascribe that as being unacceptable and subject to scorn. I suspect you would probably never qualify to become a member of the BMP. It seems that your values are not compatible with requirements for membership.

Maybe you should stop being a racist because you have no race of your own and wish to attack those who may have a racial and cultural identity. It is racist when you ascribe racial context to a statement saying only that "Membership of the British National Party is open to those of British or kindred European ethnic descent". There is no statement there as to skin color of those who are British or kindred.... You are the one filling in the blanks based on your own prejudice and determination to follow uniworld directives.

You are an apologist for those who seek to soak any thought with which they don't agree in urine saturated leftist labeling. You may choose to wear those clothes but most prefer to let those who are exercising their right to associate with those with whom they choose to associate do so without interference from the state or the leftist thought police. I suspect the BMP statement is more about values than race and that is something you will never learn until you have changed your clothes.

Sob me a River, Jordan (2)

[continued from (1)]

The BNP are quite right -- and also within their rights -- to declare publicly, who may or may not become a member based upon ethnicity. Europeans are of the same race, and cultural tradition, so no problems there. I could live in an African or Asian country for 50 years and never be allowed near a polling booth.

By stating, publicly, that Membership of the British National Party is open to those of British or kindred European ethnic descent, they ensure -- at a stroke -- they will not be overcome (unlike the three main parties: Conservative, Liberal, and Labour) by the multicultural lobby industry when debating issues, and setting national policy.

They also ensure that the public knows there is at least one political party who is determined to represent them (the indigenous whites), and not relegate their interests to some trendy left-wing theology, dreamt up by a Communist Jew, which was cynically conceived in order to subvert white culture.

As for real racism, I doubt you have ever lived in a non-white country. The country you inhabit is one of the imagination: a warped version of Camelot, where they sing this song (and I know you know the tune):

What we need is a great big melting pot;
Big enough for all the world and all it's got;
Keep it stirring for a hundred years or more,
to churn out coffee-coloured people by the score.

No. That multi-culti, one-world, culturally limp-wristed, leftist-fascist dream is over, finished, kaput. Your illusions are about to be smashed, and you will be brought back down to Earth (and your emotional maturity restored, hopefully) by hook or by crook, "kicking and screaming" if necessary.


Well sob me backwards...

There will now be short musical interlude when all white contributors to BJ will join hands for a chorus of "Tomorrow Belongs To Me":

The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
The stag in the forest runs free.
But gather together to greet the storm.
Tomorrow belongs to me.

The branch of the linden is leafy and green,
The Rhine gives its gold to the sea.
But somewhere a glory awaits unseen.
Tomorrow belongs to me.

The babe in his cradle is closing his eyes
The blossom embraces the bee.
But soon, says a whisper;
"Arise, arise,
Tomorrow belongs to me."

@ Mission Impossible

Mission Impossible - "Can you explain (without getting over-emotional) why they -- according to you -- base their judgements on people's skin colour?"

Sure Mission Impossible. Go to BNP's web site: "Membership of the British National Party is open to those of British or kindred European ethnic descent"

Basically that means no matter what you believe, if your skin colour is not white you are not welcome. (was that over-emotional?)

Mission Impossible - "Surely by acting as an apologist for non-white people, you are already demonstrating that you do, and in fact you are admitting you are hostile to white culture."

I don't recall apologizing for anyone, let alone based on skin color. Could you please point out where in my text this occurred?

Incidentally, do you support the Caucasian Mujahideen in Chechnya? Or the Soviet-style entitlement culture? After all, surely they are white. If you are concerned about protected western  culture, well... that's something very different. As far as I know, that is not dependant on pigment.

Mission Impossible - "If so, do you realize how sick your own thinking has become?"

Do you?

Mission Impossible - "May I remind your leftist brain that Islam is NOT a race. It is an ideology."

EXACTLY! Well said.

Sob me a River, Jordan (1)

Most people are already aware of the BNP's stipulations on membership: "Membership of the British National Party is open to those of British or kindred European ethnic descent."

So what exactly is wrong with that? You obviously consider that racist, right?

Initially, the African National Party (ANC) had only one white male member -- Joe Slovo: a known Communist Jew. There were a few outspoken Communist sympathizers of the ANC, mostly white women. But in truth and reality, it is a Blacks-only political party and focuses on advancing the interests of one ethnic group (usually at the expense of non-Whites). You offer your deep emotional support to the ANC, Jordan?

The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) is a party founded in 1975 by Gatsha Mangosuthu Buthelezi. It is for Zulus and Zulus only. In other words a black only party, excluding whites (and even other Black Africans).

The Bloc Québécois (founded 1991) is a separatist political party representing the French (white) speaking peoples of Quebec, Canada. I don't see that party stating in its constitution: "We welcome the membership of all economically depressed asylum seekers, especially those from Afghanistan, Somalia, Nigeria, and Algeria, in our quest for a sovereign French nation in North America."

Perhaps you imagine they do. The "colours of the rainbow" is your only colour right? How sweet of you.

Now let us take the example of Malaysia, that frequently eulogized example of (alleged) multicultural racial harmony in SE Asia.

United Malays National Organization (UMNO) is what its title says it is: exclusively for people who are indigenous Malays. They don't allow whites (yes, there are White Malaysians) and they certainly discourage Chinese membership. UMNO has been the ruling party since independence, which makes Malaysia a de-facto one party state.

The Malaysian Chinese Association (Persatuan China Malaysia, MCA) is another one-race only political party, and (I believe) the MCA is the principle opposition to UMNO. MCA leaders have been intimidated frequently, especially around election time.

Then there is the Malaysian Indian Congress (Kongres India Se-Malaysia, MIC) which, as the name suggests, represents only the Indian ethnic group within Malaysia.

It is so revealing to consider the hypocrisy of left-wing thinking. It tells us much about the weak side of the human condition. Malaysia's best known leader, Mahathir bin Mohamad, was often feted by Multicultural advocates, The Economist, and the United Nations. Yet, the Malay-only party he led for over 30 years, UMNO, is known for being a major proponent of Malay (ethnic) nationalism or the ketuanan Melayu (alongside some Islamic ideology) which holds that the Malay people and other Muslims are the "definitive" people of Malaysia and thus deserve special privileges as their birthright.

In several respects, the bulk of Malaysia is more civilized, peaceful, and socially efficient than Britain is today. So, such "hard" political attitudes cannot be such a bad thing, right? So, where were your squeals of indignation these past 30 years? All I heard was silence. Because, in your language, the so-called multicultural jewel of the world is actually being led by a racist party with a specifically racist constitution.

Yet, as soon as someone attempts to establish a political party in Britain, to pursue the rights of the disenfranchised majority, people like you push their hysteria button.

Let us briefly survey other parts of the world.

In Thailand, none of the political parties forming coalitions allow membership by non-Thais.

In Japan, none of the political parties allow membership by non-Japanese. Nor do they debate about, or legislate for them.

It is only in the Western world, since the 1970s, that the established political parties have been re-configured (or corrupted) so that they feel duty-bound to devote a disproportionate amount of time and energy to the affairs and exclusive interests of ethnic groups (primarily people with non-white skin), and to the construction of racist legislation that disadvantages the indigenous whites in some way or other.

Whilst I have already acknowledged at the B.J., that a small population of blacks have been part of the British population since the 17th century (which they should be respected for) it is nonetheless still true to say Britain is, as it always has been, a white, Judeo-Christian country.

But, you and your kind (it would seem) care little for such matters; matters I would remind you that pertain to real identity and authentic rights ... not the plastic versions dreamt up by socialist thinkers.

[continued ...]

Mission absolutely impossible

Don't worry, Jordan. Poor old MI has got a complete blind spot when it comes to believing that the BNP actually mean what they say in their Mission Statement and other stuff they publish on the website.


oiznop, you misunderstood me. I meant that ballet is NOT a political activity, so her personal affiliations shouldn't matter.

I think people should be able to enjoy the ballet (or watch a movie, etc..) without concerning themselves with the private lives of the performers. (of course, there is a hypothetical limit to this argument)

I was just trying to make the point that while Clarke  should be defended as a performer, BNP should NOT be given the time of day. They base their judgements on people's skin colour rather than character and ideas.

The BNP is not the solution to Britain's problems. If anything, they prevent concerned and honest people from having difficult debates.

Fair enough Jordan, but.....

with regard to this: I think people should be able to enjoy the ballet (or watch a movie, etc..) without concerning themselves with the private lives of the performers. (of course, there is a hypothetical limit to this argument)

Let's be consistant, here....Do you feel the same way about the Dixie Chicks, and their anti-war tirades???....(That I might add they did not have the guts to make in the USA, but made them while on tour in the UK)....

And why should the BNP not be given the time of day?....Is there not free speech in the UK?.....Because you disagree with their politics, they are to be silenced???.... They are probably now the only party in the UK that takes a stand on rampant liberal immigration policies....A stand that you probably view as racist, but some may view as standing up for the British culture and nation as a whole....And for that they shouldn't be given the time of day?....It's amazing what the media does to people like you!.....People like you can't see the forest before the trees, and your country will lose in the long run as a result.......

Cry Me A River, Jordan

@Kapitein ... please examine your reflexive tendency to associate the BNP with Naziism. I am not saying you are doing this explicitly, more like subconsciously. Even mild talk of banning the BNP is ridiculous. Ban them for what? Would not the Fabians and the Socialist Workers Party be more deserving of a ban? I am not a BNP member, but I have taken time to read a great many of their articles (including much of their rather long Constitution), and I really cannot identify what the fuss is all about. You are intelligent enough to identify when you may have been subtly brainswashed, so please spend a few introspective moments, to make sure you are not unwittingly relaying leftist propaganda.

@Jordan ... about the BNP you appear to be posting feelings and emotions, which is a poor substitute for evidence and common-sense.

Why should the BNP "not be given the time of day?" All along, they have been correct about Multiculturalism and Islamism in Britain and they were amongst the first to point out the problems caused by those two ideologies.

Can you explain (without getting over-emotional) why they -- according to you -- base their judgements on people's skin colour? Are you saying that you have never modified any of your thoughts according to the race/skin colour of a person or people? Surely by acting as an apologist for non-white people, you are already demonstrating that you do, and in fact you are admitting you are hostile to white culture.

In your opinion, is white culture allowed any autonomy at all, or must all of it be subsumed (by law) by the cultures of other races?

If so, do you realize how sick your own thinking has become?

No single political party is the solution to Britain's problems, but I would wager the BNP (if given the opportunity) would do far less damage than any of the three major parties, who are already contaminated by the most half-baked left-wing ideas ever conceived.

What is really required is a change in thinking amongst the bulk of the population, and a rejection of the delusions that have gripped the majority since the late 1970s.

As for your unsubstantiated and thus childish claim the BNP prevent concerned and honest people from having difficult debates; you are just throwing silly and baseless accusations in the vain hope of making sense. Don't you know anything about the recent attempts, by the New Labour regime, to imprison the BNP's Chairman, and his Publicity Officer, just for speaking out at a private meeting (which was secretly filmed by a couple of Trotskiist students from Liverpool University)?

Their crime? They said: "Islam is vile and wicked faith."

May I remind your leftist brain that Islam is NOT a race. It is an ideology.

A person has to be either blind, stupid, or a Labour Party member to deny that it has been New Labour, and only New Labour, preventing concerned and honest British people from having difficult debates, aided and abetted by the Prosecutor General.

As for honesty, I don't see much of that flowing through your brain cells when it comes to issues like freedom, debate, dignity, and democracy in Britain today. But I do detect a great deal of naivety and an unwillingness to understand what is actually going on in your own country.

In Response to Flanders Fields' Comments

Is this about freedom or democracy? Too often we assume that democracies are inherently liberal and that liberal societies are inherently democratic. We forget that democracies can be messianic, from which Jacobin and totalitarian democracy (to quote J.L. Talmon) are derived; alternatively, this form can be labelled equality-oriented democracy. In stark contrast to liberal democracies, totalitarian democracies emphasize collective equality over individual liberty. We also forget that liberal democracies remain liberal in part by marginalizing radical political culture f.e. if a Communist, Ultra-nationalist, or Islamist political party won the next national election in the United Kingdom, it is quite probable that the new government would fundamentally change the British political system such that it could no longer be called a liberal democracy. Indeed, liberal democracy, by being pluralistic, tolerates the existence of its own antithesis and allows for its own destruction. Because the United States is so committed to individual liberties, its government's hands are tied when it comes to its own far right, and it must wait until a crime or a conspiracy to commit a crime has occurred; in the case of Timothy McVeigh, they were helpless to neutralize him before the bombing was carried out. This is not to say that the BNP should be outlawed; however, most posters on this board sympathize with the BNP and would certainly be more favourable to it than to an Islamist or Marxist-Leninist party when it came to a question of how far freedom of speech can go.

No democracy without freedom

This is about freedom. Democracy means nothing without freedom of, by and for the individual. Democratic models in prevelance today are suppressive while attempting to provide an atmosphere of messianic purpose.

Equality is earned and is not a commodity to be granted at the expense of the existing community and the individuals whose collective efforts and vision have built that community. The existing structure attempts to tear down the community and the values on which it rests. The leftists are interested in maximizing their power and influence and giving profit to the international corporate raiders who subsidize them. Their interest is in warehousing their own people and marginalizing the benefits which should go to the citizens so that they and their oligarchy of supporters can impose their utopic visions while taking full advantage of the immigrants and the citizens.

The British political system is little different from the one in the USA or other places. It is by control of a minority, who pretend to represent the wishes of the majority, while manipulating the elective processes and access to them. They perpetuate that control through media which is sympathetic to and controlled by them while they pass laws that make it easier for them to plunder public coffers and pass laws to deny freedom to their individual citizens. A "democracy" with that power and intent needs no label, but is closest to communism in its collectivist policies.

I doubt that the UK could rightfully be called a liberal democracy in the sense that individual freedoms are being safeguarded and their citizens being protected either from the looting of the public treasury or looting by invading hordes of poor immigrants who are providing vastly cheaper labor resources for the corporate backers of the leftists.

This differs from communism only by our historic perception of it being imposed by physical force and violence. A benevolent communism will not long exist as might be possible with a benevolent dictatorship of a totalitarian government. I advocate neither. I suggest a return to a government controlled by the citizens for the benefit and protection of its citizens while preserving the rights of the citizen.

The USA is so committed to individual liberties because without that committment there is no USA. It is the rightful freedom of the individual that is being tied by the government and governmental hands are reaching into the pocket of its citizens for the benefit and power of a minority. The case of Timothy McVeigh is an example of how the government did not act on information which it had in its possession because its intent was not to protect its citizens.

Why should any group which is lawful and utilizing lawful means be suppressed? I suspect the voices against groups such as the BNP are those which fear the truthful parts of any story that they may tell. I don't think it is known for its violent actions. Informed citizens can choose which groups represent their own interests and do not need the government or pressures from collective society to make choices for them. All such groups have some elements of truth. Collectivists hate truth. They despise individual choice.

Invitation to Tea

It makes one realize how few freedoms Britons must have.  If one cannot speak freely or associate with others who are abiding with the law, what rights do you have?  I think you are in need of your own Tea Party, such as the one held in Boston a few years back in America - come to think of it, we Americans could stand one, too!


Miss Clarke deserves the respect of all of us who hate tyranny.  It is difficult to stand up to oppressors when your livlihood and dreams are at stake.  Miss Clarke, I bow to you.

Explanation for Bob

Bob Doney is astonished that I am astonished to find a noteworthy example of courage in a ballerina. Let's note that ballerinas are not often attacked with deadly force in the course of their artistic efforts. Other occupations, such as soldier, policeman, and fireman do indeed carry with them the risk of death, and that's why we assume that courage is part of the job description, Bob.


But you weren't talking about soldiers, policemen or firemen. You were talking about ballerinas.

Oh well, never mind eh...


What has "Great" Britain come to when such an outstanding example of courage is to be found among ballerinas?


Dchamil, why does that surprise you? You're not a ballerinaist, are you?

Ballet dancing as a profession requires great courage. For one thing most ballet dancers conduct their professional life in excruciating pain.

That's not to say that they're always the sharpest knife in the political drawer...

Freedom of Speech....

She is just doing what every liberal movie actor, entertainer, & musician has done over the last 40 years....Express her view!.....BACK OFF YOU LIBERAL DOGS....Someone in the enteratainment industry is NOT in your corner for a change, and you can't handle it!....Typical hypocricy of the left......

While I cannot understand

While I cannot understand what Ballet has to do with politics, its important to remember that the BNP are no heroes.

The BNP only accepts "white" members, indicating a racial rather than an ideological point of view. You could be a strong supporter of economic liberty and personal freedom but if your skin colour is undesirable, your out of luck.

Again, ballet is not a political activity. But I just don't believe the BNP is worth defending.

I will say that the point regarding Che and Mao t-shirts is a good one.


While I cannot understand what Ballet has to do with politics....Again, ballet is not a political activity.

And what do movies, and rock concerts have to do with politics???...yet many a movie actor/musician has used their position to put forth their leftist politics on the buying public.....If you don't like it, then you don't have to go to the ballet....Just like I choose not to patron many movies...and I can't remember the last rock concert I attended.....Actually I can...It was Jimmy Buffett....A singer from the conservative south!..No political rhetoric there.....Just go out and play....and keep your politics to yourself.....


Firstly, this ballerina is entitled to privately hold whatever opinions she likes; secondly, there is no evidence that she is either using her stature or her employer to advance either her private political goals or those of the British National Party.


Thirdly, people are allowed to walk the streets of London wearing t-shirts with pictures of Che Guevara and Mao on them, and also with Soviet emblems and slogans. Despite the fact that the Hammer and Sickle is to - literally hundreds of millions of East-Central and Southern Europeans, Latin Americans, Africans, and others - what the Swastika is to Westerners and Jews, those who desire to publicly display their sympathies or nostalgia for Marxism-Leninism can do so without fear of being beaten to death by a Polish plumber whose father was murdered at Katyn. Less dramatically, such people (often counter-culturalist youth) are not blacklisted for life; in fact they enjoy support from overpaid university and college faculty.


Such public attacks on the BNP and its membership are merely mudslinging by Labour and the feeble Tories in a futile effort to keep their electoral shares.


Western Europeans want an end to immigration and multiculturalism, and economies that serve national interests rather than those of foreign speculators. It is clear that the 'nanny state' is no longer viable, however, this does not mean that Western Europeans want to follow the American economic model. So far, only the Nationalist parties seem to have their finger on the pulse of the native European fear dissipates this will be increasingly represented in their election gains.

Brave Woman

Ref. the original article, I believe Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, sums up the situation best when he let slip: "This will taint the ENB in the eyes of many minority communities."

What he seems to be implying here is that all English/British institutions must be re-oriented or tailored to the satisfaction of the capricious sensitivities of ethnicities who don't belong in the country, will never fit into the culture, or are secretly trying to subvert the original culture. Therefore, the dire need for BNP political success is emphasized.

As for the BNP being 'far right,' well surely New Labour has been as far left as it is possible to be without being labelled Marxist/Leninist. As for the Guardian, that news-rag only exists to remind us of how far to the political extreme, Colleges of Journalism were taken during the 1970s and 1980s.

I think it is wonderful that a 36 year old white woman, possessing such obvious talent, can also demonstrate principles and intelligence, and also bravery.

And of course, as Ms. Clarke said, immigration "has [indeed] really got[ten] out of hand." She should know, she spends much of her time in that embarrassing, leftist capital city we call London.

If Brussels is worse, as many claim, then the only political route out of this mire (short of violence) is Nationalism.

Brave Ballerina

Brave indeed.  Why doesn't the sane population of the UK turn out to support her?

Is there a "sane" population left in the UK?


Brave indeed. Why doesn't the sane population of the UK turn out to support her?
Is there a "sane" population left in the UK?

Not in the media, that's for damn sure!.....

Human branding

“This will taint the ENB in the eyes of many minority communities. Questions need to be asked about how someone in that position can be allowed to abuse that position to promote the BNP.”
Well, how did Mrs. Clarke "abuse" her position ? Did she campaign for what the BNP stands for ? Did she attempt to spread her political attitude ( which is allegedly to be chosen by everyone for themselves)? I'm afraid she did neither. The only thing she has done was revealing her political orientation, which happens to be inconvenient in the eyes of the majority.
I'm so disgusted with those leftist newspapers spying on people in order to reveal possible "neo-nazism" or something just to get a supposedly good story. For what is not considered is that they ruin the life of the individual they are publicly blemishing.