The following is an exchange of posts on the BNP sub-section of the British Democracy Forum discussion board, between a Griffinite troll, posting under the user name Midlander, and Dr Andrew Emerson, posting as Simon de Montfort. It took place yesterday evening.
If the rumour, to the effect that Griffin's troll army of internet warriors has received training in the most effective spoiling techniques to use in order to disrupt critical discussion of the BNP leadership's multifarious failings, is true, then I suggest that Midlander should seek a refund of the course fee.
Good luck prizing it out of Griffin's clammy paw, Midlander.
The exchange of views now follows.
Midlander: So a man who aspires to be leader of the BNP and shags black prostitutes is not low grade and depraved? Or is that why you are after the job yourself?
Now frankly I don't give a toss about your suspension or anyone else's because you set your stall out by attacking the democratically elected leader of the party. I don't understand why you pine to be members of a party you hate with a leader you hate and as far as I am concerned you are already ex-members. Why should we waste our time setting up a hearing for the likes of you?
[Emphasis mine, SdM].
Simon de Montfort: You know very well that the smear about Eddy allegedly visiting a brothel in Brussels was just that, a smear. No evidence for it has ever been forthcoming. It is clear that this vile calumny had the tacit approval of the corrupt failure Griffin, however, because Griffin never condemned the slander, despite having been morally obliged to do so.
What you misleadingly refer to as attacking the leader, most thinking human beings understand to be exercising a constitutional right, democratically to challenge for the leadership. According to its constitution, which Griffin flouts, the BNP is a democratic party, not a fascist, or national socialist one.
For the record: I am not "...after the job..." myself. I supported Eddy Butler's challenge last year, I did not challenge for the job myself. I, like many others, however, can see that the party's current leader is a dead loss, and a thoroughly nasty piece of work, who surrounds himself with, and promotes, perverts and trash of every description. A man is known by the company he keeps.
I don't care that you don't care about the suspensions. I doubt whether you are even a member of the party.
I remain a member of the BNP, despite a pathetically flawed attempt to expel me. I treat such incompetent posturing by the party's corrupt leadership with utter contempt, and as null and void for corruption.
I remain a member of the party because I have a vision of what the party could be, and achieve for our people, were it to be properly led. There are many people within the party who would do a much better job of leading it than Griffin, but I do not count myself as one of them. Nor am I, however, a parasitic hanger-on, a hired flunkey, who has no loyalty to the party, or his people, but only knows who pays his wages.
The members who put the party's interests before their own personal interest last year, and were unjustly suspended and victimized, by the unspeakable Griffin, for their pains, are the BNP's best and bravest, whose shoelaces you are not worthy to tie.
Now run along and report to your master, you begin to weary me.
Monday, 31 January 2011
Sunday, 30 January 2011
BNP local girl to fight Barnsley by-election
British National Party Appoints Candidate for Barnsley By-election NOW WITH VIDEO
Congratulations to Enis Dalton on her selection as the candidate of the British National Party for the forthcoming Barnsley Central parliamentary by-election.
To give credit where it is due, as I always do, this seems like an unusually intelligent move on Mr Griffin's part.
An attractive female candidate, who is local to the constituency, may help to optimize the BNP vote at the by-election.
Perhaps Enis might even be able to soothe some of the understandable resentment caused by Griffin's recent disgraceful sacking of Chris Beverley as Yorkshire regional organizer.
While either Chris, or Nick Cass, would have been my first choice to have been the party's candidate, as being both more politically experienced and articulate than Enis, every BNP member should now rally round and give Enis the support she deserves.
Congratulations to Enis Dalton on her selection as the candidate of the British National Party for the forthcoming Barnsley Central parliamentary by-election.
To give credit where it is due, as I always do, this seems like an unusually intelligent move on Mr Griffin's part.
An attractive female candidate, who is local to the constituency, may help to optimize the BNP vote at the by-election.
Perhaps Enis might even be able to soothe some of the understandable resentment caused by Griffin's recent disgraceful sacking of Chris Beverley as Yorkshire regional organizer.
While either Chris, or Nick Cass, would have been my first choice to have been the party's candidate, as being both more politically experienced and articulate than Enis, every BNP member should now rally round and give Enis the support she deserves.
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Lest we forget
The deafening silence of the "mainstream media" over the worst racially-motivated murder ever to have been perpetrated in these islands, is an outrage, and a dastardly, calculated, insult not only to the memory of the innocent victim, poor young Kriss Donald, and his grieving family, but to every indigenous Briton.
It is also a devastating indictment of the Establishment parties' suicidally self-destructive policies of mass immigration, of multiculturalism, and of political 'correctness', for which read: displacement, dispossession, and anti-White racism.
Contrary to Mike Liddell's assertion, the police ARE institutionally racist, but not in the way that the Mad Macpherson postulated in his infamous report, following the killing (it has never been proved to have been a murder, let alone a racially motivated murder) of Stephen Lawrence in 1993.
No, the police are institutionally racist against the indigenous people of these islands: the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish. They unfairly discriminate against their own people, and in favour of ethnic aliens, at the behest of their corrupt senior officers. These senior officers hope to reap the reward of their traitorous betrayal of their own in the shape of career advancement, and honours, from their equally corrupt political masters.
An article published in the Scottish media, not long after the Kriss Donald murder, now follows.
WHY POLICE ARE AFRAID TO TACKLE ASIAN CRIME
Political correctness [sic] protects young ethnic offenders,
by Mike Liddell, former Strathclyde Police chief inspector.
Scottish Daily Mail
Friday, November 19, 2004, p. 14
IT was a crime of breathtaking callousness and depravity that shocked all Scotland [It should have shocked all Britain]. The murder of Kriss Donald was an act of brutality more readily associated with the likes of Bogota or Baghdad.
Yet this awful crime was played out in the leafy suburb of Pollokshields in Glasgow - and has left its residents searching for some kind of explanation.
As a former senior police officer in Strathclyde with 30 years' experience, I believe the answer is clear - though, for many, it will prove unpalatable.
In my view, crime within Glasgow's Asian community has been allowed to grow unfettered for years. Why? Because the police have been afraid to fight it in case they are accused of racism.
It was this basic failure to act that created the conditions which, at least in part, allowed the murder of Kriss Donald to happen.
This inactivity and its deadly consequences stemmed not from the attitude of officers on the street, but from the craven approach of their bosses to race-relations. For years now, a 'softly, softly' attitude towards crime in the ethnic community has prevailed - a disastrous policy born of the excessive interference of politicians.
The simple truth for senior officers is that they are not going to win that longed-for promotion or the coveted knighthood if they upset the local politicians who control the police boards.
So the attitude among Scotland's police hierarchy is: 'Be careful not to upset the ethnic community [sic] - they may start complaining.'
What was striking about the Kriss Donald murder was the confidence his attackers, Daanish Zahid and Zahid Mohammed, displayed as they trawled the streets looking for their victim [any vulnerable White].
We heard at the trial of a group of youths involved in the search, brawls in the street and a Mercedes being driven around the city with the victim aboard.
How is this possible?
Educated
Clearly, the Asian community [sic] is no less law-abiding than any other part of society. But on the South Side of Glasgow there is a significant group of young Asian [Muslim?] men, mostly between 15 and 30, who are simply out of control. They believe they are beyond the law.
They are for the most part well-educated and well-off: driving around in a luxury foreign car is very much their style, but they receive no parental discipline and recognise no authority.
They are heavily involved in drug-dealing and crimes such as reset and fraud; some groups are well-organised, members travel extensively and have connections abroad.
Internal disputes and violence are common - and a cricket bat is often the weapon of choice.
They are very aware the police are reluctant to challenge them in anything less than the most extreme circumstances for fear of being branded as racist.
Make no mistake: they use the race card without mercy and in today's climate even an unsubstantiated complaint can damage an officer's career.
I was a chief inspector in Govan and my area of responsibility bordered Pollokshields.
Disturbed by rumours of young men being seriously assaulted and failing to report the crime, I set up a small plain clothes team to find out what was happening. It soon became apparent something was going on in the Asian [Muslim?] community that the police knew nothing about.
It seemed the focus of activity was in Pollokshields and the intelligence-gathering group expanded to include officers from that area.
The extent of the involvement of some Asian [Muslim?] youths in serious criminal activity was revealed. But in spite of the evidence, no serious effort was made to take action against them because senior officers decided to do nothing about it.
Police in Strathclyde are no strangers to being let down by their commanders when it comes to tough decisions involving the Asian community.
In 2001, South Side residents were dismayed to learn of the closure of a local swimming pool. A peaceful demonstration was hijacked by local youths many of them Asian.
Attacked
Police officers were refused permission to defend themselves when they were attacked by this group.
They were ordered to stand in line while the youths were given free licence to bombard them with stones, rotten fruit and plastic bags full of urine.
A number of officers were injured, at least one seriously. Few arrests were made.
I spoke to a number of officers afterwards and most believed their commanders had failed in their duty to protect them because they feared a political backlash that would damage their careers.
This attitude has been fuelled partly, by Scotland's burgeoning race relations industry and by a climate of intense political correctness. Barely a week goes by now without a new report on some aspect of race relations.
Many of our institutions, primarily the police, have been regularly criticised. But the response from police chiefs has been to try to avoid criticism by turning a blind eye to ethnic crime. This growing unwillingness to tackle such crime has meant that the public are increasingly getting a raw deal.
Scottish Executive research has discovered police officers are failing to use their powers to prevent and detect crime committed by members of the black and ethnic community [sic].
I know from my own experience that a very high percentage of detentions or arrests of black and ethnic youths results in complaints of racial bias.
While I was a chief inspector in Glasgow's South Side, I monitored crimes and arrests every day. I knew when I saw a black or ethnic name that a complaint against the police would almost inevitably follow.
In my area, the detection rate for all crime was 45 per cent. For crimes reported as racially motivated, it was at least 90 per cent. The difference reflects the fact that a lot more effort goes into dealing with crimes reported as racially motivated.
They are monitored more scrupulously and local commanders are under more pressure to get results for that type of crime.
Exploited
This would not be a concern but for the fact that the definition of a racially motivated crime is so wide that almost every crime against the ethnic community [sic] can fall within it. Quite naturally, this situation is exploited by those who would benefit from it.
The police service in Scotland is not institutionally racist - it is institutionally institutional [sic].
While it nominally serves the community, the real masters, as always, are the people in power and those who influence them.
The Asian community, like the rest of the country [the rest of Scotland, in the rest of Britain it was barely reported], is utterly appalled and outraged by Kriss Donald's murder.
But I believe his violent death was a result of the political correctness that has gripped the police service in Scotland [not just in Scotland] for years.
Perhaps it is time, at last, for senior officers to forget about their gongs and promotions and finally protect the public - the job they were sworn to do.
It is also a devastating indictment of the Establishment parties' suicidally self-destructive policies of mass immigration, of multiculturalism, and of political 'correctness', for which read: displacement, dispossession, and anti-White racism.
Contrary to Mike Liddell's assertion, the police ARE institutionally racist, but not in the way that the Mad Macpherson postulated in his infamous report, following the killing (it has never been proved to have been a murder, let alone a racially motivated murder) of Stephen Lawrence in 1993.
No, the police are institutionally racist against the indigenous people of these islands: the English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish. They unfairly discriminate against their own people, and in favour of ethnic aliens, at the behest of their corrupt senior officers. These senior officers hope to reap the reward of their traitorous betrayal of their own in the shape of career advancement, and honours, from their equally corrupt political masters.
An article published in the Scottish media, not long after the Kriss Donald murder, now follows.
WHY POLICE ARE AFRAID TO TACKLE ASIAN CRIME
Political correctness [sic] protects young ethnic offenders,
by Mike Liddell, former Strathclyde Police chief inspector.
Scottish Daily Mail
Friday, November 19, 2004, p. 14
IT was a crime of breathtaking callousness and depravity that shocked all Scotland [It should have shocked all Britain]. The murder of Kriss Donald was an act of brutality more readily associated with the likes of Bogota or Baghdad.
Yet this awful crime was played out in the leafy suburb of Pollokshields in Glasgow - and has left its residents searching for some kind of explanation.
As a former senior police officer in Strathclyde with 30 years' experience, I believe the answer is clear - though, for many, it will prove unpalatable.
In my view, crime within Glasgow's Asian community has been allowed to grow unfettered for years. Why? Because the police have been afraid to fight it in case they are accused of racism.
It was this basic failure to act that created the conditions which, at least in part, allowed the murder of Kriss Donald to happen.
This inactivity and its deadly consequences stemmed not from the attitude of officers on the street, but from the craven approach of their bosses to race-relations. For years now, a 'softly, softly' attitude towards crime in the ethnic community has prevailed - a disastrous policy born of the excessive interference of politicians.
The simple truth for senior officers is that they are not going to win that longed-for promotion or the coveted knighthood if they upset the local politicians who control the police boards.
So the attitude among Scotland's police hierarchy is: 'Be careful not to upset the ethnic community [sic] - they may start complaining.'
What was striking about the Kriss Donald murder was the confidence his attackers, Daanish Zahid and Zahid Mohammed, displayed as they trawled the streets looking for their victim [any vulnerable White].
We heard at the trial of a group of youths involved in the search, brawls in the street and a Mercedes being driven around the city with the victim aboard.
How is this possible?
Educated
Clearly, the Asian community [sic] is no less law-abiding than any other part of society. But on the South Side of Glasgow there is a significant group of young Asian [Muslim?] men, mostly between 15 and 30, who are simply out of control. They believe they are beyond the law.
They are for the most part well-educated and well-off: driving around in a luxury foreign car is very much their style, but they receive no parental discipline and recognise no authority.
They are heavily involved in drug-dealing and crimes such as reset and fraud; some groups are well-organised, members travel extensively and have connections abroad.
Internal disputes and violence are common - and a cricket bat is often the weapon of choice.
They are very aware the police are reluctant to challenge them in anything less than the most extreme circumstances for fear of being branded as racist.
Make no mistake: they use the race card without mercy and in today's climate even an unsubstantiated complaint can damage an officer's career.
I was a chief inspector in Govan and my area of responsibility bordered Pollokshields.
Disturbed by rumours of young men being seriously assaulted and failing to report the crime, I set up a small plain clothes team to find out what was happening. It soon became apparent something was going on in the Asian [Muslim?] community that the police knew nothing about.
It seemed the focus of activity was in Pollokshields and the intelligence-gathering group expanded to include officers from that area.
The extent of the involvement of some Asian [Muslim?] youths in serious criminal activity was revealed. But in spite of the evidence, no serious effort was made to take action against them because senior officers decided to do nothing about it.
Police in Strathclyde are no strangers to being let down by their commanders when it comes to tough decisions involving the Asian community.
In 2001, South Side residents were dismayed to learn of the closure of a local swimming pool. A peaceful demonstration was hijacked by local youths many of them Asian.
Attacked
Police officers were refused permission to defend themselves when they were attacked by this group.
They were ordered to stand in line while the youths were given free licence to bombard them with stones, rotten fruit and plastic bags full of urine.
A number of officers were injured, at least one seriously. Few arrests were made.
I spoke to a number of officers afterwards and most believed their commanders had failed in their duty to protect them because they feared a political backlash that would damage their careers.
This attitude has been fuelled partly, by Scotland's burgeoning race relations industry and by a climate of intense political correctness. Barely a week goes by now without a new report on some aspect of race relations.
Many of our institutions, primarily the police, have been regularly criticised. But the response from police chiefs has been to try to avoid criticism by turning a blind eye to ethnic crime. This growing unwillingness to tackle such crime has meant that the public are increasingly getting a raw deal.
Scottish Executive research has discovered police officers are failing to use their powers to prevent and detect crime committed by members of the black and ethnic community [sic].
I know from my own experience that a very high percentage of detentions or arrests of black and ethnic youths results in complaints of racial bias.
While I was a chief inspector in Glasgow's South Side, I monitored crimes and arrests every day. I knew when I saw a black or ethnic name that a complaint against the police would almost inevitably follow.
In my area, the detection rate for all crime was 45 per cent. For crimes reported as racially motivated, it was at least 90 per cent. The difference reflects the fact that a lot more effort goes into dealing with crimes reported as racially motivated.
They are monitored more scrupulously and local commanders are under more pressure to get results for that type of crime.
Exploited
This would not be a concern but for the fact that the definition of a racially motivated crime is so wide that almost every crime against the ethnic community [sic] can fall within it. Quite naturally, this situation is exploited by those who would benefit from it.
The police service in Scotland is not institutionally racist - it is institutionally institutional [sic].
While it nominally serves the community, the real masters, as always, are the people in power and those who influence them.
The Asian community, like the rest of the country [the rest of Scotland, in the rest of Britain it was barely reported], is utterly appalled and outraged by Kriss Donald's murder.
But I believe his violent death was a result of the political correctness that has gripped the police service in Scotland [not just in Scotland] for years.
Perhaps it is time, at last, for senior officers to forget about their gongs and promotions and finally protect the public - the job they were sworn to do.
Friday, 28 January 2011
The cure for what ails the BNP will also cure society's ills
The following article, by Chris Beverley, makes the point that Plato's ideas about how a state might best be governed, despite having been written almost two and a half millennia ago, are still highly relevant to the same problem today.
As Chris implies, Plato took the view that one got the kind of government, whether of a party, a city, or a state, that one deserved. If one were unhappy with the quality of that government, or leadership, well, the solution lay in one's own hands: get active, become involved, and participate directly.
Plato, like other Greek thinkers of his time, believed that politics is a branch of ethics, or morality. In other words, a good leader should exercise as much, or more, probity in their dealings with, and on behalf of, their followers, or fellow citizens, as they exercise in their private life on their own behalf, or on that of their family.
It is for this reason that if a man is corrupt in his private life, he has shown himself to be unfit for office, or the leadership of others.
Morley Patriot Blog
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato
Thursday, 27 January 2011 Richard Edmonds and Plato
Last night Richard Edmonds spoke in Morley.
It is always a pleasure to listen to Richard, a founder party member and man of real courage with a wealth of experience gained through years of front-line action in our struggle. He is also one of the nicest people you could have the pleasure of meeting.
Despite having an extremely sore throat that I expected would prevent me from speaking at all, I actually managed to deliver a short speech that looked back at the elections last year and forward to the coming local elections on May 5th.
Despite the obvious disappointment of losing the Morley South seat last May, I highlighted the fact that the 2246 people who voted for us in the Morley South ward heralded an all-time record number of BNP voters in this ward; more than came out to elect me in 2006.
And the 7.26% we achieved in the Morley and Outwood constituency was also a fantastic vote, and one of the best results in the entire county in fact. Even more so when it is considered that it was a close contest between Labour and the Tories, which squeezed the votes of smaller parties.
Clearly our Cause is facing troubling times, but the votes achieved last May offer hope of potential future growth, particularly in this area, if we put things right in our party.
I was shocked last night when I was asked by someone why I had ‘stood down’ as Regional Organiser. I explained that whilst I may not have said very much about my sacking as Regional Organiser, this should not be taken to imply that I voluntarily stood down or was given any input into the decision. I received an email telling me that I was sacked and that was that. Claims that I stood down to concentrate on my paid work as an assistant to Andrew Brons are not true. Neither I nor Andrew had any input into this decision whatsoever. [Emphasis mine, AE].
The quote displayed under the header of this blog is:
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.
This is a wonderful statement that is relevant in relation to the question of why we right thinking people must involve ourselves in the political process.
This idea is discussed at length by Plato in the work that we now refer to as his Republic. His examination of the question of what justice is leads onto a discussion of how the perfect state would look. Plato was no democrat. He did not believe in what he regarded as rule by the mob, but nor did he approve of tyranny or oligarchy.
Rather, Plato argued that a state could only achieve a truly fair and just political system when it was ruled by truly wise men and women; philosophers no less. Such philosopher-rulers would be prevented from owning property or enjoying any of the trappings of wealth. They would be prevented from having a family in the traditional sense, and would have far less freedom in their everyday lives than merchants or tradesmen.
Plato argued that such a system would ensure that those in power would be the right kind of people to rule. Clearly those who seek high office, whether in Classical Athens or modern Britain, due to avarice or a desire to exert control over others, will rarely be fair and just leaders. Their actions will be governed primarily by a desire for further enrichment and the strengthening of their own positions.
Yet if a state’s laws were to ensure that its ruling class were to live relatively austere lifestyles, why would anyone want to govern at all in the first place? One reason proposed is that those people whose wisdom was such as to qualify them to rule our hypothetical state would be willing to sacrifice their own lifestyles for the good of the state.
Such philosopher-rulers would regard the well-being of the whole community as more important than their own well-being. Or rather, their wisdom would render them incapable of distinguishing between that which is good or bad for them and that which is good or bad for the community, so selfless would they be in their dedication to the well-being of the state.
And furthermore, to bring this back to the motto of this blog, whilst such rulers would not be motivated by any material incentives to take on the mantle of power, they would be heavily motivated by the disincentive that their refusal to take up office would ensure that the state would instead be ruled by lesser men, motivated by baser considerations.
And thus, whilst it is delightful enough as a stand-alone statement, our quote can be appreciated further when it is looked at in the wider context in which it was first formulated.
I alluded to this very briefly in my speech last night. At present our primary concern is running our party, rather than the state, which is of course our eventual goal. And it would also be pretentious in the extreme to suggest that we are on a par with the philosophers to whom Plato referred. Yet the principles outlined above are directly relevant to our current situation.
In short: our best and most capable people must stick together and struggle on. This may involve personal hardship of various sorts, but the alternatives are worse. [Emphasis mine, AE].
Plato’s Republic can be bought by clicking here and this is without doubt a book that should be compulsory reading for all nationalists and anyone, in fact, with an interest in leading a good and just life.
As Chris implies, Plato took the view that one got the kind of government, whether of a party, a city, or a state, that one deserved. If one were unhappy with the quality of that government, or leadership, well, the solution lay in one's own hands: get active, become involved, and participate directly.
Plato, like other Greek thinkers of his time, believed that politics is a branch of ethics, or morality. In other words, a good leader should exercise as much, or more, probity in their dealings with, and on behalf of, their followers, or fellow citizens, as they exercise in their private life on their own behalf, or on that of their family.
It is for this reason that if a man is corrupt in his private life, he has shown himself to be unfit for office, or the leadership of others.
Morley Patriot Blog
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato
Thursday, 27 January 2011 Richard Edmonds and Plato
Last night Richard Edmonds spoke in Morley.
It is always a pleasure to listen to Richard, a founder party member and man of real courage with a wealth of experience gained through years of front-line action in our struggle. He is also one of the nicest people you could have the pleasure of meeting.
Despite having an extremely sore throat that I expected would prevent me from speaking at all, I actually managed to deliver a short speech that looked back at the elections last year and forward to the coming local elections on May 5th.
Despite the obvious disappointment of losing the Morley South seat last May, I highlighted the fact that the 2246 people who voted for us in the Morley South ward heralded an all-time record number of BNP voters in this ward; more than came out to elect me in 2006.
And the 7.26% we achieved in the Morley and Outwood constituency was also a fantastic vote, and one of the best results in the entire county in fact. Even more so when it is considered that it was a close contest between Labour and the Tories, which squeezed the votes of smaller parties.
Clearly our Cause is facing troubling times, but the votes achieved last May offer hope of potential future growth, particularly in this area, if we put things right in our party.
I was shocked last night when I was asked by someone why I had ‘stood down’ as Regional Organiser. I explained that whilst I may not have said very much about my sacking as Regional Organiser, this should not be taken to imply that I voluntarily stood down or was given any input into the decision. I received an email telling me that I was sacked and that was that. Claims that I stood down to concentrate on my paid work as an assistant to Andrew Brons are not true. Neither I nor Andrew had any input into this decision whatsoever. [Emphasis mine, AE].
The quote displayed under the header of this blog is:
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.
This is a wonderful statement that is relevant in relation to the question of why we right thinking people must involve ourselves in the political process.
This idea is discussed at length by Plato in the work that we now refer to as his Republic. His examination of the question of what justice is leads onto a discussion of how the perfect state would look. Plato was no democrat. He did not believe in what he regarded as rule by the mob, but nor did he approve of tyranny or oligarchy.
Rather, Plato argued that a state could only achieve a truly fair and just political system when it was ruled by truly wise men and women; philosophers no less. Such philosopher-rulers would be prevented from owning property or enjoying any of the trappings of wealth. They would be prevented from having a family in the traditional sense, and would have far less freedom in their everyday lives than merchants or tradesmen.
Plato argued that such a system would ensure that those in power would be the right kind of people to rule. Clearly those who seek high office, whether in Classical Athens or modern Britain, due to avarice or a desire to exert control over others, will rarely be fair and just leaders. Their actions will be governed primarily by a desire for further enrichment and the strengthening of their own positions.
Yet if a state’s laws were to ensure that its ruling class were to live relatively austere lifestyles, why would anyone want to govern at all in the first place? One reason proposed is that those people whose wisdom was such as to qualify them to rule our hypothetical state would be willing to sacrifice their own lifestyles for the good of the state.
Such philosopher-rulers would regard the well-being of the whole community as more important than their own well-being. Or rather, their wisdom would render them incapable of distinguishing between that which is good or bad for them and that which is good or bad for the community, so selfless would they be in their dedication to the well-being of the state.
And furthermore, to bring this back to the motto of this blog, whilst such rulers would not be motivated by any material incentives to take on the mantle of power, they would be heavily motivated by the disincentive that their refusal to take up office would ensure that the state would instead be ruled by lesser men, motivated by baser considerations.
And thus, whilst it is delightful enough as a stand-alone statement, our quote can be appreciated further when it is looked at in the wider context in which it was first formulated.
I alluded to this very briefly in my speech last night. At present our primary concern is running our party, rather than the state, which is of course our eventual goal. And it would also be pretentious in the extreme to suggest that we are on a par with the philosophers to whom Plato referred. Yet the principles outlined above are directly relevant to our current situation.
In short: our best and most capable people must stick together and struggle on. This may involve personal hardship of various sorts, but the alternatives are worse. [Emphasis mine, AE].
Plato’s Republic can be bought by clicking here and this is without doubt a book that should be compulsory reading for all nationalists and anyone, in fact, with an interest in leading a good and just life.
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
Stay in and work for new leadership
I entreat every member of the British National Party to renew their membership of the party as soon as possible, if they have not yet already done so.
Notwithstanding the appalling quality of the party's leadership, which has worsened over the last twelve months, our loyalty should remain with the BNP, and the cause of our people's fight for national survival that it champions.
The party is more important than its leadership, much more in this case, and we should continue our work to rescue the BNP from its corrupt and incompetent leadership from the position in which that work may most effectively be undertaken, that is from within the party.
Mr Griffin is currently facing numerous problems, mainly of his own making, and unfortunately, due to his misguided, and selfish, reluctance to do the only decent and honorable thing by resigning as party leader, is dragging the BNP down with him.
One thing seems certain, something will have to give sooner or later. When that happens it will be vital that a sufficiently sizeable corps of experienced activists remain members of the party, in order that the necessary measures may be taken for the party's immediate survival, and subsequent reunion and re-launch.
Griffin, in his conceited folly, is planning to hold an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the party, later in the year, in order, ostensibly, to ratify the changes to the party constitution that were outlined at the annual conference in December 2010, but in reality for the primary purpose of granting himself a four year term of office as leader, an oppressive burden he tried to impose on the members once before, at an EGM in 2008, but which was thwarted by the strength of grass roots' opposition on that occasion.
Until last year, when it was regrettably changed, every member of the BNP, no matter how recently he joined, who took the trouble to attend an EGM, had a vote. The current position is that only members with an unbroken membership of at least two years are entitled to vote. This is an important consideration to bear in mind. The party constitution currently gives the national chairman, the leader, enormous power, which Griffin wishes to increase even more. The only way, other than via a leadership election, in which that power may be checked, and called to account for its misdirection of itself, is through an EGM. That is why it is absolutely imperative that every BNP member, no matter how badly they may have been wronged by Griffin and his minions, renews their membership, without delay.
Obviously, it is better to retain an unbroken membership, if at all possible, but if that should prove to be impossible, currently, because a member has been late in renewing, it is nevertheless better to rejoin the party as a 'new' member than not to be a member at all.
Remember: you have to be in it to win it.
Notwithstanding the appalling quality of the party's leadership, which has worsened over the last twelve months, our loyalty should remain with the BNP, and the cause of our people's fight for national survival that it champions.
The party is more important than its leadership, much more in this case, and we should continue our work to rescue the BNP from its corrupt and incompetent leadership from the position in which that work may most effectively be undertaken, that is from within the party.
Mr Griffin is currently facing numerous problems, mainly of his own making, and unfortunately, due to his misguided, and selfish, reluctance to do the only decent and honorable thing by resigning as party leader, is dragging the BNP down with him.
One thing seems certain, something will have to give sooner or later. When that happens it will be vital that a sufficiently sizeable corps of experienced activists remain members of the party, in order that the necessary measures may be taken for the party's immediate survival, and subsequent reunion and re-launch.
Griffin, in his conceited folly, is planning to hold an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the party, later in the year, in order, ostensibly, to ratify the changes to the party constitution that were outlined at the annual conference in December 2010, but in reality for the primary purpose of granting himself a four year term of office as leader, an oppressive burden he tried to impose on the members once before, at an EGM in 2008, but which was thwarted by the strength of grass roots' opposition on that occasion.
Until last year, when it was regrettably changed, every member of the BNP, no matter how recently he joined, who took the trouble to attend an EGM, had a vote. The current position is that only members with an unbroken membership of at least two years are entitled to vote. This is an important consideration to bear in mind. The party constitution currently gives the national chairman, the leader, enormous power, which Griffin wishes to increase even more. The only way, other than via a leadership election, in which that power may be checked, and called to account for its misdirection of itself, is through an EGM. That is why it is absolutely imperative that every BNP member, no matter how badly they may have been wronged by Griffin and his minions, renews their membership, without delay.
Obviously, it is better to retain an unbroken membership, if at all possible, but if that should prove to be impossible, currently, because a member has been late in renewing, it is nevertheless better to rejoin the party as a 'new' member than not to be a member at all.
Remember: you have to be in it to win it.
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
Griffin is a disgrace to the BNP
The following article was recently posted on Eddy Butler's blog, www.eddybutler.blogspot.com.
Other excellent articles on the British National Party may be found on the new web site of BNP Reform at http://www.bnpreform2011.co.uk/.
The BNP's long overdue 2009 accounts, which were belatedly submitted to the Electoral Commission recently, yet again without having been signed off by the auditors as representing a "true and fair view" of the party's finances, may be viewed on the Electoral Commission's web site at www.electoralcommission.org.uk.
The utter shambles that is the BNP's finances was allowed to develop on Mr Griffin's watch, as party leader. Only he wasn't watching. He was, and is, an absentee leader, who spends most of his time in that House of Indolence, Luxury, and Futility, otherwise known as the European 'parliament'. That is where he wishes to spend most of his time. It is where he now feels most at home, away from the tiresome "plebs" and "grunts" of the BNP.
Mr Griffin's negligence, his dereliction of duty, and his delusions of grandeur, and competence, must not, and will not be permitted to destroy the party that tens of thousands of genuine patriots and nationalists have built up over the past three decades.
Griffin must go, bag and baggage, and he must go, not in 2014, not next year, nor next month. No, Griffin must go now, immediately, at once.
Every member of the BNP who cares about the party's survival, and wishes to see it flourish, and fulfil its destiny as the saviour of the British people, should impress upon Mr Griffin that he is now no longer either wanted or needed. He has outstayed his welcome more than a little, and should seek alternative lodgings, forthwith.
Let Griffin's last order be for the party's web editor, Arthur Kemp, to publish the 2009 accounts, and all of the previous years' accounts on the BNP web site, www.bnp.org.uk, so that members may see the full scale of the degradation that Griffin's 'leadership' has inflicted upon our party.
I call upon every decent member of the BNP to tell Mr Griffin to resign as leader, without delay.
Griffin's e-mail address is nick.griffin@europarl.europa.eu.
Please be courteous but also be firm and forthright in your language. There is no need to mince matters but avoid bad language, and personal abuse.
Eddy Butler's devastating critique now follows.
DO THE ACCOUNTS TELL US ANYTHING?
On one level it is questionable whether the BNP’s published accounts tell us anything about the true situation. About how much money was really raised, about what it was spent on or about how much debt was left at the end of the year.
The Auditor had to rely on the records he was given. At the start of the year the BNP ran at least eighteen different bank accounts. I know that more were set up subsequently. No wonder bank reconciliations were difficult.
What if some bank accounts and income streams were not passed over to the auditor to scrutinise? Take the Trafalgar Club monies for example. The accounts are strangely silent about any income whatsoever for the Trafalgar Club. My own investigations have indicated that Trafalgar Club income was paid into various different back accounts. Was this unravelled by the Auditor? We have no idea.
We will see what we can find on close inspection...
MISSING MONEY
The first part of the accounts consists of the Income and Expenditure Account.
This quite simply is a listing of what was received, sub totalled by various categories, and what was spent, again sub totalled by various categories.
‘Wrongdoings’ could take the form of understating the income (i.e. hiding some of it or in the worse case stealing it) or of misidentifying expenditure (i.e. pretending the money was spent on one thing when it was actually spent on something else, or in the worse case stealing it).
Let’s look at the Expenditure Account first.
Costs of Commercial Activities £449,857
Staff Costs £659,994
Management and Administration £361,281
Depreciation and Loss on sale £60,358
Campaign Expenditure £277,412
Unknown Cheques £32,400
Other expenditure £199,847
Total Expenditure £2,041,149
It will immediately be seen that there is an item for ‘Unknown Cheques’. In other words payments were made by the Treasury Department for £32,400 and there is no information whatsoever what these relate to.
There is much more than this within the figures however.
• Within the Cost of Commercial Activities are payments totalling £23,900 with no proper description as to what they relate (they are listed under the name D Hannam).
• Within the Staff Costs are payments totalling £37,450 listed as J A Walker (but unrelated to actual pay).
• Within Management and Administration £11,300 in cash has been drawn without any explanation.
• With the Unknown Cheques these unaccounted items of expenditure total £105,050.
Let me put it another way. £105,050 was spent and we have no way of knowing what a single penny of that was spent on.
The income totalled £1,983,947. Estimating shortfalls there is a lot more difficult.
We have no figure whatsoever for the Trafalgar Club, although estimates are that it raises around £100,000 a year. It is conceivable that the revenue from the Trafalgar Club is included within the globular Donation Income figure of £1,260,374. There is however no indication that this is the case.
There is no figure for bequests. This is not unusual. Bequests have been strangely absent from the accounts in recent years. However as if my magic we are aware of three in 2010 and one was even reported to the Electoral Commission in the third quarter of 2010. Another for £2,000 was received just before Christmas.
Voice of Freedom sales are listed as zero. In 2008 the sales were listed as £29,489. These mainly consist of sales to units who then sell them on or distribute them for free. In all likelihood, with the European Elections, most units will have bought more from the party centre than in 2008. The regional accounts show that local units spent £26,446 on VoF. The total likely sales figure must be around £30,000. Yet it is given as zero in the accounts.
Identity sales are also listed as zero. Part way through 2009 it was decided to re-launch Identity to come out four times a year and free to members. This hasn’t happened and members have been cheated, but that is a separate issue for the Small Claims Court. However several issues were sold at the beginning of 2009. The annual 2008 figure was £21,007. It is fair to say that the true 2009 figure must be around £7,000 yet the sales figure in the account is given as zero.
So by how much in total has the total income for 2009 been understated? A conservative ball park figure, factoring in the Trafalgar Club, bequests, VoF sales and Identity sales might be £150,000.
From this examination we can readily see that in total something like £250,000 has gone astray.
This figure is turning up again and again.
THE AUDITOR FILLS IN THE GAPS
On numerous occasions the Auditor confesses that he doesn’t know how to explain apparent discrepancies or figures that seem drastically out from the previous year. Clearly he was given no help or assistance by the current Treasurer, nor the previous incumbents. The Auditor was left to speculate as can be seen from the following.
For example the Auditor had no idea why the membership income went up by so much. He says:
“The figure seems high and may include an element of donation income”.
He should have been told it was just due to the Life Membership scheme which netted around £400,000. The balance was made up of new Gold Members and membership growth in 2009. The fact that this simple explanation was not told to him and that he was left scratching around for information that is supposedly available on the superb membership database is baffling. However, if the Treasurer showed that he was able to provide any information to the Auditor it might have opened a can of worms, so best to play totally dumb – eh?
Then the Auditor speculated that the reason no income figures were given for VoF or Identity was: “As members receive ‘Identity’ and ‘Voice of Freedom’ as part of their membership, it is likely that some of that income will be shown within the membership income”.
Clearly someone told the Auditor that VoF was given free to members! That is completely untrue. Also as I have already stated, Identity as only given free to members part way through the year.
Next the Auditor raises an eyebrow at the big increases in Postage and Delivery and Printing and Reproduction. This is purely due to the call centre. However the Auditor thinks that “Given the level of ‘Campaign Expenditure’ it is likely that here is a significant element of the charge... should be allocated to ‘Campaign Expenditure’ “. The Auditor clearly cannot believe that out of over £2 million total expenditure, a political party would only spend £277,412 on campaigning. Unfortunately this is the British National Party.
The BNP expense return listed on the Electoral Commission website for the European Election states that the BNP actually spent £282,843, which is about £5,000 more than stated in the Annual Accounts. This is a small discrepancy for the BNP. However as the BNP’s Election campaign expenditure return was not signed off by an Auditor, contrary to the regulations, the Auditor can hardly be blamed for being ignorant of this figure.
Clutching at straws and getting no help from the BNP Treasury team past or present, the Auditor then makes various wild stabs:
“In a similar way it is possible that there is an element of the costs of ‘Identity’ and ‘Voice of Freedom’ are included in the above costs” (he was still desperately trying to account for the missing figures).
“The advertising costs, will contain a mixture of elements, of which part will be the promotion of the party and campaign expenditure”. Not campaign expenditure –see above!
“A considerable amount of the ‘Trafalgar Club’ costs could be considered to be more to do with printing costs. The total cost covered is £23,900”. This sum actually seems to be Simon Bennett’s fees as a web contractor and nothing to do with the Trafalgar Club at all.
THERE IS STILL A LOT MORE TO COME OUT OF THESE ACCOUNTS.
BUT NOTE THE ACCOUNTS SUGGEST THAT £250,000 HAS GONE ASTRAY.
AT THE VERY LEAST £105,000 IN EXPENDITURE IT TOTALLY UNACCOUNTED FOR.
BY ANY STANDARD THIS IS A DISGRACE.
Other excellent articles on the British National Party may be found on the new web site of BNP Reform at http://www.bnpreform2011.co.uk/.
The BNP's long overdue 2009 accounts, which were belatedly submitted to the Electoral Commission recently, yet again without having been signed off by the auditors as representing a "true and fair view" of the party's finances, may be viewed on the Electoral Commission's web site at www.electoralcommission.org.uk.
The utter shambles that is the BNP's finances was allowed to develop on Mr Griffin's watch, as party leader. Only he wasn't watching. He was, and is, an absentee leader, who spends most of his time in that House of Indolence, Luxury, and Futility, otherwise known as the European 'parliament'. That is where he wishes to spend most of his time. It is where he now feels most at home, away from the tiresome "plebs" and "grunts" of the BNP.
Mr Griffin's negligence, his dereliction of duty, and his delusions of grandeur, and competence, must not, and will not be permitted to destroy the party that tens of thousands of genuine patriots and nationalists have built up over the past three decades.
Griffin must go, bag and baggage, and he must go, not in 2014, not next year, nor next month. No, Griffin must go now, immediately, at once.
Every member of the BNP who cares about the party's survival, and wishes to see it flourish, and fulfil its destiny as the saviour of the British people, should impress upon Mr Griffin that he is now no longer either wanted or needed. He has outstayed his welcome more than a little, and should seek alternative lodgings, forthwith.
Let Griffin's last order be for the party's web editor, Arthur Kemp, to publish the 2009 accounts, and all of the previous years' accounts on the BNP web site, www.bnp.org.uk, so that members may see the full scale of the degradation that Griffin's 'leadership' has inflicted upon our party.
I call upon every decent member of the BNP to tell Mr Griffin to resign as leader, without delay.
Griffin's e-mail address is nick.griffin@europarl.europa.eu.
Please be courteous but also be firm and forthright in your language. There is no need to mince matters but avoid bad language, and personal abuse.
Eddy Butler's devastating critique now follows.
DO THE ACCOUNTS TELL US ANYTHING?
On one level it is questionable whether the BNP’s published accounts tell us anything about the true situation. About how much money was really raised, about what it was spent on or about how much debt was left at the end of the year.
The Auditor had to rely on the records he was given. At the start of the year the BNP ran at least eighteen different bank accounts. I know that more were set up subsequently. No wonder bank reconciliations were difficult.
What if some bank accounts and income streams were not passed over to the auditor to scrutinise? Take the Trafalgar Club monies for example. The accounts are strangely silent about any income whatsoever for the Trafalgar Club. My own investigations have indicated that Trafalgar Club income was paid into various different back accounts. Was this unravelled by the Auditor? We have no idea.
We will see what we can find on close inspection...
MISSING MONEY
The first part of the accounts consists of the Income and Expenditure Account.
This quite simply is a listing of what was received, sub totalled by various categories, and what was spent, again sub totalled by various categories.
‘Wrongdoings’ could take the form of understating the income (i.e. hiding some of it or in the worse case stealing it) or of misidentifying expenditure (i.e. pretending the money was spent on one thing when it was actually spent on something else, or in the worse case stealing it).
Let’s look at the Expenditure Account first.
Costs of Commercial Activities £449,857
Staff Costs £659,994
Management and Administration £361,281
Depreciation and Loss on sale £60,358
Campaign Expenditure £277,412
Unknown Cheques £32,400
Other expenditure £199,847
Total Expenditure £2,041,149
It will immediately be seen that there is an item for ‘Unknown Cheques’. In other words payments were made by the Treasury Department for £32,400 and there is no information whatsoever what these relate to.
There is much more than this within the figures however.
• Within the Cost of Commercial Activities are payments totalling £23,900 with no proper description as to what they relate (they are listed under the name D Hannam).
• Within the Staff Costs are payments totalling £37,450 listed as J A Walker (but unrelated to actual pay).
• Within Management and Administration £11,300 in cash has been drawn without any explanation.
• With the Unknown Cheques these unaccounted items of expenditure total £105,050.
Let me put it another way. £105,050 was spent and we have no way of knowing what a single penny of that was spent on.
The income totalled £1,983,947. Estimating shortfalls there is a lot more difficult.
We have no figure whatsoever for the Trafalgar Club, although estimates are that it raises around £100,000 a year. It is conceivable that the revenue from the Trafalgar Club is included within the globular Donation Income figure of £1,260,374. There is however no indication that this is the case.
There is no figure for bequests. This is not unusual. Bequests have been strangely absent from the accounts in recent years. However as if my magic we are aware of three in 2010 and one was even reported to the Electoral Commission in the third quarter of 2010. Another for £2,000 was received just before Christmas.
Voice of Freedom sales are listed as zero. In 2008 the sales were listed as £29,489. These mainly consist of sales to units who then sell them on or distribute them for free. In all likelihood, with the European Elections, most units will have bought more from the party centre than in 2008. The regional accounts show that local units spent £26,446 on VoF. The total likely sales figure must be around £30,000. Yet it is given as zero in the accounts.
Identity sales are also listed as zero. Part way through 2009 it was decided to re-launch Identity to come out four times a year and free to members. This hasn’t happened and members have been cheated, but that is a separate issue for the Small Claims Court. However several issues were sold at the beginning of 2009. The annual 2008 figure was £21,007. It is fair to say that the true 2009 figure must be around £7,000 yet the sales figure in the account is given as zero.
So by how much in total has the total income for 2009 been understated? A conservative ball park figure, factoring in the Trafalgar Club, bequests, VoF sales and Identity sales might be £150,000.
From this examination we can readily see that in total something like £250,000 has gone astray.
This figure is turning up again and again.
THE AUDITOR FILLS IN THE GAPS
On numerous occasions the Auditor confesses that he doesn’t know how to explain apparent discrepancies or figures that seem drastically out from the previous year. Clearly he was given no help or assistance by the current Treasurer, nor the previous incumbents. The Auditor was left to speculate as can be seen from the following.
For example the Auditor had no idea why the membership income went up by so much. He says:
“The figure seems high and may include an element of donation income”.
He should have been told it was just due to the Life Membership scheme which netted around £400,000. The balance was made up of new Gold Members and membership growth in 2009. The fact that this simple explanation was not told to him and that he was left scratching around for information that is supposedly available on the superb membership database is baffling. However, if the Treasurer showed that he was able to provide any information to the Auditor it might have opened a can of worms, so best to play totally dumb – eh?
Then the Auditor speculated that the reason no income figures were given for VoF or Identity was: “As members receive ‘Identity’ and ‘Voice of Freedom’ as part of their membership, it is likely that some of that income will be shown within the membership income”.
Clearly someone told the Auditor that VoF was given free to members! That is completely untrue. Also as I have already stated, Identity as only given free to members part way through the year.
Next the Auditor raises an eyebrow at the big increases in Postage and Delivery and Printing and Reproduction. This is purely due to the call centre. However the Auditor thinks that “Given the level of ‘Campaign Expenditure’ it is likely that here is a significant element of the charge... should be allocated to ‘Campaign Expenditure’ “. The Auditor clearly cannot believe that out of over £2 million total expenditure, a political party would only spend £277,412 on campaigning. Unfortunately this is the British National Party.
The BNP expense return listed on the Electoral Commission website for the European Election states that the BNP actually spent £282,843, which is about £5,000 more than stated in the Annual Accounts. This is a small discrepancy for the BNP. However as the BNP’s Election campaign expenditure return was not signed off by an Auditor, contrary to the regulations, the Auditor can hardly be blamed for being ignorant of this figure.
Clutching at straws and getting no help from the BNP Treasury team past or present, the Auditor then makes various wild stabs:
“In a similar way it is possible that there is an element of the costs of ‘Identity’ and ‘Voice of Freedom’ are included in the above costs” (he was still desperately trying to account for the missing figures).
“The advertising costs, will contain a mixture of elements, of which part will be the promotion of the party and campaign expenditure”. Not campaign expenditure –see above!
“A considerable amount of the ‘Trafalgar Club’ costs could be considered to be more to do with printing costs. The total cost covered is £23,900”. This sum actually seems to be Simon Bennett’s fees as a web contractor and nothing to do with the Trafalgar Club at all.
THERE IS STILL A LOT MORE TO COME OUT OF THESE ACCOUNTS.
BUT NOTE THE ACCOUNTS SUGGEST THAT £250,000 HAS GONE ASTRAY.
AT THE VERY LEAST £105,000 IN EXPENDITURE IT TOTALLY UNACCOUNTED FOR.
BY ANY STANDARD THIS IS A DISGRACE.
Monday, 24 January 2011
The BNP should be whiter than white but shamefully isn't
What lessons can the British National Party learn from the devastating scandal that engulfed its sister party, the NPD, in Germany, two years ago?
The need for a party leadership with probity, and the need for that leadership to be democratically accountable to the members, via a free and fair leadership election every year, for its temporary stewardship of the party.
German neo-Nazi [sic] NPD party faces collapse after being fined
By Fran Yeoman in Berlin for Times Online April 2, 2009
Germany’s main neo-Nazi [sic] party faces financial collapse after it was fined nearly £2.3 million for accounts irregularities.
The National Democratic Party (NPD), which is struggling to cope with bitter in-fighting and an embezzlement scandal, was ordered by the national parliament to pay €2.5 million (£2.3 million) by May 1.
A lawyer for the party warned that the fine, which comes four months after its former treasurer was jailed for stealing €741,000 (£677,000) from NPD coffers, threatens its existence. [Emphasis mine, AE].
The NPD is a legal political party and although it has no seats in the federal parliament it is represented in two of Germany’s 16 state legislatures. It is eligible for state funding which in 2007 amounted to more than £1 million, despite being described by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution as racist, anti-Semitic and revisionist. NPD officials have, for example, praised Iran's President Ahmadinejad for arguing that Israel should be wiped off the map and the party’s leader, Udo Voigt, has said that Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess should have won the Nobel Peace Prize.
There have been a number of attempts to close the party down, including a legal attempt by the Government in 2003 which failed when it emerged that key prosecution witnesses were paid state informants.
After today's fine, however, the NPD’s future looks uncertain. It was already struggling to make ends meet after the Bundestag withheld a payment of €300,000 in state funding in February in anticipation of the fine, and must now come up with a further €2.2 million by the end of the month. The embezzlement by Erwin Kemna, a former treasurer, has put another huge hole in party finances. [Emphasis mine, AE].
A power struggle within the leadership – accusations of being “one-eighth Jewish” were among the remarks hurled between rivals – also threatens to tear the party apart. The NPD is facing state elections in its strongholds of Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg in the former East Germany as well as a nationwide general election in September, but it is unclear how it can fund a major campaign.
A spokesman for the parliamentary investigators who issued the fine said that the party had given an inaccurate account of its assets and inadequate details of its income in its 2007 financial statement. The NPD said that the discrepancies were due to an “office error” and the fine meant that its “political existence is threatened,” the German publication Spiegel reported.
The NPD has around 7,000 registered members in Germany and won 1.8 per cent of the vote in the 2005 general election, but its influence in some areas is considerably greater. Despite the NPD’s woes, there are fears that far-right sentiment is on the rise in Germany, particularly as unemployment rises with the recession.
The number of right-wing crimes, which ranged from assault and arson to displaying banned symbols, rose 28 per cent in 2008 compared with the previous year, while a survey last month indicated that almost one in 20 boys aged 15 were members of a right-wing group. Earlier this week the interior ministry banned a neo-Nazi youth organisation, Heimattreue Deutsche Jugend - German Youth Faithful to the Homeland - which organised military-style camps to teach children racial ideology.
The need for a party leadership with probity, and the need for that leadership to be democratically accountable to the members, via a free and fair leadership election every year, for its temporary stewardship of the party.
German neo-Nazi [sic] NPD party faces collapse after being fined
By Fran Yeoman in Berlin for Times Online April 2, 2009
Germany’s main neo-Nazi [sic] party faces financial collapse after it was fined nearly £2.3 million for accounts irregularities.
The National Democratic Party (NPD), which is struggling to cope with bitter in-fighting and an embezzlement scandal, was ordered by the national parliament to pay €2.5 million (£2.3 million) by May 1.
A lawyer for the party warned that the fine, which comes four months after its former treasurer was jailed for stealing €741,000 (£677,000) from NPD coffers, threatens its existence. [Emphasis mine, AE].
The NPD is a legal political party and although it has no seats in the federal parliament it is represented in two of Germany’s 16 state legislatures. It is eligible for state funding which in 2007 amounted to more than £1 million, despite being described by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution as racist, anti-Semitic and revisionist. NPD officials have, for example, praised Iran's President Ahmadinejad for arguing that Israel should be wiped off the map and the party’s leader, Udo Voigt, has said that Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess should have won the Nobel Peace Prize.
There have been a number of attempts to close the party down, including a legal attempt by the Government in 2003 which failed when it emerged that key prosecution witnesses were paid state informants.
After today's fine, however, the NPD’s future looks uncertain. It was already struggling to make ends meet after the Bundestag withheld a payment of €300,000 in state funding in February in anticipation of the fine, and must now come up with a further €2.2 million by the end of the month. The embezzlement by Erwin Kemna, a former treasurer, has put another huge hole in party finances. [Emphasis mine, AE].
A power struggle within the leadership – accusations of being “one-eighth Jewish” were among the remarks hurled between rivals – also threatens to tear the party apart. The NPD is facing state elections in its strongholds of Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg in the former East Germany as well as a nationwide general election in September, but it is unclear how it can fund a major campaign.
A spokesman for the parliamentary investigators who issued the fine said that the party had given an inaccurate account of its assets and inadequate details of its income in its 2007 financial statement. The NPD said that the discrepancies were due to an “office error” and the fine meant that its “political existence is threatened,” the German publication Spiegel reported.
The NPD has around 7,000 registered members in Germany and won 1.8 per cent of the vote in the 2005 general election, but its influence in some areas is considerably greater. Despite the NPD’s woes, there are fears that far-right sentiment is on the rise in Germany, particularly as unemployment rises with the recession.
The number of right-wing crimes, which ranged from assault and arson to displaying banned symbols, rose 28 per cent in 2008 compared with the previous year, while a survey last month indicated that almost one in 20 boys aged 15 were members of a right-wing group. Earlier this week the interior ministry banned a neo-Nazi youth organisation, Heimattreue Deutsche Jugend - German Youth Faithful to the Homeland - which organised military-style camps to teach children racial ideology.
United we stand, divided we fall
The following post is a statement by Lee Barnes, the former legal officer of the British National Party, regarding the treatment of Chris Beverley, the BNP's former councillor, and regional organizer of the party's highly successful Yorkshire region.
Sunday, 23 January 2011
Chris Beverley's sacking - a statement by Lee Barnes LLB
I have known Chris Beverley for over a decade.
He is one of the few people in nationalism who every nationalist knows they can fully trust and respect as a fully committed and dedicated nationalist activist.
In the past I have attacked Chris under the direct orders of Nick Griffin.
Griffin even supplied me with a file of documents he had collected concerning Chris to issue to activists and BNP members to attack him during the Sadie Graham fall out.
At the time I did so, as I was told to do so. ["Superior orders" is no justification for wrongdoing, AE].
The news he has been sacked [as regional organizer] is a disaster for the BNP.
Chris is one of the most loyal BNP activists in the country.
His intelligence, commitment to nationalism and dedication to the party are second to none.
The fact that Andrew Brons has sat so long on the fence as regards Griffin, and his pillaging of the party, that a fence post now visibly protrudes from his silent mouth, is a source of confusion to many BNP members.
Griffin once expelled Brons from the NF, and Brons' silence now is pathetic.
Some people are saying to me that the only reason Brons is silent is because he has his snout alongside Griffin in the EU pig trough, though I state in my opinion that this is not the case.
I believe he is silent as he cares about his personal legacy in nationalism and doesn't want to split the party.
The fact though that one of his most trusted and loyal friends has now had the Griffin Knife inserted into his back should, if he has any sense of loyalty, force Brons to pull his finger out and say something about what has been happening in the BNP.
The knife that has been stuck in Chris's back will go into Brons's as soon as Griffin thinks he can get away with it.
I know Andrew Brons is no coward and that he is a true nationalist.
We respect the man for who he is and his dedication to the nationalist cause.
But his silence has been taken by many people as a tacit approval of what Griffin and his cult of sycophants, half-wits and crooks have been doing in the party.
Now Brons must show he understands the meaning of loyalty to a friend, and to a man who is a true BNP loyalist and nationalist.
Sunday, 23 January 2011
Chris Beverley's sacking - a statement by Lee Barnes LLB
I have known Chris Beverley for over a decade.
He is one of the few people in nationalism who every nationalist knows they can fully trust and respect as a fully committed and dedicated nationalist activist.
In the past I have attacked Chris under the direct orders of Nick Griffin.
Griffin even supplied me with a file of documents he had collected concerning Chris to issue to activists and BNP members to attack him during the Sadie Graham fall out.
At the time I did so, as I was told to do so. ["Superior orders" is no justification for wrongdoing, AE].
The news he has been sacked [as regional organizer] is a disaster for the BNP.
Chris is one of the most loyal BNP activists in the country.
His intelligence, commitment to nationalism and dedication to the party are second to none.
The fact that Andrew Brons has sat so long on the fence as regards Griffin, and his pillaging of the party, that a fence post now visibly protrudes from his silent mouth, is a source of confusion to many BNP members.
Griffin once expelled Brons from the NF, and Brons' silence now is pathetic.
Some people are saying to me that the only reason Brons is silent is because he has his snout alongside Griffin in the EU pig trough, though I state in my opinion that this is not the case.
I believe he is silent as he cares about his personal legacy in nationalism and doesn't want to split the party.
The fact though that one of his most trusted and loyal friends has now had the Griffin Knife inserted into his back should, if he has any sense of loyalty, force Brons to pull his finger out and say something about what has been happening in the BNP.
The knife that has been stuck in Chris's back will go into Brons's as soon as Griffin thinks he can get away with it.
I know Andrew Brons is no coward and that he is a true nationalist.
We respect the man for who he is and his dedication to the nationalist cause.
But his silence has been taken by many people as a tacit approval of what Griffin and his cult of sycophants, half-wits and crooks have been doing in the party.
Now Brons must show he understands the meaning of loyalty to a friend, and to a man who is a true BNP loyalist and nationalist.
Sunday, 23 January 2011
Griffin's "political soldier" speaks
What follows is a recent exchange of correspondence via my Facebook page between Mr Pat Harrington, a senior officer of both the British National Party and its rival, the National Liberal Party, and myself.
Since Mr Harrington chose to conduct this correspondence in a public forum, viz, my Facebook page, he can hardly object to my re-publishing it on my blog.
BNP members should note the way in which Mr Harrington refers to "your party" rather than "our party". Is this because he does not regard the BNP as "his" party at all, his real loyalty lying with the National Liberal Party, of which he is both a senior officer and a member?
Patrick Antony Harrington : I read through your blog and noted that you imply that you think I am incompetent in comments you make when reposting an email from Paul Golding. I would be interested to know your grounds for that. Paul Golding earned a large salary from your Party and commission. Even though he knew your Party was in debt he demanded more money. He resigned his position and seemed shocked that he was not begged to return. Consequently your Party will be at least £40,000 a year better off. Everything he did is now done on a voluntary basis. I would have thought you might approve.
Dr Andrew Emerson : Mr Harrington: if as you say, you have read through my blog, then you will have seen that I also criticize Cllr Golding for corruption and hypocrisy. I am very pleased that he is now no longer employed by the British National Party.
Regarding your own incompetence: I use the word in the sense of being unfit, or unsuitable, to discharge the duties of the post you hold, rather than as a reflection upon your ability. You are unsuitable because you hold a senior post in a rival political party that has fielded candidates against the BNP in elections, and because you are not a member of the British National Party.
If you can now prevail upon Mr Griffin to put the interests of the BNP before what he mistakenly believes to be his own personal interest, by resigning from the post of national chairman, then I shall be even happier.
Since Mr Harrington chose to conduct this correspondence in a public forum, viz, my Facebook page, he can hardly object to my re-publishing it on my blog.
BNP members should note the way in which Mr Harrington refers to "your party" rather than "our party". Is this because he does not regard the BNP as "his" party at all, his real loyalty lying with the National Liberal Party, of which he is both a senior officer and a member?
Patrick Antony Harrington : I read through your blog and noted that you imply that you think I am incompetent in comments you make when reposting an email from Paul Golding. I would be interested to know your grounds for that. Paul Golding earned a large salary from your Party and commission. Even though he knew your Party was in debt he demanded more money. He resigned his position and seemed shocked that he was not begged to return. Consequently your Party will be at least £40,000 a year better off. Everything he did is now done on a voluntary basis. I would have thought you might approve.
Dr Andrew Emerson : Mr Harrington: if as you say, you have read through my blog, then you will have seen that I also criticize Cllr Golding for corruption and hypocrisy. I am very pleased that he is now no longer employed by the British National Party.
Regarding your own incompetence: I use the word in the sense of being unfit, or unsuitable, to discharge the duties of the post you hold, rather than as a reflection upon your ability. You are unsuitable because you hold a senior post in a rival political party that has fielded candidates against the BNP in elections, and because you are not a member of the British National Party.
If you can now prevail upon Mr Griffin to put the interests of the BNP before what he mistakenly believes to be his own personal interest, by resigning from the post of national chairman, then I shall be even happier.
Saturday, 22 January 2011
"We value you, Nick"
The following article, published in the Guardian yesterday, describes how Mr Griffin is being shielded by the state from unwelcome publicity regarding his personal circumstances.
Quite why "...the commission of an offence..." by an MEP, and the "...political opinions" of an MEP, having been aired in open court, as they were in Griffin's case in his 1998 trial, should be treated by the Crown Prosecution Service as not being in the public domain, and the release of such information, on request, be regarded as not in the public interest, or as contrary to policy, is frankly anyone's guess.
Could it be an example of "the hidden hand" reaching out to protect its highly valued asset?
The article now follows.
CPS refuses to reveal details of Nick Griffin's race hate trial. Prosecutors claim releasing information about 1998 case would breach BNP leader's data protection rights
Ian Cobain guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 January 2010 19.09 GMT
The Crown Prosecution Service is blocking attempts to disclose details about the prosecution of Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National party, for race hate crimes, claiming that to do so would breach his data protection rights.
Griffin was given a suspended prison sentence in 1998 after being convicted of "publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material", an offence under the 1986 Public Order Act. The following year he was elected leader of the BNP.
The prosecution centred on a magazine edited by Griffin called the Rune, in which he dismissed the Holocaust as a hoax. At the trial he sacked his legal team and, conducting his own defence, attempted to justify the material he had published.
Griffin has been widely reported as dismissing the Holocaust as an "extremely profitable lie" when he gave evidence at Harrow crown court. But no transcript of the hearing was made and the only records about the case are held by the CPS.
Although the trial was heard in open court and ended in Griffin's conviction, the CPS has rejected a request made under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI) for disclosure of information in its files on the grounds that it is "sensitive personal data" that is protected by the Data Protection Act.
In a letter to the Guardian, which submitted the request almost four months ago, the CPS said: "The majority of the information contained in the case papers is personal data.
"A large proportion of this personal data is sensitive personal data because it consists of information as to the commission of an offence and Mr Griffin's political opinions."
On appeal, the CPS last week reiterated its view that Griffin's rights are not outweighed by the public interest in the disclosure of the information.
Only last month the government announced fresh guidelines intended to give the public more information about criminal prosecutions.
Unveiling the guidelines, Alan Johnson, the home secretary, said they were intended "to set straight the misconception that human rights and data protection laws prevent criminals and their punishments from being exposed".
The Guardian is now lodging a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office, which is responsible for final decisions on FoI requests.
Quite why "...the commission of an offence..." by an MEP, and the "...political opinions" of an MEP, having been aired in open court, as they were in Griffin's case in his 1998 trial, should be treated by the Crown Prosecution Service as not being in the public domain, and the release of such information, on request, be regarded as not in the public interest, or as contrary to policy, is frankly anyone's guess.
Could it be an example of "the hidden hand" reaching out to protect its highly valued asset?
The article now follows.
CPS refuses to reveal details of Nick Griffin's race hate trial. Prosecutors claim releasing information about 1998 case would breach BNP leader's data protection rights
Ian Cobain guardian.co.uk, Friday 21 January 2010 19.09 GMT
The Crown Prosecution Service is blocking attempts to disclose details about the prosecution of Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National party, for race hate crimes, claiming that to do so would breach his data protection rights.
Griffin was given a suspended prison sentence in 1998 after being convicted of "publishing or distributing racially inflammatory written material", an offence under the 1986 Public Order Act. The following year he was elected leader of the BNP.
The prosecution centred on a magazine edited by Griffin called the Rune, in which he dismissed the Holocaust as a hoax. At the trial he sacked his legal team and, conducting his own defence, attempted to justify the material he had published.
Griffin has been widely reported as dismissing the Holocaust as an "extremely profitable lie" when he gave evidence at Harrow crown court. But no transcript of the hearing was made and the only records about the case are held by the CPS.
Although the trial was heard in open court and ended in Griffin's conviction, the CPS has rejected a request made under the Freedom of Information Act (FoI) for disclosure of information in its files on the grounds that it is "sensitive personal data" that is protected by the Data Protection Act.
In a letter to the Guardian, which submitted the request almost four months ago, the CPS said: "The majority of the information contained in the case papers is personal data.
"A large proportion of this personal data is sensitive personal data because it consists of information as to the commission of an offence and Mr Griffin's political opinions."
On appeal, the CPS last week reiterated its view that Griffin's rights are not outweighed by the public interest in the disclosure of the information.
Only last month the government announced fresh guidelines intended to give the public more information about criminal prosecutions.
Unveiling the guidelines, Alan Johnson, the home secretary, said they were intended "to set straight the misconception that human rights and data protection laws prevent criminals and their punishments from being exposed".
The Guardian is now lodging a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office, which is responsible for final decisions on FoI requests.
Friday, 21 January 2011
Credibility: zero
Here we see Mr Griffin where he now feels most at home, among the pampered fat cats of the European 'parliament'.
Mr Griffin feels he has now 'arrived'. He holds forth, reading his one-minute speech to the chamber, for all the world as if he believed what he said could have any effect on the lives of his constituents in the north west of England. The bored and languid manner of the session chairman, in itself, tells one all one needs to know about this stage- managed shadow play.
Yet Griffin wants to believe that it is all for real. He has gone native with a vengeance. He "loves" being there.
While Griffin play-acts the statesman in five-star foreign luxury, the real, the crucial, fight here in Britain is allowed to go by default.
While Griffin lords it, as an MEP in Brussels and Strasbourg, the British National Party's finances are allowed to go to pot. Despite Griffin's claims that all was well, the BNP's 2009 accounts, which have now belatedly been submitted to the Electoral Commission, and published by them, tell a very different story.
They tell a truly shocking story of negligence, of incompetence. They tell a story, indeed, of dereliction of duty, by Mr Griffin.
Mr Griffin's words, at the beginning of his speech, have a tragic irony to them.
He says "The most important priority of any budget should be only to spend your own money. Spending someone else's without their permission is not budgetting, it's theft."
Can anyone seriously be expected to take lessons on economy from a former bankrupt, and incorrigibly prodigal spendthrift, such as Mr Griffin, who has bid fair to bury the BNP under a mountain of avoidable debt, and who has welshed on the party's debts to its friendly suppliers?
Griffin's credibility as a nationalist politician is now zero. He would fit in better with those MPs of the Establishment parties who 'decided' not to seek re-election, under a cloud, before the 2010 general election, than with the crusading white knights of a genuine party of the people: which is what the candidates of a British National Party ought to be, if they condemn the status quo, without hypocrisy.
Will Griffin draw the necessary conclusion, and fall on his sword? His entire record sadly suggests otherwise.
Indeed, the traitor-parties of the Establishment, as well as Griffin's hireling flunkeys, have a vested interest in keeping this man without honour or decency exactly where he is, as the lame duck leader of a party which, were it not for him, might be led to the glory it deserves.
Nevertheless, the BNP will rid itself of this incubus.
No-one should feel faint-hearted at the prospect of a political fight to the finish with Griffin. Having joined a party whose raison d'etre was to reform the rotten old order of society, and re-establish patriotic decency in our land, settling accounts with a corrupt and incompetent sell-out like Griffin should be regarded as on-the-job training.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
BNP Spoof General Election Broadcast 2010
This piece of stupid spitefulness on the part of Mr Griffin cost the British National Party an estimated £70,000 of its members' money.
By authorizing this folly, Griffin demonstrates that his judgement is so poor that he is unfit to be the leader of a serious political party.
The "sheeple" are not those electors who declined to vote for the erratic Griffin, or one of his stooges, but those members of the BNP who still believe that Griffin has the qualities necessary to lead the party into government.
German Freedom under attack
The leaders of a new political party in Germany, Freedom, modelled on Geert Wilders' party of the same name in Holland, have found that their political opponents on the 'left' have attempted to deny them their right to free speech. This undemocratic and oppressive behaviour has a particularly poignant resonance in Germany, which has been, within living memory, the scene of both white and red terror.
Today, for all the hypocritical talk of democracy from Germany's political Establishment, it seems clear that double standards apply. If a party is nationalist, like the NPD, its leadership may be infiltrated and subverted by paid agents of the state.
The German Freedom is just beginning its journey but already the young child has been viciously attacked by those who fear what it may achieve when full-grown.
Such attacks should be regarded as the most sincere form of compliment, and as confirmation that the party is on the right track.
More strength to Freiheit!
An open letter by the party's leaders to the bully-boys of the 'left' now follows.
The Freedom Party — Open Letter to the Left
We have heard that many of you are celebrating the cancellation of the first state convention of the citizens’ rights party for more freedom and democracy, Die Freiheit [Freedom], after you and/or your fellow travellers caused the situation by pressure and threats. On this day, there was one winner and one loser. On this day, fascism won and democracy lost.
We use the word fascism neither hyperbolically nor lightly, since it must at any rate be measured against the methods of National Socialism. Given the development of the political Left (again) in the meantime, this is more than appropriate. Apparently, it is only obvious to a few on the Left — indeed the most intelligent of them — in what tradition they actually stand.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the political debate was carried out only in part in the parliaments — and much more in the streets. Shock troops sought out those who represented a different opinion than their own, and made sure that the ordinary citizen no longer dared to voice his opinion. The intimidation by force penetrated all political levels. The SA [Sturmabteilung — Nazi storm troopers] stood by at meetings of parliament, and woe to the parliament member who dared to deviate from the party line. That is how the debate was influenced. A political system was created which instituted violence as a legitimate means.
The present-day “Antifa” is very little different from the SA of that time. Their “look” is now black instead of brown, but they use the same methods: Dissenters are pursued and silenced violently, They find every method justified — not even the family, the children, who did not choose to whom they should be born, are safe from the red SA. The red SA know no moral limits. The ideology that leads them is stronger.
They march side by side with the ultra-rightist “Grey Wolves,” who would be happy to have a greater Turkish empire — even better dominion over the whole world, and do not see that they are being used as useful idiots. They demonstrate together with the radical Islamists in demonstrations where “Jews to the gas” is shouted, and do not notice that history is repeating itself.
No doubt there will always be some insane Nazis as a fringe group. What is horrifying is the fact that Leftist Nazi organizations are cultivated and politically protected by various funds and groups. Senator Körting (SPD) cannot even perceive a political motivation in the leftist extremists. But then, why should he take action against those who are bullying his political opponents with violence and terror?
Die Freiheit differentiates quite clearly between the spiritual, religious part of Islam and the political ideology. If Muslims wish to pray to Mecca five times a day or fast for a month, we will stand protectively for their right to do so. If Muslim men treat their wives like slaves or force headscarf-wearing children to marry, that is when Clara Herrmann [Berlin representative for the Greens] stands before them to protect this “right.” That is the difference. The Left has made a virtue of turning a blind eye. It gives them the pleasant feeling of having “done good,” and it is better than good to attack those who do look and criticize.
The cry was always “you have to differentiate.” Now there is a party that does exactly that, and immediately it is attacked; its arguments are not heard. This shows that it was never about differentiating, but about censoring. Islam was long ago declared a sacred subject in this country by the Left. Indeed, they pursue the same goal: proceeding through overwhelming democracy and doing away with freedom, onward to a totalitarian ideology.
Even though fascism and communism lack the religious component, there is much common ground with the Islamic ideology.
It is easy for you leftists to criticize Christianity, but you are incapable of criticizing Islam. For you, any criticism of Islam — no matter how differentiated — is rightist extremism. Even clever people who have lived in Islamic countries, according to this logic, are “fishing in a brown swamp” [stumbling in the dark]. You have imposed an ideologically qualified thought ban on yourselves, and now demand that everyone else follow it to the letter. Your denunciations teach the citizen that Islam is untouchable, must not be criticized, and so we are back at the (Left’s) imposed thought ban.
Furthermore, the law which forbids criticism of Islam is called sharia, and is diametrically opposed to universal human rights — it is the absolute intolerance of dissidents and infidels, with the injunction to kill them, and with claims to world domination, anti-Semitism, murder of apostates, oppression of women, child abuse, and many other manifestations inherent to Islam which you find worthy of protection — so much so that critics must be denounced.
Sooner or later, you will have to explain clearly how you define rightist extremism and how you make that fit with our party program. Since when do right extremists demand direct democracy? Freedom of expression? A constitution decided upon by the people? Does it not rather sound like unadulterated democracy, to demand the independence of the media from party monies and the independence of parties from lobbyists’ money, because there is too great a danger that both of them will only be puppets of the money dispensers?
And our demand that the bad habit of financing the political caste with debts that will never be paid and thus gambling away our children’s future sounds more like upstanding representatives of the people, of whom there are too few in our political landscape.
But above all, since when have German rightist extremists been invited into the Israeli parliament, blessed by the representatives of the Knesset, and seen by countless Jews as the hope for their survival?
And how can a party be extreme-right when it has no extremists? Unlike you, Die Freiheit accepts no extremists, neither from the Right nor the Left. You know that you can never win a democratic debate in this way, so you avoid taking this stance.
The central problem, no doubt, is quite different. Direct democracy means giving the people more voice and consequently reducing the power of the established political parties. It is more than logical that Die Freiheit is a thorn in the side of the established parties and must be massively combated at the outset. That is how the retention of power has functioned for decades. That is why the SPD is immediately calling up its union troops.
The more intelligent of those on the Left know of course, that this is not a question of justice or human dignity, for these things languish most in leftist ruling systems, and only serve as deception. It is about moving an entire people to Socialism. For this purpose, mature structures must first be destroyed so that a new system can be built on the ruins.
The Nazis contributed to destroying the political landscape of the Weimar Republic. We know the ghastly results. But immediately thereafter the next Socialism carried on. The SED [Socialist Unity Party of Germany] regime also ruthlessly persecuted dissidents, declared them insane, and locked them up. As in National Socialism, the state intervened massively in the private sphere of the citizen in even the most perverse way: in his thoughts. Anyone who wanted to flee this dictatorship was shot. And we find this pattern everywhere where Socialism has been, and is, attempted.
From the start, your leftist ideology is false. Human beings are not alike. They are of equal value from birth on, but not homogeneous. That is our nature and it is good the way it is. Every attempt to force this multiplicity into a prepared mould cannot be accomplished and maintained without totalitarian oppression and state-sponsored terror. Anyone who wants to make all human beings alike must reduce them to the lowest common denominator and trim off whatever extrudes. What remains is a zombie-like shell, robbed of everything that makes us real. And all that simply for the sake of an ideology.
Our opinion is different from yours in many ways, and we are betting that in the end our convictions will touch more voters than yours. But we leave you your convictions — will never threaten or intimidate you. We denounce no one, and it would never occur to us to use violence. On the contrary, we would even combat those who employed violence against you. And that is what distinguishes democrats from fascists.
As we said, the winner on January 11, 2011 was fascism; the loser was democracy.
Decide for yourself which side you are on!
Marc Doll and René Stadtkewitz
For the Board of the Citizens’ Rights Party Die Freiheit
Today, for all the hypocritical talk of democracy from Germany's political Establishment, it seems clear that double standards apply. If a party is nationalist, like the NPD, its leadership may be infiltrated and subverted by paid agents of the state.
The German Freedom is just beginning its journey but already the young child has been viciously attacked by those who fear what it may achieve when full-grown.
Such attacks should be regarded as the most sincere form of compliment, and as confirmation that the party is on the right track.
More strength to Freiheit!
An open letter by the party's leaders to the bully-boys of the 'left' now follows.
The Freedom Party — Open Letter to the Left
We have heard that many of you are celebrating the cancellation of the first state convention of the citizens’ rights party for more freedom and democracy, Die Freiheit [Freedom], after you and/or your fellow travellers caused the situation by pressure and threats. On this day, there was one winner and one loser. On this day, fascism won and democracy lost.
We use the word fascism neither hyperbolically nor lightly, since it must at any rate be measured against the methods of National Socialism. Given the development of the political Left (again) in the meantime, this is more than appropriate. Apparently, it is only obvious to a few on the Left — indeed the most intelligent of them — in what tradition they actually stand.
In the 1920s and 1930s, the political debate was carried out only in part in the parliaments — and much more in the streets. Shock troops sought out those who represented a different opinion than their own, and made sure that the ordinary citizen no longer dared to voice his opinion. The intimidation by force penetrated all political levels. The SA [Sturmabteilung — Nazi storm troopers] stood by at meetings of parliament, and woe to the parliament member who dared to deviate from the party line. That is how the debate was influenced. A political system was created which instituted violence as a legitimate means.
The present-day “Antifa” is very little different from the SA of that time. Their “look” is now black instead of brown, but they use the same methods: Dissenters are pursued and silenced violently, They find every method justified — not even the family, the children, who did not choose to whom they should be born, are safe from the red SA. The red SA know no moral limits. The ideology that leads them is stronger.
They march side by side with the ultra-rightist “Grey Wolves,” who would be happy to have a greater Turkish empire — even better dominion over the whole world, and do not see that they are being used as useful idiots. They demonstrate together with the radical Islamists in demonstrations where “Jews to the gas” is shouted, and do not notice that history is repeating itself.
No doubt there will always be some insane Nazis as a fringe group. What is horrifying is the fact that Leftist Nazi organizations are cultivated and politically protected by various funds and groups. Senator Körting (SPD) cannot even perceive a political motivation in the leftist extremists. But then, why should he take action against those who are bullying his political opponents with violence and terror?
Die Freiheit differentiates quite clearly between the spiritual, religious part of Islam and the political ideology. If Muslims wish to pray to Mecca five times a day or fast for a month, we will stand protectively for their right to do so. If Muslim men treat their wives like slaves or force headscarf-wearing children to marry, that is when Clara Herrmann [Berlin representative for the Greens] stands before them to protect this “right.” That is the difference. The Left has made a virtue of turning a blind eye. It gives them the pleasant feeling of having “done good,” and it is better than good to attack those who do look and criticize.
The cry was always “you have to differentiate.” Now there is a party that does exactly that, and immediately it is attacked; its arguments are not heard. This shows that it was never about differentiating, but about censoring. Islam was long ago declared a sacred subject in this country by the Left. Indeed, they pursue the same goal: proceeding through overwhelming democracy and doing away with freedom, onward to a totalitarian ideology.
Even though fascism and communism lack the religious component, there is much common ground with the Islamic ideology.
It is easy for you leftists to criticize Christianity, but you are incapable of criticizing Islam. For you, any criticism of Islam — no matter how differentiated — is rightist extremism. Even clever people who have lived in Islamic countries, according to this logic, are “fishing in a brown swamp” [stumbling in the dark]. You have imposed an ideologically qualified thought ban on yourselves, and now demand that everyone else follow it to the letter. Your denunciations teach the citizen that Islam is untouchable, must not be criticized, and so we are back at the (Left’s) imposed thought ban.
Furthermore, the law which forbids criticism of Islam is called sharia, and is diametrically opposed to universal human rights — it is the absolute intolerance of dissidents and infidels, with the injunction to kill them, and with claims to world domination, anti-Semitism, murder of apostates, oppression of women, child abuse, and many other manifestations inherent to Islam which you find worthy of protection — so much so that critics must be denounced.
Sooner or later, you will have to explain clearly how you define rightist extremism and how you make that fit with our party program. Since when do right extremists demand direct democracy? Freedom of expression? A constitution decided upon by the people? Does it not rather sound like unadulterated democracy, to demand the independence of the media from party monies and the independence of parties from lobbyists’ money, because there is too great a danger that both of them will only be puppets of the money dispensers?
And our demand that the bad habit of financing the political caste with debts that will never be paid and thus gambling away our children’s future sounds more like upstanding representatives of the people, of whom there are too few in our political landscape.
But above all, since when have German rightist extremists been invited into the Israeli parliament, blessed by the representatives of the Knesset, and seen by countless Jews as the hope for their survival?
And how can a party be extreme-right when it has no extremists? Unlike you, Die Freiheit accepts no extremists, neither from the Right nor the Left. You know that you can never win a democratic debate in this way, so you avoid taking this stance.
The central problem, no doubt, is quite different. Direct democracy means giving the people more voice and consequently reducing the power of the established political parties. It is more than logical that Die Freiheit is a thorn in the side of the established parties and must be massively combated at the outset. That is how the retention of power has functioned for decades. That is why the SPD is immediately calling up its union troops.
The more intelligent of those on the Left know of course, that this is not a question of justice or human dignity, for these things languish most in leftist ruling systems, and only serve as deception. It is about moving an entire people to Socialism. For this purpose, mature structures must first be destroyed so that a new system can be built on the ruins.
The Nazis contributed to destroying the political landscape of the Weimar Republic. We know the ghastly results. But immediately thereafter the next Socialism carried on. The SED [Socialist Unity Party of Germany] regime also ruthlessly persecuted dissidents, declared them insane, and locked them up. As in National Socialism, the state intervened massively in the private sphere of the citizen in even the most perverse way: in his thoughts. Anyone who wanted to flee this dictatorship was shot. And we find this pattern everywhere where Socialism has been, and is, attempted.
From the start, your leftist ideology is false. Human beings are not alike. They are of equal value from birth on, but not homogeneous. That is our nature and it is good the way it is. Every attempt to force this multiplicity into a prepared mould cannot be accomplished and maintained without totalitarian oppression and state-sponsored terror. Anyone who wants to make all human beings alike must reduce them to the lowest common denominator and trim off whatever extrudes. What remains is a zombie-like shell, robbed of everything that makes us real. And all that simply for the sake of an ideology.
Our opinion is different from yours in many ways, and we are betting that in the end our convictions will touch more voters than yours. But we leave you your convictions — will never threaten or intimidate you. We denounce no one, and it would never occur to us to use violence. On the contrary, we would even combat those who employed violence against you. And that is what distinguishes democrats from fascists.
As we said, the winner on January 11, 2011 was fascism; the loser was democracy.
Decide for yourself which side you are on!
Marc Doll and René Stadtkewitz
For the Board of the Citizens’ Rights Party Die Freiheit
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
How quickly they forget
The following article, by Martin Webster, is an important contribution towards exposing the disinformation that Griffin perennially feeds the credulous members of the British National Party, on matters of party organization and finance.
Which chapter of Mein Kampf (My Fight) was it that Griffin found interesting? Was it Chapter ten, of Volume one, in which Hitler asserts that most people are more ready to believe a big lie than a little one? The reason being, supposedly, that because they themselves often tell little lies in their everyday lives but would baulk at telling a big lie, they assume that others are like themselves.
Martin Webster is a controversial figure within a controversial movement. Even his harshest critics, however, can scarce forbear to acknowledge his self-evident quality as a nationalist polemic and orator.
I do not subscribe to his description of the Palestinians as "...an innocent and unthreatening people..." though I acknowledge that they, like the Jews, have a right to their own homeland, just as my people, the English, have a right to England.
Nor do I believe that Jewish opinion is undivided. Hollywood may be dominated by Jews, and the media heavily influenced by them but one should not blame all Jews for the antagonistic behaviour of a small number of Jewish plutocrats.
With the foregoing caveat, Martin's interesting article now follows.
Griffin’s “Alfred” confidence trick
It looks like my bulletin of last Saturday....
From: Martin Webster
Date: Saturday, 15 January 2011 21:05
To: Martin Webster
Subject: Griffin's “technology” excuse exploded
Griffin’s “computer technology” excuse
for electoral failure exploded at Oldham
....prompted Griffin to issue in his own name an explanation and “in-depth” ‘analysis’ for the BNP flop at Oldham. I run this out below. (You can’t say I’m not fair!) [visit www.bnp.org.uk to read Griffin's apologia, AE].
Though this second stab at an explanation is about six times longer than the initial explanation proffered by “BNP Web Admin” which I reviewed last Saturday, it contains no additional substantial facts or analysis.
In view of his promotion of Winston Churchill’s image in last year’s BNP general election literature, I’m only surprised that Griffin did not conclude the second version of the Oldham ‘analysis’ with the words: “I can only offer you blood, toil, tears and sweat....”!
He certainly did not repeat his claim in last year’s video that the BNP’s possession (or imminent possession) of a new computer voter-profiling programme would restore the party to electoral success!
We now learn that, contrary to the impression given in the post-general election video, this computer programme (which he now tells us is called “Alfred”) does not actually exist but is still being developed!
But in last year’s video he gave the clear impression that the computer programme did exist; that the Labour Party already had it (which was the reason why it swamped the BNP’s effort at Barking); that it was available to other parties; that the BNP was to / had already bought it; and that it would transform the BNP’s ability to contest elections on an equal footing with Labour and other big parties.
The BNP’s figures at Oldham last Thursday and Griffin’s admission today that the magic software does not exist are proof that last year’s video was simply a confidence trick to “explain” to BNP members the “technological reasons” for their party’s disappointing general election results and to give them hope of better things in the future....
[especially if members send in more cash NOW! Are you with me? Then Donate HERE!].
That future arrived last Thursday at Oldham.
Why aren’t donors and responsible BNP officials asking: Where’s that computer programme? What’s happened to the money subscribed to buy it?
It’s almost as if Griffin thinks that the majority of BNP members are so goldfish-brained that they cannot remember what he told them six days — let alone six months — ago; and that the few who can remember are so intimidated, or inexperienced, or gullible that he can bury their misgivings and anxieties under a torrent of words.
Very likely he’s right in this assessment of the human material he’s looting. The same sort of explanation applies as to why Zionist-Jewry is able to jackboot its way about the world with nobody except a tiny minority of “extremists” raising a peep of protest. [*See P.S. #1]
Clearly, the vast majority of people are stupid and/or cowardly and/or corrupt. The BNP is simply humanity at large, writ small.
Martin Webster.
P.S. #1: Now the Jews are out to smear George VI, father of our present Queen, as a raving Nazi because he followed government policy in resisting the mass immigration of German Jews to Palestine, which as a constitutional monarch he was obliged to do. He was a good and brave man who won the affection and admiration of all who remember him.
As a nine year old at a L.C.C. Catholic primary school I remember our headmistress, an Assumptionist nun called Mother Andrew, calling the whole school to assembly mid-morning. She announced: “Our King is dead”. The immediate response to this was a spontaneous exclamation of “Ohhh!....” — even from Irish children whose families had recently come to London from the Republic. An evil unkind man does not earn a spontaneous sigh of sadness from innocents when they hear of his passing.
The Jews have launched this vile campaign not to make sure a new film about him and his stammering problem does not win any Oscar awards (as British media creeps postulate) but to impose on our Royal Family and on the British nation at large a “Holocaust guilt burden” and to try to justify the Jewish theft of Palestine.
Why should any British Monarch, his government or his people pursue policies which are not only contrary to current British national interests, but involve the infliction of theft of national territory, ethnic cleansing and genocide against an innocent and unthreatening people — in this case the Palestinians?
This is a classic example of how the Jews incite what they call “anti-semitism”.
Which chapter of Mein Kampf (My Fight) was it that Griffin found interesting? Was it Chapter ten, of Volume one, in which Hitler asserts that most people are more ready to believe a big lie than a little one? The reason being, supposedly, that because they themselves often tell little lies in their everyday lives but would baulk at telling a big lie, they assume that others are like themselves.
Martin Webster is a controversial figure within a controversial movement. Even his harshest critics, however, can scarce forbear to acknowledge his self-evident quality as a nationalist polemic and orator.
I do not subscribe to his description of the Palestinians as "...an innocent and unthreatening people..." though I acknowledge that they, like the Jews, have a right to their own homeland, just as my people, the English, have a right to England.
Nor do I believe that Jewish opinion is undivided. Hollywood may be dominated by Jews, and the media heavily influenced by them but one should not blame all Jews for the antagonistic behaviour of a small number of Jewish plutocrats.
With the foregoing caveat, Martin's interesting article now follows.
Griffin’s “Alfred” confidence trick
It looks like my bulletin of last Saturday....
From: Martin Webster
Date: Saturday, 15 January 2011 21:05
To: Martin Webster
Subject: Griffin's “technology” excuse exploded
Griffin’s “computer technology” excuse
for electoral failure exploded at Oldham
....prompted Griffin to issue in his own name an explanation and “in-depth” ‘analysis’ for the BNP flop at Oldham. I run this out below. (You can’t say I’m not fair!) [visit www.bnp.org.uk to read Griffin's apologia, AE].
Though this second stab at an explanation is about six times longer than the initial explanation proffered by “BNP Web Admin” which I reviewed last Saturday, it contains no additional substantial facts or analysis.
In view of his promotion of Winston Churchill’s image in last year’s BNP general election literature, I’m only surprised that Griffin did not conclude the second version of the Oldham ‘analysis’ with the words: “I can only offer you blood, toil, tears and sweat....”!
He certainly did not repeat his claim in last year’s video that the BNP’s possession (or imminent possession) of a new computer voter-profiling programme would restore the party to electoral success!
We now learn that, contrary to the impression given in the post-general election video, this computer programme (which he now tells us is called “Alfred”) does not actually exist but is still being developed!
But in last year’s video he gave the clear impression that the computer programme did exist; that the Labour Party already had it (which was the reason why it swamped the BNP’s effort at Barking); that it was available to other parties; that the BNP was to / had already bought it; and that it would transform the BNP’s ability to contest elections on an equal footing with Labour and other big parties.
The BNP’s figures at Oldham last Thursday and Griffin’s admission today that the magic software does not exist are proof that last year’s video was simply a confidence trick to “explain” to BNP members the “technological reasons” for their party’s disappointing general election results and to give them hope of better things in the future....
[especially if members send in more cash NOW! Are you with me? Then Donate HERE!].
That future arrived last Thursday at Oldham.
Why aren’t donors and responsible BNP officials asking: Where’s that computer programme? What’s happened to the money subscribed to buy it?
It’s almost as if Griffin thinks that the majority of BNP members are so goldfish-brained that they cannot remember what he told them six days — let alone six months — ago; and that the few who can remember are so intimidated, or inexperienced, or gullible that he can bury their misgivings and anxieties under a torrent of words.
Very likely he’s right in this assessment of the human material he’s looting. The same sort of explanation applies as to why Zionist-Jewry is able to jackboot its way about the world with nobody except a tiny minority of “extremists” raising a peep of protest. [*See P.S. #1]
Clearly, the vast majority of people are stupid and/or cowardly and/or corrupt. The BNP is simply humanity at large, writ small.
Martin Webster.
P.S. #1: Now the Jews are out to smear George VI, father of our present Queen, as a raving Nazi because he followed government policy in resisting the mass immigration of German Jews to Palestine, which as a constitutional monarch he was obliged to do. He was a good and brave man who won the affection and admiration of all who remember him.
As a nine year old at a L.C.C. Catholic primary school I remember our headmistress, an Assumptionist nun called Mother Andrew, calling the whole school to assembly mid-morning. She announced: “Our King is dead”. The immediate response to this was a spontaneous exclamation of “Ohhh!....” — even from Irish children whose families had recently come to London from the Republic. An evil unkind man does not earn a spontaneous sigh of sadness from innocents when they hear of his passing.
The Jews have launched this vile campaign not to make sure a new film about him and his stammering problem does not win any Oscar awards (as British media creeps postulate) but to impose on our Royal Family and on the British nation at large a “Holocaust guilt burden” and to try to justify the Jewish theft of Palestine.
Why should any British Monarch, his government or his people pursue policies which are not only contrary to current British national interests, but involve the infliction of theft of national territory, ethnic cleansing and genocide against an innocent and unthreatening people — in this case the Palestinians?
This is a classic example of how the Jews incite what they call “anti-semitism”.
Monday, 17 January 2011
It ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it
It seems at first sight to be a paradox. Yet the explanation, as with many things in this world, is really very simple. The electorate judges a political party, not merely by its policies, but also by its public image, which is predominantly determined by the public image of its leader - who is almost invariably its main spokesman.
Observing the physical appearance of the party leader, the non-verbal, often unconscious, cues they give off via their body language, as well as things like the tone, and pitch of their voice, and the words they choose with which to express their thoughts, gives the public an insight into the personality of the leader.
Of course, the content of what is said is also very important but there is something in Marshall McLuhan's dictum that "the medium is the message", the medium in this case being the party leader, through whom, or rather, in whom, the party's message is embodied.
A leader who lacks the ability to impress in debate, and who looks uncomfortable in front of the TV cameras, is a tremendous handicap to any party, but even more of a liability to an ethno-nationalist party, which is in the position of an outsider, needing to break the mould of the status quo in order to make electoral progress.
On all the foregoing counts, Mr Griffin, has been weighed in the balance, by the electorate, and found wanting.
Mr Griffin's holocaust-denying baggage is also something that turns off the public, not so much because they actually care about it per se, but because it suggests to them that Mr Griffin's judgement and personality are flawed, and that consequently he is not someone who could, or should, be trusted with the levers of power.
With a new leader, who possessed the X factor which Mr Griffin lacks, and who lacked his electorally debilitating holocaust-denying baggage, the BNP would be forging ahead, would see off UKIP without any trouble at all, and soon have MPs in Westminster.
All over the rest of Europe parties similar to the BNP are making stunning progress, challenging seriously for government in some cases. Only in Britain is the nationalist cause in apparent decline.
If Mr Griffin has the best interests of the British National Party at heart he should resign as leader, and concentrate his efforts on the European 'parliament'.
It is no use asking "Who else could do the job?"
We know what happens to BNP members who incur Mr Griffin's jealousy or displeasure.
Let Mr Griffin resign, and his likely successors will then appear.
They may then present their wares to the party's membership in a free and fair leadership election, and the members may choose the person they feel would be best for the party.
The alternative is a continuation of the progressive wasting disease that is currently afflicting the party, more electoral humiliation, and more embarrassing gaffes, and ineffectual thrashing around, by the party's beached whale of a leader.
Nearly 80% of People Want Lower Immigration, Yet They Continue to Vote for More
Sat, 15/01/2011 - 17:24 | Web Admin, www.bnp.org.uk.
Nearly four out of five people in Britain want to see a reduction in immigration, a Government survey has revealed.
The poll, commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government, shows that 78% of people in England and Wales want to see immigration into the UK cut back. Twenty-four per cent of participants said they would like to see immigration reduced a little, while 54% said they wanted it cut “a lot”. Conversely, only nineteen per cent said levels should stay the same, and just three per cent said there should be more.
These statistics are all the more remarkable considering that in addition to the 10,000 participants from England and Wales, the survey also added the views of two “boost samples” of 5,000 “ethnic minorities” and 1,200 Muslims, suggesting that it is not just the indigenous people of these islands that want to see immigration slashed.
This begs the question as to why such high numbers of people continue to vote for parties that have created the mass immigration problem in the first place and will only continue to worsen it.
Unfortunately, many may have been fooled by Prime Minister David Cameron’s posturing on the promise of an “immigration cap”, an impossible pledge for a country that is open to unlimited immigration as a member of the European Union.
Mr Cameron’s loophole-riddled promise of reducing visas for less skilled workers from outside Europe by a pathetic 6,300 a year is a pointless drop in the ocean for a country that lets in nearly 600,000 immigrants annually. It is made all the more insignificant by his scrapping of limits on intra-company transfers, his commitment to the EU/India Free Trade Agreement, which will ensure another 20,000 Indians per year gain access to work in Britain's IT sector alone, and his febrile desire to hasten Turkey’s accession to the EU.
The British National Party is the only party that promises to halt all immigration into Britain, with no misleading talk of caps, quotas or politically correct “moratoria”. If this policy is “racist”, then so is the majority of the population.
Observing the physical appearance of the party leader, the non-verbal, often unconscious, cues they give off via their body language, as well as things like the tone, and pitch of their voice, and the words they choose with which to express their thoughts, gives the public an insight into the personality of the leader.
Of course, the content of what is said is also very important but there is something in Marshall McLuhan's dictum that "the medium is the message", the medium in this case being the party leader, through whom, or rather, in whom, the party's message is embodied.
A leader who lacks the ability to impress in debate, and who looks uncomfortable in front of the TV cameras, is a tremendous handicap to any party, but even more of a liability to an ethno-nationalist party, which is in the position of an outsider, needing to break the mould of the status quo in order to make electoral progress.
On all the foregoing counts, Mr Griffin, has been weighed in the balance, by the electorate, and found wanting.
Mr Griffin's holocaust-denying baggage is also something that turns off the public, not so much because they actually care about it per se, but because it suggests to them that Mr Griffin's judgement and personality are flawed, and that consequently he is not someone who could, or should, be trusted with the levers of power.
With a new leader, who possessed the X factor which Mr Griffin lacks, and who lacked his electorally debilitating holocaust-denying baggage, the BNP would be forging ahead, would see off UKIP without any trouble at all, and soon have MPs in Westminster.
All over the rest of Europe parties similar to the BNP are making stunning progress, challenging seriously for government in some cases. Only in Britain is the nationalist cause in apparent decline.
If Mr Griffin has the best interests of the British National Party at heart he should resign as leader, and concentrate his efforts on the European 'parliament'.
It is no use asking "Who else could do the job?"
We know what happens to BNP members who incur Mr Griffin's jealousy or displeasure.
Let Mr Griffin resign, and his likely successors will then appear.
They may then present their wares to the party's membership in a free and fair leadership election, and the members may choose the person they feel would be best for the party.
The alternative is a continuation of the progressive wasting disease that is currently afflicting the party, more electoral humiliation, and more embarrassing gaffes, and ineffectual thrashing around, by the party's beached whale of a leader.
Nearly 80% of People Want Lower Immigration, Yet They Continue to Vote for More
Sat, 15/01/2011 - 17:24 | Web Admin, www.bnp.org.uk.
Nearly four out of five people in Britain want to see a reduction in immigration, a Government survey has revealed.
The poll, commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government, shows that 78% of people in England and Wales want to see immigration into the UK cut back. Twenty-four per cent of participants said they would like to see immigration reduced a little, while 54% said they wanted it cut “a lot”. Conversely, only nineteen per cent said levels should stay the same, and just three per cent said there should be more.
These statistics are all the more remarkable considering that in addition to the 10,000 participants from England and Wales, the survey also added the views of two “boost samples” of 5,000 “ethnic minorities” and 1,200 Muslims, suggesting that it is not just the indigenous people of these islands that want to see immigration slashed.
This begs the question as to why such high numbers of people continue to vote for parties that have created the mass immigration problem in the first place and will only continue to worsen it.
Unfortunately, many may have been fooled by Prime Minister David Cameron’s posturing on the promise of an “immigration cap”, an impossible pledge for a country that is open to unlimited immigration as a member of the European Union.
Mr Cameron’s loophole-riddled promise of reducing visas for less skilled workers from outside Europe by a pathetic 6,300 a year is a pointless drop in the ocean for a country that lets in nearly 600,000 immigrants annually. It is made all the more insignificant by his scrapping of limits on intra-company transfers, his commitment to the EU/India Free Trade Agreement, which will ensure another 20,000 Indians per year gain access to work in Britain's IT sector alone, and his febrile desire to hasten Turkey’s accession to the EU.
The British National Party is the only party that promises to halt all immigration into Britain, with no misleading talk of caps, quotas or politically correct “moratoria”. If this policy is “racist”, then so is the majority of the population.
Sunday, 16 January 2011
The speech that never was
*Struts onto the stage*
Now, everybody that helped out with my campaign, despite not being remotely local to Oldham, can now define themselves as 'true nationalists' forever more*.
I believe that I should be given due respect for my performance. After all, how many activists have shielded Mr Chairman's rear-end with their own? Yes, I might've taken an electoral caning in Oldham, but better me than our leader.
It goes without saying, of course, that our campaign in Oldham was severely hindered by the 'sheeple'. You see, it's not our fault that the sheeple won't vote for good, honest bar-stewards like my good self. It's their fault! If I had my way, the sheeple would be paraded before a nationalist firing sq......but that's another matter, I'll save that for my General Election address.
Now, those malcontents on this forum, you know the sort - Squashclanger windows XP, Brit-Nit, Polar bear - well, they're not true nationalists and therefore every observation they've ever made is therefore null and void. I may lack a basic education, but my logic is peerless in nationalist circles.
I was quite frankly disgusted with one of those malcontents listed above, when following my debasement at the count, I received a text message:
"You should've gone down with your pub, like any good landlord."
The BNP is growing; more members, more voters and more cash. We will not tolerate contradiction of these self-evident facts.
Good Night.
* In the event of criticism levelled against Mr Chairman, formerly 'true nationalists' and 'super-activists' will be rebranded as reds and malcontents.
By Brit-Nat
Now, everybody that helped out with my campaign, despite not being remotely local to Oldham, can now define themselves as 'true nationalists' forever more*.
I believe that I should be given due respect for my performance. After all, how many activists have shielded Mr Chairman's rear-end with their own? Yes, I might've taken an electoral caning in Oldham, but better me than our leader.
It goes without saying, of course, that our campaign in Oldham was severely hindered by the 'sheeple'. You see, it's not our fault that the sheeple won't vote for good, honest bar-stewards like my good self. It's their fault! If I had my way, the sheeple would be paraded before a nationalist firing sq......but that's another matter, I'll save that for my General Election address.
Now, those malcontents on this forum, you know the sort - Squashclanger windows XP, Brit-Nit, Polar bear - well, they're not true nationalists and therefore every observation they've ever made is therefore null and void. I may lack a basic education, but my logic is peerless in nationalist circles.
I was quite frankly disgusted with one of those malcontents listed above, when following my debasement at the count, I received a text message:
"You should've gone down with your pub, like any good landlord."
The BNP is growing; more members, more voters and more cash. We will not tolerate contradiction of these self-evident facts.
Good Night.
* In the event of criticism levelled against Mr Chairman, formerly 'true nationalists' and 'super-activists' will be rebranded as reds and malcontents.
By Brit-Nat
Golding: where did it all go wrong?
The following post was published on the BNP sub-forum of the British Democracy web site, earlier today.
Cllr Golding, it will be remembered, worked very closely with Mr Dowson, right up to the time they both lost out in a sordid little power struggle to Messrs Harrington and Jefferson. Consequently Golding was in a position to know approximately how much money was raised by his 'boss', Dowson. Golding claims it was roughly £4,000,000, FOUR MILLION POUNDS, over the last three years.
Yet the British National Party now has debts totalling several hundred thousand pounds. Even Griffin admits to £200,000, and Golding suggests that is an understatement of the party's actual liabilities.
We know that only just over a quarter of a million pounds was spent on the European 'parliament' elections, and that the general election campaign was financed, almost exclusively, by locally raised branch funds.
One does not need to be any kind of accountant to see that something is seriously amiss here: the sums just do not add up.
So, to repeat a question which I have asked before: where has all the money gone?
Moreover, where are the 2009 accounts, that could conceivably help to answer this question? Still with the auditors?
While agreeing with what Golding has to say about Griffin's, Harrington's, Jefferson's, and Hannam's incompetence, it has to be said that, despite knowing what they were, Golding went along with Griffin, and with Dowson, who is no better, until Dowson and Golding lost out in a power struggle to control the party's management and administration, including the so-called treasury department.
At this point, Golding jumps, before he is pushed, no doubt.
At this point, knowing he would almost certainly lose his paid employment with the BNP, at the behest of Mr Harrington, Cllr Golding develops a conscience, and resigns.
"I could no longer, in good conscience, be part of what 'party central' had become". Touching isn't it?
It should always be remembered that Cllr Paul Golding had played an enthusiastic part in corrupting the BNP - never mind 'party central'.
Why did he not support the leadership challenge of Eddy Butler, the only serious challenger for the leadership, last summer? Butler's platform was reform: of the corrupt and incompetent management, and the maladministration of both human and financial resources, of which Golding was a part.
Because it didn't suit his personal agenda at the time, which was all he was concerned about. The party could go hang.
Why did Golding not speak out, or resign, when loyal members of the BNP (loyal to the party, and our people, not to a particular unworthy man) were unjustly victimized, in blatant disregard of the constitution, so that Griffin could rig the nomination process, and cheat his way into remaining as party leader.
Golding's tender conscience did not appear to give him any trouble while all that was going on.
No, he was happy to be a part of the "nefarious element" that was ruining the BNP, and leading it towards the destruction, that even he now, miraculously, is able to see looming ahead.
Golding ends his despicable, hypocritical letter with a little whine that he feels he may be for the chop soon.
I hope he does not expect any sympathy from those of us who genuinely put the party's interests before our personal interest, and sought to exercise our democratic rights under the constitution, only to be subjected to vile character assassination, and to be unjustly victimized by a corrupt leadership.
You made your bed, Cllr Golding. I suggest you lie on it.
Incidentally, if it is true that this letter from Golding was forwarded to a BNP member by the south east regional organizer: what was the latter doing spreading bad news, in this way, in breach of the constitution?
The party's code of conduct states that bad news should only be passed up the chain of command, not down it.
More evidence of double standards at work, as if we needed any more.
Cllr Golding's letter now follows.
Paul Golding resignation letter
Just been forwarded this via email from my regional organiser:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PRIVATE COMMUNICATION - 16th January 2011
Fellow nationalist,
I am writing to you privately and in a personal capacity because now the dust has settled I thought it both prudent and courteous to give you a brief outline of why I resigned from my position last November. It was a great privilege and honour to work full time for the party and I was always conscious of this, and of the trust vested in me by the members and party officers and my duty towards them - that is why I resigned.
I could no longer, in good conscience, be part of what ‘party central’ had become. Don’t get me wrong, it’s easy to moan about things from the sidelines - please don’t for one minute think that this is what I am doing. I merely want to set a few things straight for the future advancement of this party and the nationalist movement generally, also considering that Nick Griffin has been spreading false reasons why I resigned. I have been forced to set the record straight. I resigned for several reasons, the main ones being:
1) The EU fiasco: I was/am totally dismayed by the amount of time our Chairman spends in the EU parliament, much to the determent of our party overall, and the ‘gravy train’ mentality that now infects the new Solidarity ‘elite’ who have jumped on board the leadership team in more recent months.
It seems that the party now plays a secondary role to Nick Griffin’s European Parliament indulgence. Having our Chairman over in Brussels almost every week, Monday to Thursday (then taking Friday off), has been catastrophic and has lead to serious problems that could have been easily dealt with had Nick been on home soil with his eye on the ball.
Unfortunately, Nick Griffin appears to have lost interest in the day-to-day grind of running the BNP, and has submerged himself in the grandiose – but totally ineffectual – farce that is the European Parliament. A farce, yes, but a very lucrative one, as the attendance and travel allowances involved can net an MEP around an extra £5,000 per month on top of an 80,000 euros annual salary. After years of struggle, Nick is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his labours but not at the expense of the party.
2) Clive Jefferson: This man has in a few short months been appointed to the posts of National Elections Officer, National Organiser, National Nominating Officer and National Treasurer. I could see the ‘game plan’ take shape in the summer and warned the Chairman but nothing was done and now we have nearly every senior position held by one man. How can we be taken seriously by the public and the general membership when we have allowed such a farce to occur?
I also see little evidence that Mr. Jefferson is suited to any of the positions he now clings too. As National Organiser, Mr Jefferson has brought about no tangible improvements to our organisation and its functionality; as National Elections Officer, he has presided over the longest and most embarrassing string of mediocre election results in our history; and now this man has been appointed National Treasurer, instead of a suitably qualified individual. He has talked a good talk to the Chairman, but this man has not produced the goods for our party, quite the opposite in fact. The Oldham result being the latest in a long series of Jefferson-created electoral disasters.
Clive’s ineptitude was a key reason for my resignation. I was sickened to watch the highly successful “Bring Our Boys Home” campaign being totally wasted by Mr Jefferson. After the hundreds of activist stalls, after all the hard work and sweat of our members and organisers, after the Communications Department worked hard to produce the leaflet, banner and petition, and organised the promotion of the campaign via email bulletin, website, and organisers’ bulletins, all Clive had to do was to utilise and do something meaningful with the resulting data (around 100,000 names and addresses).
But to date nothing substantial has been done with the data (a few thousand were imputed by Belfast). The 100,000 names and addresses are gathering dust - what a total waste and failure of all our efforts. Any talk of ‘using them for the future’ is pie in the sky, as anyone who understands data handling will tell you, data goes cold very quickly and is rendered useless. The party did at the time, employ data experts working in our own headquarters but through Jefferson’s ineptitude an excellent opportunity, the goodwill of the public and the hard graft of our activists, has been shamefully squandered.
Talk about the new super ‘Alfred’ data system is not even worth commenting on as it is such a fantasy and another hair-brain dream that I do not believe it will ever be a credible election tool while being developed by amateurs (wait for the appeals to finance its so-called development appearing shortly).
Considering the image problem that always hinders our progress, was it wise for the Chairman to have appointed a man like Mr Jefferson who (although never convicted) was a named defendant in a major international drug trafficking trial in 2002 that resulted in lengthy jail sentences for several of his co-defendants, to his multiple senior posts within our party?
Nick Griffin has effectively handed over control of the entire party to Clive Jefferson (and Pat Harrington) – I fear this is so Mr Griffin can concentrate on being an MEP and going to Europe. This would be half-acceptable if party affairs were sound and in order – but as we are in a crisis, and have been for a long time, Nick’s persistence with his EU trips must raise some serious concerns.
3) Pat Harrington: This man’s involvement with our party has, I believe, been a huge mistake. He is not a member and in fact is the leader of a rival party that has even stood against us. Harrington, his wife, and a group of his Solidarity officials, are now on the European pay roll as ‘researchers’ but in effect Pat is the main decision maker in OUR party and has given Nick some terrible advice in recent months that has, in my opinion, led to the administration and staff management chaos that now prevails.
His track record in nationalist politics is shocking, and those who are old enough will know this and his involvement in the destruction of the National Front, and his roles in the formation of so many other micro-entities that never amount to anything. His amateurish Machiavellian approach to our party was a key feature in my decision to leave my job.
Six months into his job as de-facto staff/party manager, we still have chronic wastage, staff chaos, inefficiency, no contracts (a legal requirement), no staff training and wages not paid and several NEW employment-related court cases looming. Several staff are even complaining that they are employed but haven’t got any work to do. Pat’s interference in our party has been highly corrosive and much of his advice has been farcical and demoralising. Despite all this, Pat and his Solidarity ilk are safe and thriving financially off our party on the secure European payroll. Shameful and disgusting.
I could not and would not abuse the trust of our members by being involved with what I consider a detrimental situation, i.e. a political rival with an unimpressive past effectively taking overall control of the BNP, usurping the authority of our senior officials and presiding over a total management disaster of the party. Again, I fear Nick has brought Pat and his group of useless Solidarity officials in so he can concentrate on being an MEP and going to Europe.
4) Finances and the treasury department: All I am prepared to say is that after years of presiding over the shambles that is our “treasury”, the person mainly responsible has now been ‘rewarded’ for making us the laughing stock of British politics by being given a secure job in Europe on a safe and generous salary while the financial chaos he caused threatens to destroy everything we have all worked hard to build over the years. Why has this happened?
Again, faced with foreknowledge of this disgusting situation I felt that I had no alternative but to remove myself from this immoral and contemptible charade. I was involved in fundraising for the party, so I know that around £4million was raised over the last three years by the party overall, so what did treasury do with it all considering the crushing debts that we now face? The spin that the party has only £200k worth of debts is wishful thinking and won’t help or assist us in facing up to our REAL liabilities and potentially fatal financial crisis. Action, not spin, is what we need to save the party.
These are the facts and it grieves me to have to admit that I probably should have done the only honourable thing I could have done and resigned sooner. I could say a lot more but it is not my intention to stir up trouble or to be a hindrance to our survival but I do feel strongly that you should be informed of my heartfelt reasons for walking away from a job I felt privileged to do for our party and our people.
I am no rebel and despise those that have worked against the party over the last year but much of our troubles could have been avoided. I fought hard against the rebels last year and will fight again if our party is attacked by the same nefarious elements, but enough is enough, things need to change now if the BNP is to survive as a credible political party.
Recently, it has come to my intention that certain individuals are trying to have me expelled from the party and withdraw the whip from me as a BNP councillor out of hatred and spite. I cherish my BNP membership and will use every means available to protect myself and remain a member of the party.
Paul Golding
Former BNP Communications Officer
Cllr Golding, it will be remembered, worked very closely with Mr Dowson, right up to the time they both lost out in a sordid little power struggle to Messrs Harrington and Jefferson. Consequently Golding was in a position to know approximately how much money was raised by his 'boss', Dowson. Golding claims it was roughly £4,000,000, FOUR MILLION POUNDS, over the last three years.
Yet the British National Party now has debts totalling several hundred thousand pounds. Even Griffin admits to £200,000, and Golding suggests that is an understatement of the party's actual liabilities.
We know that only just over a quarter of a million pounds was spent on the European 'parliament' elections, and that the general election campaign was financed, almost exclusively, by locally raised branch funds.
One does not need to be any kind of accountant to see that something is seriously amiss here: the sums just do not add up.
So, to repeat a question which I have asked before: where has all the money gone?
Moreover, where are the 2009 accounts, that could conceivably help to answer this question? Still with the auditors?
While agreeing with what Golding has to say about Griffin's, Harrington's, Jefferson's, and Hannam's incompetence, it has to be said that, despite knowing what they were, Golding went along with Griffin, and with Dowson, who is no better, until Dowson and Golding lost out in a power struggle to control the party's management and administration, including the so-called treasury department.
At this point, Golding jumps, before he is pushed, no doubt.
At this point, knowing he would almost certainly lose his paid employment with the BNP, at the behest of Mr Harrington, Cllr Golding develops a conscience, and resigns.
"I could no longer, in good conscience, be part of what 'party central' had become". Touching isn't it?
It should always be remembered that Cllr Paul Golding had played an enthusiastic part in corrupting the BNP - never mind 'party central'.
Why did he not support the leadership challenge of Eddy Butler, the only serious challenger for the leadership, last summer? Butler's platform was reform: of the corrupt and incompetent management, and the maladministration of both human and financial resources, of which Golding was a part.
Because it didn't suit his personal agenda at the time, which was all he was concerned about. The party could go hang.
Why did Golding not speak out, or resign, when loyal members of the BNP (loyal to the party, and our people, not to a particular unworthy man) were unjustly victimized, in blatant disregard of the constitution, so that Griffin could rig the nomination process, and cheat his way into remaining as party leader.
Golding's tender conscience did not appear to give him any trouble while all that was going on.
No, he was happy to be a part of the "nefarious element" that was ruining the BNP, and leading it towards the destruction, that even he now, miraculously, is able to see looming ahead.
Golding ends his despicable, hypocritical letter with a little whine that he feels he may be for the chop soon.
I hope he does not expect any sympathy from those of us who genuinely put the party's interests before our personal interest, and sought to exercise our democratic rights under the constitution, only to be subjected to vile character assassination, and to be unjustly victimized by a corrupt leadership.
You made your bed, Cllr Golding. I suggest you lie on it.
Incidentally, if it is true that this letter from Golding was forwarded to a BNP member by the south east regional organizer: what was the latter doing spreading bad news, in this way, in breach of the constitution?
The party's code of conduct states that bad news should only be passed up the chain of command, not down it.
More evidence of double standards at work, as if we needed any more.
Cllr Golding's letter now follows.
Paul Golding resignation letter
Just been forwarded this via email from my regional organiser:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PRIVATE COMMUNICATION - 16th January 2011
Fellow nationalist,
I am writing to you privately and in a personal capacity because now the dust has settled I thought it both prudent and courteous to give you a brief outline of why I resigned from my position last November. It was a great privilege and honour to work full time for the party and I was always conscious of this, and of the trust vested in me by the members and party officers and my duty towards them - that is why I resigned.
I could no longer, in good conscience, be part of what ‘party central’ had become. Don’t get me wrong, it’s easy to moan about things from the sidelines - please don’t for one minute think that this is what I am doing. I merely want to set a few things straight for the future advancement of this party and the nationalist movement generally, also considering that Nick Griffin has been spreading false reasons why I resigned. I have been forced to set the record straight. I resigned for several reasons, the main ones being:
1) The EU fiasco: I was/am totally dismayed by the amount of time our Chairman spends in the EU parliament, much to the determent of our party overall, and the ‘gravy train’ mentality that now infects the new Solidarity ‘elite’ who have jumped on board the leadership team in more recent months.
It seems that the party now plays a secondary role to Nick Griffin’s European Parliament indulgence. Having our Chairman over in Brussels almost every week, Monday to Thursday (then taking Friday off), has been catastrophic and has lead to serious problems that could have been easily dealt with had Nick been on home soil with his eye on the ball.
Unfortunately, Nick Griffin appears to have lost interest in the day-to-day grind of running the BNP, and has submerged himself in the grandiose – but totally ineffectual – farce that is the European Parliament. A farce, yes, but a very lucrative one, as the attendance and travel allowances involved can net an MEP around an extra £5,000 per month on top of an 80,000 euros annual salary. After years of struggle, Nick is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his labours but not at the expense of the party.
2) Clive Jefferson: This man has in a few short months been appointed to the posts of National Elections Officer, National Organiser, National Nominating Officer and National Treasurer. I could see the ‘game plan’ take shape in the summer and warned the Chairman but nothing was done and now we have nearly every senior position held by one man. How can we be taken seriously by the public and the general membership when we have allowed such a farce to occur?
I also see little evidence that Mr. Jefferson is suited to any of the positions he now clings too. As National Organiser, Mr Jefferson has brought about no tangible improvements to our organisation and its functionality; as National Elections Officer, he has presided over the longest and most embarrassing string of mediocre election results in our history; and now this man has been appointed National Treasurer, instead of a suitably qualified individual. He has talked a good talk to the Chairman, but this man has not produced the goods for our party, quite the opposite in fact. The Oldham result being the latest in a long series of Jefferson-created electoral disasters.
Clive’s ineptitude was a key reason for my resignation. I was sickened to watch the highly successful “Bring Our Boys Home” campaign being totally wasted by Mr Jefferson. After the hundreds of activist stalls, after all the hard work and sweat of our members and organisers, after the Communications Department worked hard to produce the leaflet, banner and petition, and organised the promotion of the campaign via email bulletin, website, and organisers’ bulletins, all Clive had to do was to utilise and do something meaningful with the resulting data (around 100,000 names and addresses).
But to date nothing substantial has been done with the data (a few thousand were imputed by Belfast). The 100,000 names and addresses are gathering dust - what a total waste and failure of all our efforts. Any talk of ‘using them for the future’ is pie in the sky, as anyone who understands data handling will tell you, data goes cold very quickly and is rendered useless. The party did at the time, employ data experts working in our own headquarters but through Jefferson’s ineptitude an excellent opportunity, the goodwill of the public and the hard graft of our activists, has been shamefully squandered.
Talk about the new super ‘Alfred’ data system is not even worth commenting on as it is such a fantasy and another hair-brain dream that I do not believe it will ever be a credible election tool while being developed by amateurs (wait for the appeals to finance its so-called development appearing shortly).
Considering the image problem that always hinders our progress, was it wise for the Chairman to have appointed a man like Mr Jefferson who (although never convicted) was a named defendant in a major international drug trafficking trial in 2002 that resulted in lengthy jail sentences for several of his co-defendants, to his multiple senior posts within our party?
Nick Griffin has effectively handed over control of the entire party to Clive Jefferson (and Pat Harrington) – I fear this is so Mr Griffin can concentrate on being an MEP and going to Europe. This would be half-acceptable if party affairs were sound and in order – but as we are in a crisis, and have been for a long time, Nick’s persistence with his EU trips must raise some serious concerns.
3) Pat Harrington: This man’s involvement with our party has, I believe, been a huge mistake. He is not a member and in fact is the leader of a rival party that has even stood against us. Harrington, his wife, and a group of his Solidarity officials, are now on the European pay roll as ‘researchers’ but in effect Pat is the main decision maker in OUR party and has given Nick some terrible advice in recent months that has, in my opinion, led to the administration and staff management chaos that now prevails.
His track record in nationalist politics is shocking, and those who are old enough will know this and his involvement in the destruction of the National Front, and his roles in the formation of so many other micro-entities that never amount to anything. His amateurish Machiavellian approach to our party was a key feature in my decision to leave my job.
Six months into his job as de-facto staff/party manager, we still have chronic wastage, staff chaos, inefficiency, no contracts (a legal requirement), no staff training and wages not paid and several NEW employment-related court cases looming. Several staff are even complaining that they are employed but haven’t got any work to do. Pat’s interference in our party has been highly corrosive and much of his advice has been farcical and demoralising. Despite all this, Pat and his Solidarity ilk are safe and thriving financially off our party on the secure European payroll. Shameful and disgusting.
I could not and would not abuse the trust of our members by being involved with what I consider a detrimental situation, i.e. a political rival with an unimpressive past effectively taking overall control of the BNP, usurping the authority of our senior officials and presiding over a total management disaster of the party. Again, I fear Nick has brought Pat and his group of useless Solidarity officials in so he can concentrate on being an MEP and going to Europe.
4) Finances and the treasury department: All I am prepared to say is that after years of presiding over the shambles that is our “treasury”, the person mainly responsible has now been ‘rewarded’ for making us the laughing stock of British politics by being given a secure job in Europe on a safe and generous salary while the financial chaos he caused threatens to destroy everything we have all worked hard to build over the years. Why has this happened?
Again, faced with foreknowledge of this disgusting situation I felt that I had no alternative but to remove myself from this immoral and contemptible charade. I was involved in fundraising for the party, so I know that around £4million was raised over the last three years by the party overall, so what did treasury do with it all considering the crushing debts that we now face? The spin that the party has only £200k worth of debts is wishful thinking and won’t help or assist us in facing up to our REAL liabilities and potentially fatal financial crisis. Action, not spin, is what we need to save the party.
These are the facts and it grieves me to have to admit that I probably should have done the only honourable thing I could have done and resigned sooner. I could say a lot more but it is not my intention to stir up trouble or to be a hindrance to our survival but I do feel strongly that you should be informed of my heartfelt reasons for walking away from a job I felt privileged to do for our party and our people.
I am no rebel and despise those that have worked against the party over the last year but much of our troubles could have been avoided. I fought hard against the rebels last year and will fight again if our party is attacked by the same nefarious elements, but enough is enough, things need to change now if the BNP is to survive as a credible political party.
Recently, it has come to my intention that certain individuals are trying to have me expelled from the party and withdraw the whip from me as a BNP councillor out of hatred and spite. I cherish my BNP membership and will use every means available to protect myself and remain a member of the party.
Paul Golding
Former BNP Communications Officer
"There, there, dear - of course you're still the leader"
Griffin, regardless of his good work for the BNP in the past, is clearly now the greatest liability the party has, and the root cause of all its current woes. Power and cupidity appear to have corrupted any decency and integrity he may once have possessed.
He appears to be losing touch with reality, and to be in a state of denial. No doubt his having surrounded himself with a kitchen cabinet of depraved and slavish sycophants, who merely parrot what it is they know their master wishes to hear, instead of speaking the truth, has helped to reduce him to this pitiable state.
From now on his words should be viewed with profound scepticism, though he should be humoured up to a point, in the way that one would make certain allowances for the mentally disordered.
The one thing that the BNP needs now, more than anything else, is a new leader.
Any genuinely ethno-nationalist member of the party, untainted by Griffin's corruption, would be a significant improvement.
He appears to be losing touch with reality, and to be in a state of denial. No doubt his having surrounded himself with a kitchen cabinet of depraved and slavish sycophants, who merely parrot what it is they know their master wishes to hear, instead of speaking the truth, has helped to reduce him to this pitiable state.
From now on his words should be viewed with profound scepticism, though he should be humoured up to a point, in the way that one would make certain allowances for the mentally disordered.
The one thing that the BNP needs now, more than anything else, is a new leader.
Any genuinely ethno-nationalist member of the party, untainted by Griffin's corruption, would be a significant improvement.
Griffin rats on his old mates - again
The following post was published on the Final Conflict web site in reply to Griffin's New Year message of 2008, at a time when the British National Party was convulsed by a split which was not, contrary to Griffin's tendentious claim, about ideology, or policy, but, like the current split, about organization and management.
While re-publication of the post here should not be taken to imply agreement with the entirety of the ideological world view of Final Conflict, or of Blood and Honour, it should be seen as fair comment on a matter of public interest: the character and integrity of a British MEP, and the leader of a British political party.
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
BNP Boss Attacks Blood & Honour
The BNP leader has lost the plot.
In his "New Year message" he makes up all kinds of conspiracies, but central to which he attacks:
"Blood & Honour skinheads who Kenny Smith and Sadie Graham invite to their ‘socials’, want to bring back into the party, and use to try to intimidate decent nationalists".
and
"Great White Records operation precisely because it is moving nationalist music on from the grim, raucous, counter-productive hatred of the old neo-Nazi Blood & Honour"
I would say a couple of things:
1. Will Mr. Griffin now demand that the adverts that appear in every issue of B&H magazine promoting the BNP are dropped? There's also the "neo-nazi" League of St George magazine too...
2. Will Mr. Griffin stop collections being taken and BNP papers being sold at B&H concerts and socials?
3. Will Mr. Griffin stop BNP members, organisers etc. attending B&H events - and ask those who are members of B&H bands to quit the BNP or B&H?
Mr. Griffin is pandering to liberals and the Zionist press with this outburst.
a. B&H supporters have provided the BNP with good activists and security.
b. B&H supporters have stood as BNP candidates and done much of the "donkey work" - indeed in some areas security has been carried out by British Movement and Third Positionists when requested by local BNP organisers.
c. To call B&H music "grim" is to display a great ignorance of the range of B&H music which includes music as wide and varied as folkish, Heavy Metal, Oi, Rock, ballads etc. It may not all be everyone's cup of tea, but there are some superb musicians from many genres involved.
No doubt there is more money to be gained via defending race-mixing and attacking "anti-Semitism" these days...
Let's hope this latest outburst isn't shrugged off as yet more "softly softly catchee monkey" because after 7 years of churning out increasingly liberal and Searchlight-sounding invective against other nationalists (he likes to condemn those outside the BNP who comment on his sell-out, yet is quick to smear other nationalists -- remember his personal leaflet, with the Welshpool PO Box, put out slagging off the NF and BM?) how long before people wake and smell the (kosher) coffee?
After all how many times can nationalists be (verbally) punched in the face by a man more interested in sucking up to race-mixers, practicing [homosexuals] and neo-con journalists before they react in kind?
While re-publication of the post here should not be taken to imply agreement with the entirety of the ideological world view of Final Conflict, or of Blood and Honour, it should be seen as fair comment on a matter of public interest: the character and integrity of a British MEP, and the leader of a British political party.
Tuesday, 1 January 2008
BNP Boss Attacks Blood & Honour
The BNP leader has lost the plot.
In his "New Year message" he makes up all kinds of conspiracies, but central to which he attacks:
"Blood & Honour skinheads who Kenny Smith and Sadie Graham invite to their ‘socials’, want to bring back into the party, and use to try to intimidate decent nationalists".
and
"Great White Records operation precisely because it is moving nationalist music on from the grim, raucous, counter-productive hatred of the old neo-Nazi Blood & Honour"
I would say a couple of things:
1. Will Mr. Griffin now demand that the adverts that appear in every issue of B&H magazine promoting the BNP are dropped? There's also the "neo-nazi" League of St George magazine too...
2. Will Mr. Griffin stop collections being taken and BNP papers being sold at B&H concerts and socials?
3. Will Mr. Griffin stop BNP members, organisers etc. attending B&H events - and ask those who are members of B&H bands to quit the BNP or B&H?
Mr. Griffin is pandering to liberals and the Zionist press with this outburst.
a. B&H supporters have provided the BNP with good activists and security.
b. B&H supporters have stood as BNP candidates and done much of the "donkey work" - indeed in some areas security has been carried out by British Movement and Third Positionists when requested by local BNP organisers.
c. To call B&H music "grim" is to display a great ignorance of the range of B&H music which includes music as wide and varied as folkish, Heavy Metal, Oi, Rock, ballads etc. It may not all be everyone's cup of tea, but there are some superb musicians from many genres involved.
No doubt there is more money to be gained via defending race-mixing and attacking "anti-Semitism" these days...
Let's hope this latest outburst isn't shrugged off as yet more "softly softly catchee monkey" because after 7 years of churning out increasingly liberal and Searchlight-sounding invective against other nationalists (he likes to condemn those outside the BNP who comment on his sell-out, yet is quick to smear other nationalists -- remember his personal leaflet, with the Welshpool PO Box, put out slagging off the NF and BM?) how long before people wake and smell the (kosher) coffee?
After all how many times can nationalists be (verbally) punched in the face by a man more interested in sucking up to race-mixers, practicing [homosexuals] and neo-con journalists before they react in kind?
Saturday, 15 January 2011
Gilligan's island
Andrew Gilligan, whom some may remember for an inability to control his temper when interviewing a Scientologist, on camera, provides his take on the Muslim paedophile gang cover-up scandal.
Gilligan cites an isolated campaign by a single LOCAL newspaper, the Lancashire Telegraph, in 2006-07, as evidence that the media were not involved in a conspiracy of silence for the last decade, as the British National Party rightly asserts.
What an insult to the intelligence!
Gilligan's hypocritical apologia for the rest of the vile media now follows.
Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary, claims that some Pakistani men see young white women as prime targets for sexual grooming. Is he right, asks Andrew Gilligan?
If you want an example of the official “conspiracy of silence” that has allegedly allowed hundreds of vulnerable white girls in some towns to be abused by Asian men, the case of Ajmal Mohammed, a 43-year-old from Blackburn, might seem to be it. In 2004, Mohammed, an amateur cricketer in the Ribblesdale league, took a schoolgirl to a Manchester hotel room and got her drunk – to celebrate, he said, her 14th birthday. The child ran away. Police were called, but he denied having sex with her and they issued him with a “child abduction warning letter”. He was never prosecuted.
Two years later, Mohammed took another 14-year-old to a hotel room, this time in Blackpool – and this time he raped her. When the police came for him, they found the numbers of six other vulnerable youngsters on his mobile phone.
In industrial towns across the North and the Midlands, over the past three years, at least 51 people have been convicted in trials involving groups of men who have picked up young girls for sexual exploitation. Forty-eight of the offenders were Asian; the vast majority of the victims were white. Last week, in Derby, nine men, eight of them Asian, were sentenced for their parts in a gang that groomed, sexually exploited and in some cases raped 27 local children, 22 of them white.
The issue exploded on to the national agenda on Friday after Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary who is also MP for Blackburn, said that in his town, some Pakistani men saw white girls as “easy meat”. There was, he said, “a specific problem of Pakistani-heritage men who target vulnerable young white girls, and we need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani-heritage men thinking it’s OK to target white girls in this way”.
Many other figures involved in this field have fought shy. Martin Narey, the chief executive of Barnardo’s, initially described the evidence as merely “anecdotal”. A Channel 4 documentary on the subject in 2004 was pulled at the request of police. Few experts were willing to talk openly yesterday.
Yet as early as 2006, Blackburn’s local paper, the Lancashire Telegraph, launched a “Keep Them Safe” campaign to make the authorities tackle what it called “sexual grooming and abduction […] which predominantly involves Asian men”. In article after article, the paper charted locals’ frustration at officialdom’s reluctance to get involved: in 2007, it reported, the parents of some victims even threatened to sue the police for their failure to act. The editor, Kevin Young, said: “This is an extremely sensitive subject, and the Telegraph gave it a lot of consideration before launching its campaign.”
In response, in 2008, Lancashire police and Blackburn social services set up Operation Engage. By March last year, it had offered protection to some 385 girls and young women. Similar operations have sprung up in Preston and other nearby towns. Some schools in East Lancashire now offer their female pupils lessons in “how to spot a sexual groomer”.
There could, of course, hardly be a more emotive story than this. Sexual abuse! White girls! Pakistani men! Politically-correct establishment letting it all happen! No wonder the BNP has been licking its lips [sic] (though, unfortunately for them, the only two white Blackburn people recently convicted of this crime, in November 2008, turned out to be members of the party) [who were promptly expelled from the party, AE].
Yet just because the BNP exploits an issue, does not mean there is nothing in it. The questions really should be: is it simply a local problem in those towns? What, if any, wider weaknesses does it expose in Britain’s Muslim communities? And what, if any, wider weaknesses does it expose in Britain’s governing class?
Sadly for the racists [sic], the figures just do not support any attempt to paint British Muslims and Asians as sex predators on a national scale. Asians are, in fact, under-represented among sex offenders. As at June 2009, there were 7,021 British men in prison for sex crimes, of whom only 234 were Asian. That is 3.3 per cent, rather less than the proportion of Asians in the population. And a 2008 study by Malcolm Cowburn of Sheffield Hallam University found that jailed sex criminals from ethnic minorities were less likely to have abused children than white sex offenders.
Haras Rafique, of the Centri counter-extremism think tank, says: “There is a problem, a massive problem, but I don’t think it’s confined to Pakistani communities. It only appears to be a bigger problem with immigrants because immigrants are more visible.”
And not just because of their skin colour. Asians do not commit more sex crimes, but they do, perhaps, commit different sorts of sex crimes. White child abusers are more likely to find and groom their victims in private, on the internet. The evidence suggests that Asian abusers are more likely to find and groom their victims in public, on the street.
Straw says young men “fizzing and popping with testosterone” are taking up with white children because “Pakistani-heritage girls are off limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan”. Rafique says the former Home Secretary is living in the 1970s: “These guys are just as happy to groom Asian girls if they can get them,” he says. “It’s just that the parents of Asian girls tend to keep a closer eye on them.” Quite a lot of those convicted are also in their 30s.
One other feature in the abuse must be the view, held by a substantial minority of British Muslims, that the Western lifestyle is immoral or degenerate. Only two weeks ago, the East London Mosque, the largest mosque in Britain’s largest Muslim community, held an event condemning “child-rearing in the Western context” as a “social ill”.
This mosque, and many others, has also hosted events condemning music, immodest dress and the wearing of perfume. A young Muslim man brought up on that sort of diet is less likely to treat a white girl in a short skirt with respect.
But the East London Mosque, and many other such havens of hatred and extremism, was, at least until recently, treated by the white political establishment as a respectable, mainstream institution. And that brings us to the sense of denial by some white liberals, and their refusal to hold Muslims to the standards they expect in others.
Last year, this newspaper told how more than £100,000 of public money was paid to two schools with connections to the racist, extremist group Hizb ut Tahrir – the Muslim equivalent of the BNP [sic]. The headmistress of one described English as “the most dangerous subject a school can teach”. If the BNP had been given public money to run schools, it would have been stopped. But the then schools secretary, Ed Balls, defended the payments.
Many other parts of the British state, from Ofsted to the Charity Commission, have been less than willing to confront prima facie evidence of extremism and intolerance, often to the frustration of Muslims themselves. Even last week, one Guardian columnist dismissed the Muslim grooming claims as “part of the ignoble tradition of racialising criminality in this country”.
Even though sex crimes committed by Pakistanis may be no more prevalent than those committed by people of any other race, that still leaves the question of whether those crimes are being less effectively tackled by the authorities. Some might argue that the relative lack of Asian sex offenders in prison reflects the authorities’ relative unwillingness to pursue Asian sex offenders.
Criminologists say that that is probably not the explanation. But as with any offenders of any race, people commit crime more if they think they can get away with it. And in the eyes of many people in East Lancashire, there was, at least until recently, a willingness to let Pakistani offenders get away with it, for fear of being accused of racism. The danger, of course, is that that stokes the very bigotry it seeks to avoid [sic].
The lesson from Blackburn, however, is that if the problem is brought out into the open, it can be addressed. Since the local paper’s campaign, and the establishment of Operation Engage, there have been 63 charges, a number of convictions and, apparently, a deterrent effect: according to Engage’s co-ordinator, 80 per cent of the cases they now deal with (albeit on a broader front than merely street grooming) do not involve Pakistanis.
Last night, in the inevitable political row, some of the usual suspects accused Straw of “stereotyping a whole community”. But this subject does not have to become a racial melodrama; it is, principally, a crime. We can tackle it – but first we have to start talking about it.
Telegraph
Gilligan cites an isolated campaign by a single LOCAL newspaper, the Lancashire Telegraph, in 2006-07, as evidence that the media were not involved in a conspiracy of silence for the last decade, as the British National Party rightly asserts.
What an insult to the intelligence!
Gilligan's hypocritical apologia for the rest of the vile media now follows.
Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary, claims that some Pakistani men see young white women as prime targets for sexual grooming. Is he right, asks Andrew Gilligan?
If you want an example of the official “conspiracy of silence” that has allegedly allowed hundreds of vulnerable white girls in some towns to be abused by Asian men, the case of Ajmal Mohammed, a 43-year-old from Blackburn, might seem to be it. In 2004, Mohammed, an amateur cricketer in the Ribblesdale league, took a schoolgirl to a Manchester hotel room and got her drunk – to celebrate, he said, her 14th birthday. The child ran away. Police were called, but he denied having sex with her and they issued him with a “child abduction warning letter”. He was never prosecuted.
Two years later, Mohammed took another 14-year-old to a hotel room, this time in Blackpool – and this time he raped her. When the police came for him, they found the numbers of six other vulnerable youngsters on his mobile phone.
In industrial towns across the North and the Midlands, over the past three years, at least 51 people have been convicted in trials involving groups of men who have picked up young girls for sexual exploitation. Forty-eight of the offenders were Asian; the vast majority of the victims were white. Last week, in Derby, nine men, eight of them Asian, were sentenced for their parts in a gang that groomed, sexually exploited and in some cases raped 27 local children, 22 of them white.
The issue exploded on to the national agenda on Friday after Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary who is also MP for Blackburn, said that in his town, some Pakistani men saw white girls as “easy meat”. There was, he said, “a specific problem of Pakistani-heritage men who target vulnerable young white girls, and we need to get the Pakistani community to think much more clearly about why this is going on and about the problems that are leading to a number of Pakistani-heritage men thinking it’s OK to target white girls in this way”.
Many other figures involved in this field have fought shy. Martin Narey, the chief executive of Barnardo’s, initially described the evidence as merely “anecdotal”. A Channel 4 documentary on the subject in 2004 was pulled at the request of police. Few experts were willing to talk openly yesterday.
Yet as early as 2006, Blackburn’s local paper, the Lancashire Telegraph, launched a “Keep Them Safe” campaign to make the authorities tackle what it called “sexual grooming and abduction […] which predominantly involves Asian men”. In article after article, the paper charted locals’ frustration at officialdom’s reluctance to get involved: in 2007, it reported, the parents of some victims even threatened to sue the police for their failure to act. The editor, Kevin Young, said: “This is an extremely sensitive subject, and the Telegraph gave it a lot of consideration before launching its campaign.”
In response, in 2008, Lancashire police and Blackburn social services set up Operation Engage. By March last year, it had offered protection to some 385 girls and young women. Similar operations have sprung up in Preston and other nearby towns. Some schools in East Lancashire now offer their female pupils lessons in “how to spot a sexual groomer”.
There could, of course, hardly be a more emotive story than this. Sexual abuse! White girls! Pakistani men! Politically-correct establishment letting it all happen! No wonder the BNP has been licking its lips [sic] (though, unfortunately for them, the only two white Blackburn people recently convicted of this crime, in November 2008, turned out to be members of the party) [who were promptly expelled from the party, AE].
Yet just because the BNP exploits an issue, does not mean there is nothing in it. The questions really should be: is it simply a local problem in those towns? What, if any, wider weaknesses does it expose in Britain’s Muslim communities? And what, if any, wider weaknesses does it expose in Britain’s governing class?
Sadly for the racists [sic], the figures just do not support any attempt to paint British Muslims and Asians as sex predators on a national scale. Asians are, in fact, under-represented among sex offenders. As at June 2009, there were 7,021 British men in prison for sex crimes, of whom only 234 were Asian. That is 3.3 per cent, rather less than the proportion of Asians in the population. And a 2008 study by Malcolm Cowburn of Sheffield Hallam University found that jailed sex criminals from ethnic minorities were less likely to have abused children than white sex offenders.
Haras Rafique, of the Centri counter-extremism think tank, says: “There is a problem, a massive problem, but I don’t think it’s confined to Pakistani communities. It only appears to be a bigger problem with immigrants because immigrants are more visible.”
And not just because of their skin colour. Asians do not commit more sex crimes, but they do, perhaps, commit different sorts of sex crimes. White child abusers are more likely to find and groom their victims in private, on the internet. The evidence suggests that Asian abusers are more likely to find and groom their victims in public, on the street.
Straw says young men “fizzing and popping with testosterone” are taking up with white children because “Pakistani-heritage girls are off limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan”. Rafique says the former Home Secretary is living in the 1970s: “These guys are just as happy to groom Asian girls if they can get them,” he says. “It’s just that the parents of Asian girls tend to keep a closer eye on them.” Quite a lot of those convicted are also in their 30s.
One other feature in the abuse must be the view, held by a substantial minority of British Muslims, that the Western lifestyle is immoral or degenerate. Only two weeks ago, the East London Mosque, the largest mosque in Britain’s largest Muslim community, held an event condemning “child-rearing in the Western context” as a “social ill”.
This mosque, and many others, has also hosted events condemning music, immodest dress and the wearing of perfume. A young Muslim man brought up on that sort of diet is less likely to treat a white girl in a short skirt with respect.
But the East London Mosque, and many other such havens of hatred and extremism, was, at least until recently, treated by the white political establishment as a respectable, mainstream institution. And that brings us to the sense of denial by some white liberals, and their refusal to hold Muslims to the standards they expect in others.
Last year, this newspaper told how more than £100,000 of public money was paid to two schools with connections to the racist, extremist group Hizb ut Tahrir – the Muslim equivalent of the BNP [sic]. The headmistress of one described English as “the most dangerous subject a school can teach”. If the BNP had been given public money to run schools, it would have been stopped. But the then schools secretary, Ed Balls, defended the payments.
Many other parts of the British state, from Ofsted to the Charity Commission, have been less than willing to confront prima facie evidence of extremism and intolerance, often to the frustration of Muslims themselves. Even last week, one Guardian columnist dismissed the Muslim grooming claims as “part of the ignoble tradition of racialising criminality in this country”.
Even though sex crimes committed by Pakistanis may be no more prevalent than those committed by people of any other race, that still leaves the question of whether those crimes are being less effectively tackled by the authorities. Some might argue that the relative lack of Asian sex offenders in prison reflects the authorities’ relative unwillingness to pursue Asian sex offenders.
Criminologists say that that is probably not the explanation. But as with any offenders of any race, people commit crime more if they think they can get away with it. And in the eyes of many people in East Lancashire, there was, at least until recently, a willingness to let Pakistani offenders get away with it, for fear of being accused of racism. The danger, of course, is that that stokes the very bigotry it seeks to avoid [sic].
The lesson from Blackburn, however, is that if the problem is brought out into the open, it can be addressed. Since the local paper’s campaign, and the establishment of Operation Engage, there have been 63 charges, a number of convictions and, apparently, a deterrent effect: according to Engage’s co-ordinator, 80 per cent of the cases they now deal with (albeit on a broader front than merely street grooming) do not involve Pakistanis.
Last night, in the inevitable political row, some of the usual suspects accused Straw of “stereotyping a whole community”. But this subject does not have to become a racial melodrama; it is, principally, a crime. We can tackle it – but first we have to start talking about it.
Telegraph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
