24 September: BNP Ideas Conference to Discuss Party’s Future
Posted by admin, on 28 August, 2011, to the BNP Ideas web site
The BNP Ideas conference to be held on 24 September will discuss the imminent danger of the disintegration of the British National Party and calls by members to form a new party, it has been announced.
The primary purpose of the conference is to discuss the breakdown, collapse and disintegration of the BNP, the lack of confidence in its leader, its dire financial status and the incompetence that created this condition.
In addition, the conference will discuss whether the party can be salvaged either under a different leadership or under the current (toxic) leadership.
Recent events in the BNP suggest that before the end of the year the party will become immobilised.
A range of court cases will shortly impose financial reality upon the party and its leadership whilst simultaneously rendering the party incapable of its campaigning function and general operation.
The incompetence and conduct of the party leader suggest that he has lost any residual credibility, has lost the support of activists and has become gravely toxic to the cause.
The purpose of the conference is to address these topics and to discuss the demands by many activists and officials that a new party should be commenced, which would employ the highest degree of transparency and ethical standards.
Members, officials and officers of the party along with former members, officials and officers of the party are encouraged to register and attend.
The one-day event will be held in a central location in the East Midlands. It will be divided into two sections: the first will be a series of high profile speakers, and the second, the majority, will be set aside for a frank and ordered discussion from the floor.
Speakers are set to include: Andrew Brons MEP; Andrew Moffat; Richard Edmonds; Brian Mahoney; John Walker; Arthur Kemp; and Martin Wingfield.
There will be a nominal admission charge of around £2 per person to cover the venue hire costs, and a further announcement will be made shortly about lunch/refreshments.
Please register your intention to attend in advance by visiting the BNP Ideas site and filling in the registration form.
Wednesday, 31 August 2011
Tuesday, 30 August 2011
An honest mistake?
Liability of Members for the Party’s Debts
Posted by admin, on 29 Aug, 2011, to BNP Ideas web site
By Andrew Brons.
Britain First is now citing the Collett v. (Adam) Walker case to support a contention that ordinary members of a party are liable for its debts. I sought advice on this point about a year ago and Richard Edmonds sought similar advice from a different source when he was considering his leadership challenge.
Ordinary members of a party that is an unincorporated association are liable for the debts of the party/association only to the extent of the unpaid part of their annual subscription.
Ordinarily the governing body of the party is responsible for the debts of the party nationally.
The governing body of the BNP is probably just the Chairman but might extend to the Advisory Council (now transmogrified into the National Executive but still appointed), especially if the Advisory Council agreed to any specific debts.
In the case of liabilities entered into by specific officers, the specific officer will be liable for that debt. This is the reason for Walker (Adam) being liable for the money owed to Collett: it was Walker who engaged the services of Collett.
Some spurious advice was given on a website about a year ago, to the effect that BNP members who had been elected to public office (councillors and MEPs) were liable for the Party’s debts. This resulted in our losing two of our three county councillors.
That advice was completely wrong and was obviously based on the fact that elected officers of the Party (nationally), if there should be any, would be liable as members of the governing body.
The person giving the advice had confused the concept of ‘elected officer of the Party’ with that of ‘member of the Party elected to public office’.
Posted by admin, on 29 Aug, 2011, to BNP Ideas web site
By Andrew Brons.
Britain First is now citing the Collett v. (Adam) Walker case to support a contention that ordinary members of a party are liable for its debts. I sought advice on this point about a year ago and Richard Edmonds sought similar advice from a different source when he was considering his leadership challenge.
Ordinary members of a party that is an unincorporated association are liable for the debts of the party/association only to the extent of the unpaid part of their annual subscription.
Ordinarily the governing body of the party is responsible for the debts of the party nationally.
The governing body of the BNP is probably just the Chairman but might extend to the Advisory Council (now transmogrified into the National Executive but still appointed), especially if the Advisory Council agreed to any specific debts.
In the case of liabilities entered into by specific officers, the specific officer will be liable for that debt. This is the reason for Walker (Adam) being liable for the money owed to Collett: it was Walker who engaged the services of Collett.
Some spurious advice was given on a website about a year ago, to the effect that BNP members who had been elected to public office (councillors and MEPs) were liable for the Party’s debts. This resulted in our losing two of our three county councillors.
That advice was completely wrong and was obviously based on the fact that elected officers of the Party (nationally), if there should be any, would be liable as members of the governing body.
The person giving the advice had confused the concept of ‘elected officer of the Party’ with that of ‘member of the Party elected to public office’.
Monday, 29 August 2011
Griffin expels BNP founder, dodges leadership contest
Acknowledgements to the web site Spearhead Online for this article by the late, great, John Tyndall. The article was first published in Spearhead in January 2005, some six months or so before the untimely death of the founder and first leader of the British National Party, at his home in Hove, East Sussex.
Expelled - Yet Again!
Tyndall Rejects Charges
For the second time in no more than 16 months, Spearhead editor and British National Party founder John Tyndall has been expelled from the BNP. A disciplinary tribunal set up on the authority of present party chairman Nick Griffin and presided over by his chief henchman Tony Lecomber delivered a 'guilty' verdict and a unanimous decision in favour of the expulsion of Mr. Tyndall following an examination of thirteen charges at a hearing in Essex on December 4th.
Mr. Tyndall was acquitted by the tribunal on one of the charges, while a verdict of 'not proven' was given in respect of five more. He was found guilty on the remaining seven. Which were:-
That he had published in Spearhead a notice announcing the formation of the 'Spearhead Support Group' (later renamed the 'Spearhead Group'). The precise words in this advertisement which constituted a disciplinary 'offence' are unclear, but the advertisement appeared on page 21 of the April 2004 issue, and readers are recommended to look up their back copies in order to examine it.
That he published in the December 2003 issue of Spearhead a booklist containing titles which it was deemed might cause the BNP to be associated with Holocaust Revisionism, Mosley Fascism, German Nazism and Terrorism.
That he had published in the May 2004 issue of Spearhead an article severely critical of the BNP's adoption of a Jewish candidate for a local government by-election in Epping Forest, Essex. In the arguments put forward in this article in opposition to the adoption Mr. Tyndall was accused of 'anti-Semitism', which was deemed by the prosecution to be "completely indefensible in modern politics."
That he had published in the February 2004 issue of Spearhead advertisements for the books The Uprising (by Colin Jordan) and The Turner Diaries (by Andrew McDonald, otherwise known as Dr. William L. Pierce). It was deemed that by publishing these items Mr. Tyndall was causing the BNP to be associated with 'Nazism' and 'terrorism'.
That he had published in the June 2003 issue of Spearhead an article 'On the Crucial Question of Power', which was deemed in parts to be 'pro-Nazi'.
That he had published in the October 2003 issue of Spearhead and later kept posted on the magazine's website an article 'The Problem is Mr. Griffin', which was deemed to amount to "the spreading of false and malicious rumours" against the BNP chairman.
That on the 11th July 2004, at a meeting in Leeds, he had shared a platform with persons 'proscribed' by the party.
Mr. Tyndall defended himself against six of these seven charges by stating that, as Spearhead was an independent magazine, he had the sole prerogative as proprietor and editor in deciding its content, whether this related to advertisements or articles. He pointed out that the magazine had always been independent of the BNP, but that since he had ceased to occupy any position in the party whatever (which was the case from September 1999) this independence had become underlined by becoming political as well as legal. He also pointed out that the separation of magazine and party had been further underlined after he had removed, at the end of 2002 and at the request of the party chairman, all lists previously advertising the party's book section and the customary advertisement for the party itself which had been a regular feature of the back page of every issue. He stated that neither the party nor its chairman had any lawful control whatsoever over the magazine, and therefore no right to dictate its contents to him.
This did not mean that he accepted the validity of charges relating to associations with 'nazism' or 'anti-Semitism' in respect of advertisements or articles but only that any such charges fell at first base because of the realities of ownership and control and his prerogatives as the magazine's proprietor and editor.
In reply to the charge of "spreading false and malicious rumours" against Mr. Griffin, Mr. Tyndall insisted that such acts could not possibly be offences in the rules of any association; that in political parties people attack other people, who have the right to respond; that far worse attacks had been made by Tony Lecomber against him (Tyndall) without any disciplinary action being taken; and that those who felt they had been slandered or libelled by others had recourse to the courts if they so wished.
Mr. Tyndall told the tribunal that rules of proscription within any unincorporated association could not lawfully extend to dictating to members with which persons they may associate at times and on occasions not under the association's auspices.
It is noteworthy that of the thirteen 'offences' with which Mr. Tyndall was originally charged, ten related to acts that occurred in or before February 2004, yet no charges connected with these acts were made before the 26th September 2004. It is further noteworthy these charges were issued a relatively short time after Mr. Tyndall had formally announced his intention to challenge Nick Griffin for the party leadership, this announcement being made in July 2004. [Emphasis mine, AE].
Mr. Tyndall has lodged an official appeal against his expulsion, as provided for in Section 6(10) of the BNP Constitution. Should this fail, the matter will be taken to a court of law by means of application for judicial review. A similar action was taken in October 2003, but Mr. Griffin pre-empted it going to court by way of an out-of-court settlement whereby Mr. Tyndall's expulsion was quashed and he reinstated.
Spearhead Online
Expelled - Yet Again!
Tyndall Rejects Charges
For the second time in no more than 16 months, Spearhead editor and British National Party founder John Tyndall has been expelled from the BNP. A disciplinary tribunal set up on the authority of present party chairman Nick Griffin and presided over by his chief henchman Tony Lecomber delivered a 'guilty' verdict and a unanimous decision in favour of the expulsion of Mr. Tyndall following an examination of thirteen charges at a hearing in Essex on December 4th.
Mr. Tyndall was acquitted by the tribunal on one of the charges, while a verdict of 'not proven' was given in respect of five more. He was found guilty on the remaining seven. Which were:-
That he had published in Spearhead a notice announcing the formation of the 'Spearhead Support Group' (later renamed the 'Spearhead Group'). The precise words in this advertisement which constituted a disciplinary 'offence' are unclear, but the advertisement appeared on page 21 of the April 2004 issue, and readers are recommended to look up their back copies in order to examine it.
That he published in the December 2003 issue of Spearhead a booklist containing titles which it was deemed might cause the BNP to be associated with Holocaust Revisionism, Mosley Fascism, German Nazism and Terrorism.
That he had published in the May 2004 issue of Spearhead an article severely critical of the BNP's adoption of a Jewish candidate for a local government by-election in Epping Forest, Essex. In the arguments put forward in this article in opposition to the adoption Mr. Tyndall was accused of 'anti-Semitism', which was deemed by the prosecution to be "completely indefensible in modern politics."
That he had published in the February 2004 issue of Spearhead advertisements for the books The Uprising (by Colin Jordan) and The Turner Diaries (by Andrew McDonald, otherwise known as Dr. William L. Pierce). It was deemed that by publishing these items Mr. Tyndall was causing the BNP to be associated with 'Nazism' and 'terrorism'.
That he had published in the June 2003 issue of Spearhead an article 'On the Crucial Question of Power', which was deemed in parts to be 'pro-Nazi'.
That he had published in the October 2003 issue of Spearhead and later kept posted on the magazine's website an article 'The Problem is Mr. Griffin', which was deemed to amount to "the spreading of false and malicious rumours" against the BNP chairman.
That on the 11th July 2004, at a meeting in Leeds, he had shared a platform with persons 'proscribed' by the party.
Mr. Tyndall defended himself against six of these seven charges by stating that, as Spearhead was an independent magazine, he had the sole prerogative as proprietor and editor in deciding its content, whether this related to advertisements or articles. He pointed out that the magazine had always been independent of the BNP, but that since he had ceased to occupy any position in the party whatever (which was the case from September 1999) this independence had become underlined by becoming political as well as legal. He also pointed out that the separation of magazine and party had been further underlined after he had removed, at the end of 2002 and at the request of the party chairman, all lists previously advertising the party's book section and the customary advertisement for the party itself which had been a regular feature of the back page of every issue. He stated that neither the party nor its chairman had any lawful control whatsoever over the magazine, and therefore no right to dictate its contents to him.
This did not mean that he accepted the validity of charges relating to associations with 'nazism' or 'anti-Semitism' in respect of advertisements or articles but only that any such charges fell at first base because of the realities of ownership and control and his prerogatives as the magazine's proprietor and editor.
In reply to the charge of "spreading false and malicious rumours" against Mr. Griffin, Mr. Tyndall insisted that such acts could not possibly be offences in the rules of any association; that in political parties people attack other people, who have the right to respond; that far worse attacks had been made by Tony Lecomber against him (Tyndall) without any disciplinary action being taken; and that those who felt they had been slandered or libelled by others had recourse to the courts if they so wished.
Mr. Tyndall told the tribunal that rules of proscription within any unincorporated association could not lawfully extend to dictating to members with which persons they may associate at times and on occasions not under the association's auspices.
It is noteworthy that of the thirteen 'offences' with which Mr. Tyndall was originally charged, ten related to acts that occurred in or before February 2004, yet no charges connected with these acts were made before the 26th September 2004. It is further noteworthy these charges were issued a relatively short time after Mr. Tyndall had formally announced his intention to challenge Nick Griffin for the party leadership, this announcement being made in July 2004. [Emphasis mine, AE].
Mr. Tyndall has lodged an official appeal against his expulsion, as provided for in Section 6(10) of the BNP Constitution. Should this fail, the matter will be taken to a court of law by means of application for judicial review. A similar action was taken in October 2003, but Mr. Griffin pre-empted it going to court by way of an out-of-court settlement whereby Mr. Tyndall's expulsion was quashed and he reinstated.
Spearhead Online
Griffin admires Amir Khan?
In the Wikipedia article on Nick Griffin it is stated that he admires the Muslim professional boxer, of Pakistani ethnicity, Amir Khan. The following is a link to the (2009) authority on which the statement is based: Inside Lines: How 'Nasty Nick' boxed clever to land his political punches.
Why should Griffin have admired such an individual? Could it be that by praising Khan's boxing Griffin hoped that the political enemies of ethnonationalism, including the "mainstream" media, would give him an easy ride? If that was the reason, then Griffin ought to understand by now that his "cunning plan" has not worked.
On the other hand, as John Tyndall perceptively pointed out in an article in Spearhead: while failing to win a single extra vote, such ploys by Griffin have a tendency to demoralize the genuine ethnonationalists within the British National Party. Such statements by Griffin ("salt in the soup", etc) have encouraged them to leave the party in despair and disgust. However, such statements by Griffin have also actually attracted all sorts of civic "nationalist" careerists and opportunists to join, or to rejoin, the BNP. These people erroneously believe that this kind of populism, as they might term it, will produce electoral dividends. When such dividends fail to materialize, as in last year's elections, for example, they tend to believe that yet more policy dilution is the answer. And so the sickly spiral of concession proceeds downwards, on its way towards the complete abandonment of principle and its final destination: moral surrender, bankruptcy and dissolution.
Instead of winning through, by converting the electorate and even our political opponents to our beliefs by the cogency of our argument, the policy trimmers operate on the principle of "If you can't beat them, join them." What genius!
Perhaps it was Khan's respect for our laws that caused Griffin to commend him as a role model for Muslim youth, if indeed he did, as the article in the Indepenedent claims.
The following is an extract from the Wikipedia article on Khan, entitled "Amir Khan (boxer)."
Motoring offences and incidents
On 23 October 2007, Khan was convicted of careless driving at Bolton Crown Court and given a six-month driving ban and a £1000 fine. The conviction related to an incident that occurred on 2 March 2006 in the centre of Bolton, when Khan's car hit and broke the leg of Geoffrey Hatton, a pedestrian who was using a pelican crossing while Khan was travelling at 47 mph in a 30 mph zone and overtaking in the wrong lane.[51] He was cleared of dangerous driving but charged with the lesser offence of careless driving[52] and the pedestrian received an interim payment of £40,000.[53] Geoffrey Hatton never fully recovered from the incident and died soon afterwards with Khan passing on his sympathies.[54] Khan was also summoned to appear in court in Rochdale on 26 October 2007, accused of travelling in excess of 140 mph on the M62 motorway on 31 December 2006. He failed to appear and the case was adjourned to 2 November 2007, with the District Judge warning that he would issue an arrest warrant if the accused did not appear by then. He was also charged with not producing his driving licence and insurance certificate.[55] On 7 January 2008 Khan was fined £1000 and banned for 42 days for the speeding offence.[56] [Emphasis mine, AE].
On 12 July 2009, Khan was once again involved in a motoring incident, this time a collision with a young cyclist. However, no action will be taken against Khan after police concluded that he was not to blame for the incident in Moor Lane following interviews with a number of witnesses.[57]
Why should Griffin have admired such an individual? Could it be that by praising Khan's boxing Griffin hoped that the political enemies of ethnonationalism, including the "mainstream" media, would give him an easy ride? If that was the reason, then Griffin ought to understand by now that his "cunning plan" has not worked.
On the other hand, as John Tyndall perceptively pointed out in an article in Spearhead: while failing to win a single extra vote, such ploys by Griffin have a tendency to demoralize the genuine ethnonationalists within the British National Party. Such statements by Griffin ("salt in the soup", etc) have encouraged them to leave the party in despair and disgust. However, such statements by Griffin have also actually attracted all sorts of civic "nationalist" careerists and opportunists to join, or to rejoin, the BNP. These people erroneously believe that this kind of populism, as they might term it, will produce electoral dividends. When such dividends fail to materialize, as in last year's elections, for example, they tend to believe that yet more policy dilution is the answer. And so the sickly spiral of concession proceeds downwards, on its way towards the complete abandonment of principle and its final destination: moral surrender, bankruptcy and dissolution.
Instead of winning through, by converting the electorate and even our political opponents to our beliefs by the cogency of our argument, the policy trimmers operate on the principle of "If you can't beat them, join them." What genius!
Perhaps it was Khan's respect for our laws that caused Griffin to commend him as a role model for Muslim youth, if indeed he did, as the article in the Indepenedent claims.
The following is an extract from the Wikipedia article on Khan, entitled "Amir Khan (boxer)."
Motoring offences and incidents
On 23 October 2007, Khan was convicted of careless driving at Bolton Crown Court and given a six-month driving ban and a £1000 fine. The conviction related to an incident that occurred on 2 March 2006 in the centre of Bolton, when Khan's car hit and broke the leg of Geoffrey Hatton, a pedestrian who was using a pelican crossing while Khan was travelling at 47 mph in a 30 mph zone and overtaking in the wrong lane.[51] He was cleared of dangerous driving but charged with the lesser offence of careless driving[52] and the pedestrian received an interim payment of £40,000.[53] Geoffrey Hatton never fully recovered from the incident and died soon afterwards with Khan passing on his sympathies.[54] Khan was also summoned to appear in court in Rochdale on 26 October 2007, accused of travelling in excess of 140 mph on the M62 motorway on 31 December 2006. He failed to appear and the case was adjourned to 2 November 2007, with the District Judge warning that he would issue an arrest warrant if the accused did not appear by then. He was also charged with not producing his driving licence and insurance certificate.[55] On 7 January 2008 Khan was fined £1000 and banned for 42 days for the speeding offence.[56] [Emphasis mine, AE].
On 12 July 2009, Khan was once again involved in a motoring incident, this time a collision with a young cyclist. However, no action will be taken against Khan after police concluded that he was not to blame for the incident in Moor Lane following interviews with a number of witnesses.[57]
Sunday, 28 August 2011
Desire the Right
Coat of arms of the Falkland Islands
The coat of arms of the Falkland Islands was granted to the Falkland Islands on 29 September, 1948.
The ship represents the Desire, the vessel in which the English sea-captain, John Davis, is reputed to have discovered the Falkland Islands in 1592.
The motto “Desire the Right” also refers to the ship’s name.
The ram represents sheep-farming, until recently the principal economic activity of the islands. The tussock grass shows the most notable native vegetation.
Source: Wikipedia article entitled "Coat of arms of the Falkland Islands."
Friday, 26 August 2011
Bring out the monkey!
This is the cover of an album by the American comedian and singer, Nick Griffin.
And this is a comment on the album that was posted to his web site.
"Bring out the Monkey
"by jenster1963
"Nick Griffin is the best when it comes to making cynicism hysterical. His views on everything from relationships, depression and everything in between will make you laugh til it hurts. My advice... download these tracks, listen to them numerous times then SEE HIM LIVE. He is really a top notch comedian and his facial expressions alone are worth the price of admission. Oh, and he has great hair!"
.
Such men make very bad rulers
218
Never act out of obstinacy, but with circumspection. All stubbornness is a tumour [on the mind], the monstrous daughter of passion, which has never done anything properly. There are some people who reduce everything to guerrilla warfare; the bandits of social intercourse, they would like everything they do to be a victory: they are incapable of peaceable behaviour. Such men make very bad rulers and governors because they turn the government into a guerrilla faction and make enemies of those whom they ought to have treated as their children: they try to bring strategy into everything and achieve everything as the fruits of their cunning; but when others have discovered their perverse disposition, they turn sour on them at once. Others try to upset their fantastic schemes, and in consequence they attain nothing. Such people are overburdened with vexations and all these help to mortify them. The judgement of these people is defective and, as likely as not, their hearts are in the wrong place; the way to deal with monsters like these is to fly to the Antipodes, the barbarity of which will be easier to put up with than the savagery of such men as these.
Baltasar Gracian, The Oracle: A Manual of the Art of Discretion
Never act out of obstinacy, but with circumspection. All stubbornness is a tumour [on the mind], the monstrous daughter of passion, which has never done anything properly. There are some people who reduce everything to guerrilla warfare; the bandits of social intercourse, they would like everything they do to be a victory: they are incapable of peaceable behaviour. Such men make very bad rulers and governors because they turn the government into a guerrilla faction and make enemies of those whom they ought to have treated as their children: they try to bring strategy into everything and achieve everything as the fruits of their cunning; but when others have discovered their perverse disposition, they turn sour on them at once. Others try to upset their fantastic schemes, and in consequence they attain nothing. Such people are overburdened with vexations and all these help to mortify them. The judgement of these people is defective and, as likely as not, their hearts are in the wrong place; the way to deal with monsters like these is to fly to the Antipodes, the barbarity of which will be easier to put up with than the savagery of such men as these.
Baltasar Gracian, The Oracle: A Manual of the Art of Discretion
Thursday, 25 August 2011
Fill up the cup
Proposals for a New Political Movement
Posted by admin, on 24 August, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
It is highly likely that the current leadership will drive the British National Party into the ground, so that it ceases to exist as an active political party and at that point it would be legitimate to consider an alternative without incurring the wrath of those members whose default position is to remain with the Party, Andrew Brons MEP has said.
In an exclusive article written for BNP Ideas, Mr Brons deals with the increasing restlessness of activists who are concerned about the future of British Nationalism.
The full article is as follows:
“We recently published a 2005 article by John Tyndall. In that article, he said that break-away parties hardly ever succeeded: the only exception being the British National Party. He was being a little too kind to his own break-away party.
The break-away ‘party’ started as the New National Front in 1980 and became the British National Party in 1982.
At the 1983 General Election, it fielded fewer candidates than the National Front and its average votes were inferior to those of the NF. The votes of both were small compared with the (unimpressive) votes of the National Front in 1979.
The National Front remained ahead of the British National Party until 1986, when the Griffin-Harrington clique decided to split the Party with a ridiculous purge that went disastrously wrong (or did it follow the Harrington strategy?)
This split left the ‘purged’ section of the NF with the greater number of members and supporters than the ‘rump’ party but the internal damage resulted in even the (larger) ‘purged’ section party being too small to be viable. It was only this that enabled the British National Party to overtake the National Front.
Most break-away parties: the National Party 1975/6; and the Constitutional Movement (1979); disappeared without trace even though they contained significant personnel in their ranks.
This is because of an iron law that governs major political divisions within small parties. Sometimes, the largest section disappears into the political wilderness.
The largest section of the remainder will remain with the ‘parent’ party, as long as that parent party continues to operate as a party. The third section goes with the new organisation.
The circumstances in which a new party might survive would be if:
1. The ‘parent party’ were to drive itself into the ground so that it ceased to be able to operate as a party or were even to be wound up officially;
2. The ‘parent party’ were to carry out such a ‘cull’ of members – particularly of leading members and activists that a new party would be the only alternative to inactivity. This could have been the case in 1986, if the Party as a whole had not already been severely depleted by earlier splits.
3. If there were to be a merger of several smaller organisations to form this new movement.
Further to these points:
1. Whilst an unincorporated association cannot be dissolved as the result of bankruptcy, it could be immobilised and subject to damaging control by its creditors.
This could happen as a result of one of the several civil legal actions facing the Party and/or different sections of the leadership. Criminal actions that the leadership is likely to face will destroy its remaining credibility.
It is certain that the present leadership has decided against any attempt to reunify the Party by appealing to those who have left it. If it continues on its present course, it will eventually be driven into the ground.
2. The ‘Party’ (i.e. the gang that controls it) has initiated, obviously contrived, actions against those of Nick Griffin’s employees who identified themselves as my supporters in the leadership election.
There have also been party membership disciplinary actions against isolated individuals who supported me, for alleged breach of the leadership campaign rules, whilst Nick Griffin has escaped charges for the 50 point smear e-mail, written by Griffin himself, that he blamed Martin Reynolds for distributing through the Party’s official website.
Indeed, Martin Reynolds (Griffin’s willing fall guy) has also escaped disciplinary action. There is no pretence of adherence to the Rule of Law.
There is one law for the Griffinites and a different law for the rest of us. We do not know when he will bring further bogus disciplinary actions against his perceived political enemies.
2. There are no credible Nationalist organisations with which a break-away party might merge. Whilst the National Front is small even compared with ‘Britain’s fastest shrinking party’, the two versions of the British Freedom Party are microscopic.
The English Democrats Party is not a Nationalist party at all but an organisation that promotes multi-racialism. It is no better than Harrington’s National Liberal Party and neither should be regarded as a home for genuine British Nationalists, despite the fact that the former, if not the latter, contains some misguided but genuine British Nationalists.
There are members and particularly activists who are already calling for a new party and others who point to them and say that we shall ‘miss the boat’ and ‘give the initiative’ to Britain First and even the multi-racialist EDP.
In any crowd, there are people who panic and run without thought. We are supposed to be rational human beings.
It is highly likely that the current leadership will drive the Party into the ground so that it ceases to exist as an active political party.
At that point, it would be legitimate to consider an alternative without incurring the wrath of those members whose default position is to remain with the Party, come what may.
However, to take that step when the Party is still functioning — more or less — would place the initiators in the category of being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.”
Posted by admin, on 24 August, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
It is highly likely that the current leadership will drive the British National Party into the ground, so that it ceases to exist as an active political party and at that point it would be legitimate to consider an alternative without incurring the wrath of those members whose default position is to remain with the Party, Andrew Brons MEP has said.
In an exclusive article written for BNP Ideas, Mr Brons deals with the increasing restlessness of activists who are concerned about the future of British Nationalism.
The full article is as follows:
“We recently published a 2005 article by John Tyndall. In that article, he said that break-away parties hardly ever succeeded: the only exception being the British National Party. He was being a little too kind to his own break-away party.
The break-away ‘party’ started as the New National Front in 1980 and became the British National Party in 1982.
At the 1983 General Election, it fielded fewer candidates than the National Front and its average votes were inferior to those of the NF. The votes of both were small compared with the (unimpressive) votes of the National Front in 1979.
The National Front remained ahead of the British National Party until 1986, when the Griffin-Harrington clique decided to split the Party with a ridiculous purge that went disastrously wrong (or did it follow the Harrington strategy?)
This split left the ‘purged’ section of the NF with the greater number of members and supporters than the ‘rump’ party but the internal damage resulted in even the (larger) ‘purged’ section party being too small to be viable. It was only this that enabled the British National Party to overtake the National Front.
Most break-away parties: the National Party 1975/6; and the Constitutional Movement (1979); disappeared without trace even though they contained significant personnel in their ranks.
This is because of an iron law that governs major political divisions within small parties. Sometimes, the largest section disappears into the political wilderness.
The largest section of the remainder will remain with the ‘parent’ party, as long as that parent party continues to operate as a party. The third section goes with the new organisation.
The circumstances in which a new party might survive would be if:
1. The ‘parent party’ were to drive itself into the ground so that it ceased to be able to operate as a party or were even to be wound up officially;
2. The ‘parent party’ were to carry out such a ‘cull’ of members – particularly of leading members and activists that a new party would be the only alternative to inactivity. This could have been the case in 1986, if the Party as a whole had not already been severely depleted by earlier splits.
3. If there were to be a merger of several smaller organisations to form this new movement.
Further to these points:
1. Whilst an unincorporated association cannot be dissolved as the result of bankruptcy, it could be immobilised and subject to damaging control by its creditors.
This could happen as a result of one of the several civil legal actions facing the Party and/or different sections of the leadership. Criminal actions that the leadership is likely to face will destroy its remaining credibility.
It is certain that the present leadership has decided against any attempt to reunify the Party by appealing to those who have left it. If it continues on its present course, it will eventually be driven into the ground.
2. The ‘Party’ (i.e. the gang that controls it) has initiated, obviously contrived, actions against those of Nick Griffin’s employees who identified themselves as my supporters in the leadership election.
There have also been party membership disciplinary actions against isolated individuals who supported me, for alleged breach of the leadership campaign rules, whilst Nick Griffin has escaped charges for the 50 point smear e-mail, written by Griffin himself, that he blamed Martin Reynolds for distributing through the Party’s official website.
Indeed, Martin Reynolds (Griffin’s willing fall guy) has also escaped disciplinary action. There is no pretence of adherence to the Rule of Law.
There is one law for the Griffinites and a different law for the rest of us. We do not know when he will bring further bogus disciplinary actions against his perceived political enemies.
2. There are no credible Nationalist organisations with which a break-away party might merge. Whilst the National Front is small even compared with ‘Britain’s fastest shrinking party’, the two versions of the British Freedom Party are microscopic.
The English Democrats Party is not a Nationalist party at all but an organisation that promotes multi-racialism. It is no better than Harrington’s National Liberal Party and neither should be regarded as a home for genuine British Nationalists, despite the fact that the former, if not the latter, contains some misguided but genuine British Nationalists.
There are members and particularly activists who are already calling for a new party and others who point to them and say that we shall ‘miss the boat’ and ‘give the initiative’ to Britain First and even the multi-racialist EDP.
In any crowd, there are people who panic and run without thought. We are supposed to be rational human beings.
It is highly likely that the current leadership will drive the Party into the ground so that it ceases to exist as an active political party.
At that point, it would be legitimate to consider an alternative without incurring the wrath of those members whose default position is to remain with the Party, come what may.
However, to take that step when the Party is still functioning — more or less — would place the initiators in the category of being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.”
Wednesday, 24 August 2011
BNP activists not liable for party debts
The following report from the Northern Echo gives the misleading impression that the grass roots of the British National Party could be held personally liable for the party's debts. This is not true. It is only if an individual has entered into a contract (usually but not always in writing) for the provision of goods or services on behalf of the party that they are liable for payment for such goods or services. It is disingenuous to describe Adam Walker as a "BNP activist" when he is the party's national organizer and was its staff manager at the time he contracted with Mark Collett for payment of what Mark was owed by the party.
One should always be careful what one signs.
BNP activist told he is liable for unpaid debt
8:00am Wednesday 24th August 2011
By Chris Fay
Reporter (Sedgefield)
A JUDGE has ruled a North-East BNP activist is personally liable for unpaid debts following a county court hearing which could have far reaching consequences for the cash-strapped party.
District Judge David Robertson ruled that Adam Walker, of Spennymoor, County Durham, must pay £21,000 out of his own pocket to the party’s former graphic designer, Mark Adrian Collett.
A case brought by Mr Collett against the BNP itself, thought to be £700,000 in debt, was dismissed, but the judgement against Mr Walker could still spell disaster for the party.
It paves the way for other creditors to take action against activists, who could be declared bankrupt and therefore barred or even stopped from holding political office at any level.
Durham County Court heard on Monday that Mr Collett, 30, was employed as the extreme far right party’s principal graphic designer and Mr Walker was a senior officer and staff manager.
The BNP was described as an unincorporated association with no corporate identity which left senior officers responsible for contracts.
An agreement was made on September 9, last year, between Mr Collett and both Mr Walker and the BNP, which Mr Collett said had been breached.
Mr Collett said he only received £750 from the BNP, instead of the £7,500 he claimed was due at the time and, as a result, said the full amount of £15,750 was now liable.
District Judge Robertson awarded Mr Collett £14,250 plus £7,333.60 costs against Mr Walker, but dismissed Mr Collett’s claim against the party.
The BNP’s money woes were highlighted last year when former chief fundraiser James Downson wrote letters to creditors, seen by The Northern Echo, offering 20 per cent settlements.
Mr Dowson told Newton Press, a printing firm in Newton Aycliffe, County Durham, which is owed £16,500 for printing its newsletters, that the finances were like a “shipwreck”.
Newton Press confirmed last night that the debt was still outstanding.
Mr Walker, 42, of Winchester Court, Spennymoor, said last night he respected the judge’s decision and would do his utmost to comply with the judgement.
He added: “The contract was signed in good faith as party manager and at that time that was my job. I’m not the treasurer and I don’t decide where the money goes.”
Mr Walker, who represented himself against a barrister and a senior solicitor, said he was grateful the judge dismissed an application for the senior solicitor’s fees.
The former teacher said: “To anybody else in a similar position, I would say they should be very cautious about legal fees.”
Northern Echo
One should always be careful what one signs.
BNP activist told he is liable for unpaid debt
8:00am Wednesday 24th August 2011
By Chris Fay
Reporter (Sedgefield)
A JUDGE has ruled a North-East BNP activist is personally liable for unpaid debts following a county court hearing which could have far reaching consequences for the cash-strapped party.
District Judge David Robertson ruled that Adam Walker, of Spennymoor, County Durham, must pay £21,000 out of his own pocket to the party’s former graphic designer, Mark Adrian Collett.
A case brought by Mr Collett against the BNP itself, thought to be £700,000 in debt, was dismissed, but the judgement against Mr Walker could still spell disaster for the party.
It paves the way for other creditors to take action against activists, who could be declared bankrupt and therefore barred or even stopped from holding political office at any level.
Durham County Court heard on Monday that Mr Collett, 30, was employed as the extreme far right party’s principal graphic designer and Mr Walker was a senior officer and staff manager.
The BNP was described as an unincorporated association with no corporate identity which left senior officers responsible for contracts.
An agreement was made on September 9, last year, between Mr Collett and both Mr Walker and the BNP, which Mr Collett said had been breached.
Mr Collett said he only received £750 from the BNP, instead of the £7,500 he claimed was due at the time and, as a result, said the full amount of £15,750 was now liable.
District Judge Robertson awarded Mr Collett £14,250 plus £7,333.60 costs against Mr Walker, but dismissed Mr Collett’s claim against the party.
The BNP’s money woes were highlighted last year when former chief fundraiser James Downson wrote letters to creditors, seen by The Northern Echo, offering 20 per cent settlements.
Mr Dowson told Newton Press, a printing firm in Newton Aycliffe, County Durham, which is owed £16,500 for printing its newsletters, that the finances were like a “shipwreck”.
Newton Press confirmed last night that the debt was still outstanding.
Mr Walker, 42, of Winchester Court, Spennymoor, said last night he respected the judge’s decision and would do his utmost to comply with the judgement.
He added: “The contract was signed in good faith as party manager and at that time that was my job. I’m not the treasurer and I don’t decide where the money goes.”
Mr Walker, who represented himself against a barrister and a senior solicitor, said he was grateful the judge dismissed an application for the senior solicitor’s fees.
The former teacher said: “To anybody else in a similar position, I would say they should be very cautious about legal fees.”
Northern Echo
Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Don't mention 'the Chosen People'
PC Monster Turns on Dr Frankenstein as Guardian Newspaper Accused of Anti-Semitism for Mentioning Jews
Posted by admin, on 23 August, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
The extent to which freedom of speech and the right to objectively report the news is being curtailed has been highlighted with an attack on the far left Guardian newspaper for “anti-Semitism” merely for mentioning Jews in relation to the recent riots in London.
According to an article by Adam Levick on “CiF Watch,” which describes its mission is to “monitor and expose antisemitism[sic] on the Guardian newspaper’s ‘Comment is Free’ blog,” the Guardian newspaper is crawling with hidden anti-Semites who use that paper as a means to spread anti-Jewish sentiment.
The reason for Mr Levick’s attack was a somewhat inconvenient report in a Guardian report on the fact that members of Tottenham’s Hasidic Jewish community jeered at policemen battling to contain the riots.
In the Guardian report, written by journalist Paul Lewis, dated 8 August, it was stated that “The make-up of the rioters was racially mixed. Most were men or boys, some apparently as young as 10….But families and other local residents, including some from Tottenham’s Hasidic Jewish community, also gathered to watch and jeer at police.”
In reality, as live BBC coverage showed, it seemed that the crowd was almost completely Hasidic Jewish in makeup.
According to CIF Watch, the Guardian report “represents a flagrant violation of the Guardian’s Editorial Code” because it dared mention the fact that Hasidic Jews jeered policemen.
Nowhere did the Guardian say that “all Jews” jeered the police, and in fact the journalist went out of his way to say that other people also joined in.
So why the big fuss over a sentence in one of the most leftwing newspapers in Britain?
Is the Guardian a secret version of Der Sturmer, waiting for the day to peel back its liberal disguise? Not likely.
The reality is that the far left, in their mania to make any form of racial references illegal, have now been hoist on their own petards. They have created such a climate of fear about mentioning anything not one hundred percent completely politically correct, that even mentioning interesting, peculiar and almost inexplicable facts such as Hasidic Jews in London jeering police, is deemed to be a “racist” act.
One of the first tasks of any revived nationalist government must be the abolition of the laws and culture which has made it illegal to speak openly on any topic.
Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed to free British citizens by hard-won fights and tradition: we dare not let it slip away under the boots of the crazed PC brigade.
Posted by admin, on 23 August, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site
The extent to which freedom of speech and the right to objectively report the news is being curtailed has been highlighted with an attack on the far left Guardian newspaper for “anti-Semitism” merely for mentioning Jews in relation to the recent riots in London.
According to an article by Adam Levick on “CiF Watch,” which describes its mission is to “monitor and expose antisemitism[sic] on the Guardian newspaper’s ‘Comment is Free’ blog,” the Guardian newspaper is crawling with hidden anti-Semites who use that paper as a means to spread anti-Jewish sentiment.
The reason for Mr Levick’s attack was a somewhat inconvenient report in a Guardian report on the fact that members of Tottenham’s Hasidic Jewish community jeered at policemen battling to contain the riots.
In the Guardian report, written by journalist Paul Lewis, dated 8 August, it was stated that “The make-up of the rioters was racially mixed. Most were men or boys, some apparently as young as 10….But families and other local residents, including some from Tottenham’s Hasidic Jewish community, also gathered to watch and jeer at police.”
In reality, as live BBC coverage showed, it seemed that the crowd was almost completely Hasidic Jewish in makeup.
According to CIF Watch, the Guardian report “represents a flagrant violation of the Guardian’s Editorial Code” because it dared mention the fact that Hasidic Jews jeered policemen.
Nowhere did the Guardian say that “all Jews” jeered the police, and in fact the journalist went out of his way to say that other people also joined in.
So why the big fuss over a sentence in one of the most leftwing newspapers in Britain?
Is the Guardian a secret version of Der Sturmer, waiting for the day to peel back its liberal disguise? Not likely.
The reality is that the far left, in their mania to make any form of racial references illegal, have now been hoist on their own petards. They have created such a climate of fear about mentioning anything not one hundred percent completely politically correct, that even mentioning interesting, peculiar and almost inexplicable facts such as Hasidic Jews in London jeering police, is deemed to be a “racist” act.
One of the first tasks of any revived nationalist government must be the abolition of the laws and culture which has made it illegal to speak openly on any topic.
Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed to free British citizens by hard-won fights and tradition: we dare not let it slip away under the boots of the crazed PC brigade.
Audi alter partem
Acknowledgements to the British Democracy Forum for the following statement, which purports (and seems likely) to be a public statement by Mr Michael Stewart, in reply to certain comments made about him by Eddy Butler on his blog.
As is well known within the British National Party, this blog believes in free speech, within the parameters of the law, and those of good taste. It also believes in justice, a part of which is, of course, the right of reply. There are always two sides to every story and it is important to hear both before coming to a judgement. If the leadership of the BNP had understood these basic principles, for which our people and our country have been famed throughout the world, and understanding, honoured them, much of the bitterness of the last twelve months, which has damaged and continues to damage our party so badly, might have been avoided.
That it has not been avoided must, in the final analysis, be the responsibility of one man. The buck always stops with the leader, and especially is this the case in a party whose constitution gives that leader the powers of a virtual dictator, as ours does, notwithstanding the latest, yet-to-be- implemented, 'reforms'.
Mr Stewart invites members and supporters to resume their activism on behalf of the party. But where is Mr Griffin's conciliatory gesture? Where is the Chairman's attempt at reconciliation?
I shall not comment further, other than to say, regarding Mr Stewart's remarks about Mr Brons' alleged unwillingness to exploit his public office of trust as an MEP for party advantage: one may readily understand and sympathize with Mr Brons' refusal to bow to pressure from the party leadership to employ a person or persons whom that leadership might for the time being have found it expedient to have employed. What is the old saying? "Once bitten, twice shy."
Don't Be Shy
Eddy Butler has been gracious enough to talk about me on his blog. In recent weeks, I have to confess I've not visited his blog in some time although it used to be quite interesting. This post was pointed out to me and has made me chuckle.
People who know me are probably already aware of all this but just so we're clear:
I'm clearly no "web genius" and in fact have made it a point to leave the details of web technology to people, who are interested in it.
Certainly I did go off in a huff in February of this year after an argument with Clive Jefferson at the Wigton office. It took me a few months to calm down although I remained in touch with my BNP friends.
The discussion around whether I would be given a paid position occurred in the previous September and October. This fell through in November, three months before the argument with Clive. I have never been an employee of the Party or either MEP and money certainly had no part in my decision to avoid Clive for a while.
Ed says about me "he is one of those new members of the BNP who, through observation of some other people’s behaviour, thinks that he is deserving of immediate payment for whatever he does." Nothing could be further from the truth and I have been an unpaid activist for several years, unlike Mr Butler who had a £40k salary and unlimited mileage. Bear in mind the Party approached ME about a position, not the other way round and as I've said before on this forum, there were no hard feelings on either side when the plan to employ me failed.
A paid position was not possible, apparently because of Mr Brons' reluctance to spend European budgets. Instead, he preferred to return the money to Europe at the end of each year. Opinions may vary, but I have the personal view that a good Nationalist, once elected to the European Parliament, must remain strictly within the law and must be seen to do so, but should also wring every possible advantage for the home Party from the position. Mr Brons does not appear to hold that opinion.
Although at the time, working for the MEP seemed to have potential, I have no current aspirations of taking a job with the Party or with either MEP.
I have no intentions of taking over Adam Walker's position. Anybody who sees the effort he puts in seven days a week for very little money and even less thanks would not want his job.
Eddy once described himself as having experience of databases. After he provided the Goresbrook spreadsheets, it became clear that this was not the case and his small amount of work was effectively worthless. He may have tried hard, though, I have no idea.
The only other time apart from Goresbrook, that I can remember seeing Eddy was at the High Court last year during the CEHR case, when he used the back door to arrive and leave, presumably to avoid the BNP members out front.
I did attend the Court with Adam yesterday. If he needed any help I could provide, it was better I was there in person than miles away from the Court. For the same reason, I also attended his recent appearance over the allegations of criminal damage. Compare this to Ed's presence at the High Court, for which I hope he was not being paid by Mr Brons, where his only motivation for going appeared to be to gloat.
Eddy calls me "an enthusiastic Griffinite attack dog on one of those internet chat forums that people like him populate." He means this one, so if you're reading this, do take note of how he feels about you as a BDF user. Does that also include Jelly-Wobble? Also, anybody, with whom I have crossed swords on this forum can presumably look back and see that I always do my best to be well-mannered and to avoid aggression. During the recent leadership challenge, I also publicly asked others on both sides to do the same.
"I know a little of Stewart and I have direct knowledge of his low and degraded character." Yes, I did complete a factual witness statement following a meeting with Eddy, where he was repeatedly offered a truce over his blog and was formally asked to cease his attacks on the Party. He would not remove or tone down his blog. I have not discussed this matter since out of respect for Eddy's privacy but with his permission, I would be willing to post the statement I made for people to make up their own minds as to whether they think me "low and degraded."
Personally, I see Eddy's blog as negative and destructive but that is clearly only my own view and this did not appear in the statement. I would like to see hatchets buried and Nationalists working together and see no part in that vision for blogs such as Eddy's.
"Stewart will be licking his lips at the prospect of getting himself onto Nick Griffin’s Euro Payroll" - time will tell, obviously, but I'm quite happy to be an unpaid BNP activist just like everybody else, who cares for their country.
Eddy mentions my "erstwhile amigo Adam Walker" - Adam and I remained friends even during my months of self-imposed isolation over the Clive argument. In fact Adam and his brother Mark are two of my strongest reasons for returning to activism. People may not always agree with the Walker Brothers, but I see what they sacrifice for the sake of their own people. Little people may stand back and call them names and by giving over so much of today's blog to having a pop at me, Eddy has paid me a compliment. I just wish he'd done it when his blog still meant something.
•I am not an important figure in the Party but I want my country back.
•I am somebody, who fell out with Clive but is able to see the bigger picture and come back to the BNP banner even though I do not see anybody in the Party or even the Party itself through any rose-tinted spectacles.
•I am somebody, who, to coin the phrase, would rather light a candle than curse the darkness and am willing to forget my differences and be active for the Party and for the good of our people.
Whilst bitter old Eddy is sat at home, waiting to see if the English Dems will have him, we're out again in the North East on Saturday with activists new, old and, like me, returning. If anybody wants to come along and help with the European Petition and actually spread a positive message, don't be shy.
As is well known within the British National Party, this blog believes in free speech, within the parameters of the law, and those of good taste. It also believes in justice, a part of which is, of course, the right of reply. There are always two sides to every story and it is important to hear both before coming to a judgement. If the leadership of the BNP had understood these basic principles, for which our people and our country have been famed throughout the world, and understanding, honoured them, much of the bitterness of the last twelve months, which has damaged and continues to damage our party so badly, might have been avoided.
That it has not been avoided must, in the final analysis, be the responsibility of one man. The buck always stops with the leader, and especially is this the case in a party whose constitution gives that leader the powers of a virtual dictator, as ours does, notwithstanding the latest, yet-to-be- implemented, 'reforms'.
Mr Stewart invites members and supporters to resume their activism on behalf of the party. But where is Mr Griffin's conciliatory gesture? Where is the Chairman's attempt at reconciliation?
I shall not comment further, other than to say, regarding Mr Stewart's remarks about Mr Brons' alleged unwillingness to exploit his public office of trust as an MEP for party advantage: one may readily understand and sympathize with Mr Brons' refusal to bow to pressure from the party leadership to employ a person or persons whom that leadership might for the time being have found it expedient to have employed. What is the old saying? "Once bitten, twice shy."
Don't Be Shy
Eddy Butler has been gracious enough to talk about me on his blog. In recent weeks, I have to confess I've not visited his blog in some time although it used to be quite interesting. This post was pointed out to me and has made me chuckle.
People who know me are probably already aware of all this but just so we're clear:
I'm clearly no "web genius" and in fact have made it a point to leave the details of web technology to people, who are interested in it.
Certainly I did go off in a huff in February of this year after an argument with Clive Jefferson at the Wigton office. It took me a few months to calm down although I remained in touch with my BNP friends.
The discussion around whether I would be given a paid position occurred in the previous September and October. This fell through in November, three months before the argument with Clive. I have never been an employee of the Party or either MEP and money certainly had no part in my decision to avoid Clive for a while.
Ed says about me "he is one of those new members of the BNP who, through observation of some other people’s behaviour, thinks that he is deserving of immediate payment for whatever he does." Nothing could be further from the truth and I have been an unpaid activist for several years, unlike Mr Butler who had a £40k salary and unlimited mileage. Bear in mind the Party approached ME about a position, not the other way round and as I've said before on this forum, there were no hard feelings on either side when the plan to employ me failed.
A paid position was not possible, apparently because of Mr Brons' reluctance to spend European budgets. Instead, he preferred to return the money to Europe at the end of each year. Opinions may vary, but I have the personal view that a good Nationalist, once elected to the European Parliament, must remain strictly within the law and must be seen to do so, but should also wring every possible advantage for the home Party from the position. Mr Brons does not appear to hold that opinion.
Although at the time, working for the MEP seemed to have potential, I have no current aspirations of taking a job with the Party or with either MEP.
I have no intentions of taking over Adam Walker's position. Anybody who sees the effort he puts in seven days a week for very little money and even less thanks would not want his job.
Eddy once described himself as having experience of databases. After he provided the Goresbrook spreadsheets, it became clear that this was not the case and his small amount of work was effectively worthless. He may have tried hard, though, I have no idea.
The only other time apart from Goresbrook, that I can remember seeing Eddy was at the High Court last year during the CEHR case, when he used the back door to arrive and leave, presumably to avoid the BNP members out front.
I did attend the Court with Adam yesterday. If he needed any help I could provide, it was better I was there in person than miles away from the Court. For the same reason, I also attended his recent appearance over the allegations of criminal damage. Compare this to Ed's presence at the High Court, for which I hope he was not being paid by Mr Brons, where his only motivation for going appeared to be to gloat.
Eddy calls me "an enthusiastic Griffinite attack dog on one of those internet chat forums that people like him populate." He means this one, so if you're reading this, do take note of how he feels about you as a BDF user. Does that also include Jelly-Wobble? Also, anybody, with whom I have crossed swords on this forum can presumably look back and see that I always do my best to be well-mannered and to avoid aggression. During the recent leadership challenge, I also publicly asked others on both sides to do the same.
"I know a little of Stewart and I have direct knowledge of his low and degraded character." Yes, I did complete a factual witness statement following a meeting with Eddy, where he was repeatedly offered a truce over his blog and was formally asked to cease his attacks on the Party. He would not remove or tone down his blog. I have not discussed this matter since out of respect for Eddy's privacy but with his permission, I would be willing to post the statement I made for people to make up their own minds as to whether they think me "low and degraded."
Personally, I see Eddy's blog as negative and destructive but that is clearly only my own view and this did not appear in the statement. I would like to see hatchets buried and Nationalists working together and see no part in that vision for blogs such as Eddy's.
"Stewart will be licking his lips at the prospect of getting himself onto Nick Griffin’s Euro Payroll" - time will tell, obviously, but I'm quite happy to be an unpaid BNP activist just like everybody else, who cares for their country.
Eddy mentions my "erstwhile amigo Adam Walker" - Adam and I remained friends even during my months of self-imposed isolation over the Clive argument. In fact Adam and his brother Mark are two of my strongest reasons for returning to activism. People may not always agree with the Walker Brothers, but I see what they sacrifice for the sake of their own people. Little people may stand back and call them names and by giving over so much of today's blog to having a pop at me, Eddy has paid me a compliment. I just wish he'd done it when his blog still meant something.
•I am not an important figure in the Party but I want my country back.
•I am somebody, who fell out with Clive but is able to see the bigger picture and come back to the BNP banner even though I do not see anybody in the Party or even the Party itself through any rose-tinted spectacles.
•I am somebody, who, to coin the phrase, would rather light a candle than curse the darkness and am willing to forget my differences and be active for the Party and for the good of our people.
Whilst bitter old Eddy is sat at home, waiting to see if the English Dems will have him, we're out again in the North East on Saturday with activists new, old and, like me, returning. If anybody wants to come along and help with the European Petition and actually spread a positive message, don't be shy.
Monday, 22 August 2011
Ringing the changes
Oranges and lemons,
Say the bells of St. Clement's.
You owe me five farthings,
Say the bells of St. Martin's.
When will you pay me?
Say the bells of Old Bailey.
When I grow rich,
Say the bells of Shoreditch.
When will that be?
Say the bells of Stepney.
I do not know,
Says the great bell of Bow.
Here comes a candle to light you to bed,
And here comes a chopper to chop off your head!
Say the bells of St. Clement's.
You owe me five farthings,
Say the bells of St. Martin's.
When will you pay me?
Say the bells of Old Bailey.
When I grow rich,
Say the bells of Shoreditch.
When will that be?
Say the bells of Stepney.
I do not know,
Says the great bell of Bow.
Here comes a candle to light you to bed,
And here comes a chopper to chop off your head!
Sunday, 21 August 2011
Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech
I would be presumptuous, indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this were but a measuring of ability; but this is not a contest among persons. The humblest citizen in all the land when clad in the armor of a righteous cause is stronger than all the whole hosts of error that they can bring. I come to speak to you in defense of a cause as holy as the cause of liberty—the cause of humanity. When this debate is concluded, a motion will be made to lay upon the table the resolution offered in commendation of the administration and also the resolution in condemnation of the administration. I shall object to bringing this question down to a level of persons. The individual is but an atom; he is born, he acts, he dies; but principles are eternal; and this has been a contest of principle.
Never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed such a contest as that through which we have passed. Never before in the history of American politics has a great issue been fought out as this issue has been by the voters themselves.
On the 4th of March, 1895, a few Democrats, most of them members of Congress, issued an address to the Democrats of the nation asserting that the money question was the paramount issue of the hour; asserting also the right of a majority of the Democratic Party to control the position of the party on this paramount issue; concluding with the request that all believers in free coinage of silver in the Democratic Party should organize and take charge of and control the policy of the Democratic Party. Three months later, at Memphis, an organization was perfected, and the silver Democrats went forth openly and boldly and courageously proclaiming their belief and declaring that if successful they would crystallize in a platform the declaration which they had made; and then began the conflict with a zeal approaching the zeal which inspired the crusaders who followed Peter the Hermit. Our silver Democrats went forth from victory unto victory, until they are assembled now, not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up the judgment rendered by the plain people of this country.
But in this contest, brother has been arrayed against brother, and father against son. The warmest ties of love and acquaintance and association have been disregarded. Old leaders have been cast aside when they refused to give expression to the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause of freedom. Thus has the contest been waged, and we have assembled here under as binding and solemn instructions as were ever fastened upon the representatives of a people.
We do not come as individuals. Why, as individuals we might have been glad to compliment the gentleman from New York [Senator Hill], but we knew that the people for whom we speak would never be willing to put him in a position where he could thwart the will of the Democratic Party. I say it was not a question of persons; it was a question of principle; and it is not with gladness, my friends, that we find ourselves brought into conflict with those who are now arrayed on the other side. The gentleman who just preceded me [Governor Russell] spoke of the old state of Massachusetts. Let me assure him that not one person in all this convention entertains the least hostility to the people of the state of Massachusetts.
But we stand here representing people who are the equals before the law of the largest cities in the state of Massachusetts. When you come before us and tell us that we shall disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your action. We say to you that you have made too limited in its application the definition of a businessman. The man who is employed for wages is as much a businessman as his employer. The attorney in a country town is as much a businessman as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis. The merchant at the crossroads store is as much a businessman as the merchant of New York. The farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, begins in the spring and toils all summer, and by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of this country creates wealth, is as much a businessman as the man who goes upon the Board of Trade and bets upon the price of grain. The miners who go 1,000 feet into the earth or climb 2,000 feet upon the cliffs and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured in the channels of trade are as much businessmen as the few financial magnates who in a backroom corner the money of the world.
We come to speak for this broader class of businessmen. Ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic Coast; but those hardy pioneers who braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose—those pioneers away out there, rearing their children near to nature’s heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds—out there where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their children and churches where they praise their Creator, and the cemeteries where sleep the ashes of their dead—are as deserving of the consideration of this party as any people in this country.
It is for these that we speak. We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest. We are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned. We have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded. We have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came.
We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them!
The gentleman from Wisconsin has said he fears a Robespierre. My friend, in this land of the free you need fear no tyrant who will spring up from among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of aggregated wealth.
They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which rest Democracy are as everlasting as the hills; but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen and we are attempting to meet those conditions. They tell us that the income tax ought not to be brought in here; that is not a new idea. They criticize us for our criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States. My friends, we have made no criticism. We have simply called attention to what you know. If you want criticisms, read the dissenting opinions of the Court. That will give you criticisms.
They say we passed an unconstitutional law. I deny it. The income tax was not unconstitutional when it was passed. It was not unconstitutional when it went before the Supreme Court for the first time. It did not become unconstitutional until one judge changed his mind; and we cannot be expected to know when a judge will change his mind.
The income tax is a just law. It simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the backs of the people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man who is not willing to pay his share of the burden of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.
He says that we are opposing the national bank currency. It is true. If you will read what Thomas Benton said, you will find that he said that in searching history he could find but one parallel to Andrew Jackson. That was Cicero, who destroyed the conspiracies of Cataline and saved Rome. He did for Rome what Jackson did when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America.
We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe it is a part of sovereignty and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than can the power to make penal statutes or levy laws for taxation.
Mr. Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have a different opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business.
They complain about the plank which declares against the life tenure in office. They have tried to strain it to mean that which it does not mean. What we oppose in that plank is the life tenure that is being built up in Washington which establishes an office-holding class and excludes from participation in the benefits the humbler members of our society.
Let me call attention to two or three great things. The gentleman from New York says that he will propose an amendment providing that this change in our law shall not affect contracts which, according to the present laws, are made payable in gold. But if he means to say that we cannot change our monetary system without protecting those who have loaned money before the change was made, I want to ask him where, in law or in morals, he can find authority for not protecting the debtors when the act of 1873 was passed when he now insists that we must protect the creditor. He says he also wants to amend this platform so as to provide that if we fail to maintain the parity within a year that we will then suspend the coinage of silver. We reply that when we advocate a thing which we believe will be successful we are not compelled to raise a doubt as to our own sincerity by trying to show what we will do if we are wrong.
I ask him, if he will apply his logic to us, why he does not apply it to himself. He says that he wants this country to try to secure an international agreement. Why doesn’t he tell us what he is going to do if they fail to secure an international agreement. There is more reason for him to do that than for us to expect to fail to maintain the parity. They have tried for thirty years—thirty years—to secure an international agreement, and those are waiting for it most patiently who don’t want it at all.
Now, my friends, let me come to the great paramount issue. If they ask us here why it is we say more on the money question than we say upon the tariff question, I reply that if protection has slain its thousands the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us why we did not embody all these things in our platform which we believe, we reply to them that when we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and that until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished.
Why is it that within three months such a change has come over the sentiments of the country? Three months ago, when it was confidently asserted that those who believed in the gold standard would frame our platforms and nominate our candidates, even the advocates of the gold standard did not think that we could elect a President; but they had good reasons for the suspicion, because there is scarcely a state here today asking for the gold standard that is not within the absolute control of the Republican Party.
But note the change. Mr. McKinley was nominated at St. Louis upon a platform that declared for the maintenance of the gold standard until it should be changed into bimetallism by an international agreement. Mr. McKinley was the most popular man among the Republicans ; and everybody three months ago in the Republican Party prophesied his election. How is it today? Why, that man who used to boast that he looked like Napoleon, that man shudders today when he thinks that he was nominated on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. Not only that, but as he listens he can hear with ever increasing distinctness the sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely shores of St. Helena.
Why this change? Ah, my friends. is not the change evident to anyone who will look at the matter? It is because no private character, however pure, no personal popularity, however great, can protect from the avenging wrath of an indignant people the man who will either declare that he is in favor of fastening the gold standard upon this people, or who is willing to surrender the right of self-government and place legislative control in the hands of foreign potentates and powers.
We go forth confident that we shall win. Why? Because upon the paramount issue in this campaign there is not a spot of ground upon which the enemy will dare to challenge battle. Why, if they tell us that the gold standard is a good thing, we point to their platform and tell them that their platform pledges the party to get rid of a gold standard and substitute bimetallism. If the gold standard is a good thing, why try to get rid of it? If the gold standard, and I might call your attention to the fact that some of the very people who are in this convention today and who tell you that we ought to declare in favor of international bimetallism and thereby declare that the gold standard is wrong and that the principles of bimetallism are better—these very people four months ago were open and avowed advocates of the gold standard and telling us that we could not legislate two metals together even with all the world.
I want to suggest this truth, that if the gold standard is a good thing we ought to declare in favor of its retention and not in favor of abandoning it; and if the gold standard is a bad thing, why should we wait until some other nations are willing to help us to let it go?
Here is the line of battle. We care not upon which issue they force the fight. We are prepared to meet them on either issue or on both. If they tell us that the gold standard is the standard of civilization, we reply to them that this, the most enlightened of all nations of the earth, has never declared for a gold standard, and both the parties this year are declaring against it. If the gold standard is the standard of civilization, why, my friends, should we not have it? So if they come to meet us on that, we can present the history of our nation. More than that, we can tell them this, that they will search the pages of history in vain to find a single instance in which the common people of any land ever declared themselves in favor of a gold standard. They can find where the holders of fixed investments have.
Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between the idle holders of idle capital and the struggling masses who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country; and my friends, it is simply a question that we shall decide upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight. Upon the side of the idle holders of idle capital, or upon the side of the struggling masses? That is the question that the party must answer first; and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic Party, as described by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic Party.
There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union.
I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have.
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
Source: Official Proceedings of the Democratic National Convention Held in Chicago, Illinois, July 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, 1896, (Logansport, Indiana, 1896), 226–234. Reprinted in The Annals of America, Vol. 12, 1895–1904: Populism, Imperialism, and Reform (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1968), 100–105.
Never before in the history of this country has there been witnessed such a contest as that through which we have passed. Never before in the history of American politics has a great issue been fought out as this issue has been by the voters themselves.
On the 4th of March, 1895, a few Democrats, most of them members of Congress, issued an address to the Democrats of the nation asserting that the money question was the paramount issue of the hour; asserting also the right of a majority of the Democratic Party to control the position of the party on this paramount issue; concluding with the request that all believers in free coinage of silver in the Democratic Party should organize and take charge of and control the policy of the Democratic Party. Three months later, at Memphis, an organization was perfected, and the silver Democrats went forth openly and boldly and courageously proclaiming their belief and declaring that if successful they would crystallize in a platform the declaration which they had made; and then began the conflict with a zeal approaching the zeal which inspired the crusaders who followed Peter the Hermit. Our silver Democrats went forth from victory unto victory, until they are assembled now, not to discuss, not to debate, but to enter up the judgment rendered by the plain people of this country.
But in this contest, brother has been arrayed against brother, and father against son. The warmest ties of love and acquaintance and association have been disregarded. Old leaders have been cast aside when they refused to give expression to the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders have sprung up to give direction to this cause of freedom. Thus has the contest been waged, and we have assembled here under as binding and solemn instructions as were ever fastened upon the representatives of a people.
We do not come as individuals. Why, as individuals we might have been glad to compliment the gentleman from New York [Senator Hill], but we knew that the people for whom we speak would never be willing to put him in a position where he could thwart the will of the Democratic Party. I say it was not a question of persons; it was a question of principle; and it is not with gladness, my friends, that we find ourselves brought into conflict with those who are now arrayed on the other side. The gentleman who just preceded me [Governor Russell] spoke of the old state of Massachusetts. Let me assure him that not one person in all this convention entertains the least hostility to the people of the state of Massachusetts.
But we stand here representing people who are the equals before the law of the largest cities in the state of Massachusetts. When you come before us and tell us that we shall disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests by your action. We say to you that you have made too limited in its application the definition of a businessman. The man who is employed for wages is as much a businessman as his employer. The attorney in a country town is as much a businessman as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis. The merchant at the crossroads store is as much a businessman as the merchant of New York. The farmer who goes forth in the morning and toils all day, begins in the spring and toils all summer, and by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of this country creates wealth, is as much a businessman as the man who goes upon the Board of Trade and bets upon the price of grain. The miners who go 1,000 feet into the earth or climb 2,000 feet upon the cliffs and bring forth from their hiding places the precious metals to be poured in the channels of trade are as much businessmen as the few financial magnates who in a backroom corner the money of the world.
We come to speak for this broader class of businessmen. Ah, my friends, we say not one word against those who live upon the Atlantic Coast; but those hardy pioneers who braved all the dangers of the wilderness, who have made the desert to blossom as the rose—those pioneers away out there, rearing their children near to nature’s heart, where they can mingle their voices with the voices of the birds—out there where they have erected schoolhouses for the education of their children and churches where they praise their Creator, and the cemeteries where sleep the ashes of their dead—are as deserving of the consideration of this party as any people in this country.
It is for these that we speak. We do not come as aggressors. Our war is not a war of conquest. We are fighting in the defense of our homes, our families, and posterity. We have petitioned, and our petitions have been scorned. We have entreated, and our entreaties have been disregarded. We have begged, and they have mocked when our calamity came.
We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them!
The gentleman from Wisconsin has said he fears a Robespierre. My friend, in this land of the free you need fear no tyrant who will spring up from among the people. What we need is an Andrew Jackson to stand as Jackson stood, against the encroachments of aggregated wealth.
They tell us that this platform was made to catch votes. We reply to them that changing conditions make new issues; that the principles upon which rest Democracy are as everlasting as the hills; but that they must be applied to new conditions as they arise. Conditions have arisen and we are attempting to meet those conditions. They tell us that the income tax ought not to be brought in here; that is not a new idea. They criticize us for our criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States. My friends, we have made no criticism. We have simply called attention to what you know. If you want criticisms, read the dissenting opinions of the Court. That will give you criticisms.
They say we passed an unconstitutional law. I deny it. The income tax was not unconstitutional when it was passed. It was not unconstitutional when it went before the Supreme Court for the first time. It did not become unconstitutional until one judge changed his mind; and we cannot be expected to know when a judge will change his mind.
The income tax is a just law. It simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the backs of the people. I am in favor of an income tax. When I find a man who is not willing to pay his share of the burden of the government which protects him, I find a man who is unworthy to enjoy the blessings of a government like ours.
He says that we are opposing the national bank currency. It is true. If you will read what Thomas Benton said, you will find that he said that in searching history he could find but one parallel to Andrew Jackson. That was Cicero, who destroyed the conspiracies of Cataline and saved Rome. He did for Rome what Jackson did when he destroyed the bank conspiracy and saved America.
We say in our platform that we believe that the right to coin money and issue money is a function of government. We believe it. We believe it is a part of sovereignty and can no more with safety be delegated to private individuals than can the power to make penal statutes or levy laws for taxation.
Mr. Jefferson, who was once regarded as good Democratic authority, seems to have a different opinion from the gentleman who has addressed us on the part of the minority. Those who are opposed to this proposition tell us that the issue of paper money is a function of the bank and that the government ought to go out of the banking business. I stand with Jefferson rather than with them, and tell them, as he did, that the issue of money is a function of the government and that the banks should go out of the governing business.
They complain about the plank which declares against the life tenure in office. They have tried to strain it to mean that which it does not mean. What we oppose in that plank is the life tenure that is being built up in Washington which establishes an office-holding class and excludes from participation in the benefits the humbler members of our society.
Let me call attention to two or three great things. The gentleman from New York says that he will propose an amendment providing that this change in our law shall not affect contracts which, according to the present laws, are made payable in gold. But if he means to say that we cannot change our monetary system without protecting those who have loaned money before the change was made, I want to ask him where, in law or in morals, he can find authority for not protecting the debtors when the act of 1873 was passed when he now insists that we must protect the creditor. He says he also wants to amend this platform so as to provide that if we fail to maintain the parity within a year that we will then suspend the coinage of silver. We reply that when we advocate a thing which we believe will be successful we are not compelled to raise a doubt as to our own sincerity by trying to show what we will do if we are wrong.
I ask him, if he will apply his logic to us, why he does not apply it to himself. He says that he wants this country to try to secure an international agreement. Why doesn’t he tell us what he is going to do if they fail to secure an international agreement. There is more reason for him to do that than for us to expect to fail to maintain the parity. They have tried for thirty years—thirty years—to secure an international agreement, and those are waiting for it most patiently who don’t want it at all.
Now, my friends, let me come to the great paramount issue. If they ask us here why it is we say more on the money question than we say upon the tariff question, I reply that if protection has slain its thousands the gold standard has slain its tens of thousands. If they ask us why we did not embody all these things in our platform which we believe, we reply to them that when we have restored the money of the Constitution, all other necessary reforms will be possible, and that until that is done there is no reform that can be accomplished.
Why is it that within three months such a change has come over the sentiments of the country? Three months ago, when it was confidently asserted that those who believed in the gold standard would frame our platforms and nominate our candidates, even the advocates of the gold standard did not think that we could elect a President; but they had good reasons for the suspicion, because there is scarcely a state here today asking for the gold standard that is not within the absolute control of the Republican Party.
But note the change. Mr. McKinley was nominated at St. Louis upon a platform that declared for the maintenance of the gold standard until it should be changed into bimetallism by an international agreement. Mr. McKinley was the most popular man among the Republicans ; and everybody three months ago in the Republican Party prophesied his election. How is it today? Why, that man who used to boast that he looked like Napoleon, that man shudders today when he thinks that he was nominated on the anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. Not only that, but as he listens he can hear with ever increasing distinctness the sound of the waves as they beat upon the lonely shores of St. Helena.
Why this change? Ah, my friends. is not the change evident to anyone who will look at the matter? It is because no private character, however pure, no personal popularity, however great, can protect from the avenging wrath of an indignant people the man who will either declare that he is in favor of fastening the gold standard upon this people, or who is willing to surrender the right of self-government and place legislative control in the hands of foreign potentates and powers.
We go forth confident that we shall win. Why? Because upon the paramount issue in this campaign there is not a spot of ground upon which the enemy will dare to challenge battle. Why, if they tell us that the gold standard is a good thing, we point to their platform and tell them that their platform pledges the party to get rid of a gold standard and substitute bimetallism. If the gold standard is a good thing, why try to get rid of it? If the gold standard, and I might call your attention to the fact that some of the very people who are in this convention today and who tell you that we ought to declare in favor of international bimetallism and thereby declare that the gold standard is wrong and that the principles of bimetallism are better—these very people four months ago were open and avowed advocates of the gold standard and telling us that we could not legislate two metals together even with all the world.
I want to suggest this truth, that if the gold standard is a good thing we ought to declare in favor of its retention and not in favor of abandoning it; and if the gold standard is a bad thing, why should we wait until some other nations are willing to help us to let it go?
Here is the line of battle. We care not upon which issue they force the fight. We are prepared to meet them on either issue or on both. If they tell us that the gold standard is the standard of civilization, we reply to them that this, the most enlightened of all nations of the earth, has never declared for a gold standard, and both the parties this year are declaring against it. If the gold standard is the standard of civilization, why, my friends, should we not have it? So if they come to meet us on that, we can present the history of our nation. More than that, we can tell them this, that they will search the pages of history in vain to find a single instance in which the common people of any land ever declared themselves in favor of a gold standard. They can find where the holders of fixed investments have.
Mr. Carlisle said in 1878 that this was a struggle between the idle holders of idle capital and the struggling masses who produce the wealth and pay the taxes of the country; and my friends, it is simply a question that we shall decide upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight. Upon the side of the idle holders of idle capital, or upon the side of the struggling masses? That is the question that the party must answer first; and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic Party, as described by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses, who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic Party.
There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that if you just legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, that their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous their prosperity will find its way up and through every class that rests upon it.
You come to us and tell us that the great cities are in favor of the gold standard. I tell you that the great cities rest upon these broad and fertile prairies. Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy our farms and the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country.
My friends, we shall declare that this nation is able to legislate for its own people on every question without waiting for the aid or consent of any other nation on earth, and upon that issue we expect to carry every single state in the Union.
I shall not slander the fair state of Massachusetts nor the state of New York by saying that when citizens are confronted with the proposition, “Is this nation able to attend to its own business?”—I will not slander either one by saying that the people of those states will declare our helpless impotency as a nation to attend to our own business. It is the issue of 1776 over again. Our ancestors, when but 3 million, had the courage to declare their political independence of every other nation upon earth. Shall we, their descendants, when we have grown to 70 million, declare that we are less independent than our forefathers? No, my friends, it will never be the judgment of this people. Therefore, we care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetallism is good but we cannot have it till some nation helps us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we shall restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States have.
If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
Source: Official Proceedings of the Democratic National Convention Held in Chicago, Illinois, July 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, 1896, (Logansport, Indiana, 1896), 226–234. Reprinted in The Annals of America, Vol. 12, 1895–1904: Populism, Imperialism, and Reform (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1968), 100–105.
Saturday, 20 August 2011
Take this watch-dog to the vet
Tragedy In Borough Park Puts Shomrim Under Scrutiny
Community watchdogs are praised, criticized for actions and delay.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Hella Winston Special to The Jewish Week
As the Borough Park community struggles with the brutal murder of 8-year-old Leiby Kletzky, and as more information surfaces about the history and emotional state of his accused killer, the tragedy is shining a light on the neighborhood watch groups that operate within the strictly Orthodox communities — and the largely under-the-surface tensions between these groups and the NYPD.
Those tensions became more apparent in recent days as sources in the community and the NYPD expressed frustration with how the Shomrim (Hebrew for “guardians”) operate – however well intentioned – with little accountability, sometimes hindering the work of the police.
The heartbreaking outcome in the Leiby case is seen by some in these circles as a dramatic case in point.
The Shomrim, who respond to calls about everything from vandalism to missing persons, domestic violence and sexual abuse, are highly respected in their communities. While they don’t have the power to make arrests, they tend to be trusted more than police in these tight-knit communities, as they have a reputation for responding quickly to calls and taking care of their own.
They have also been criticized at times for overzealousness bordering on vigilantism.
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly publicly praised the Shomrim for mobilizing the community in a massive search effort for the boy and his killer. But some close to the case question the public version of events in this case, and what they see as problematic practices engaged in by the Shomrim, often with the approval or outright cooperation of the NYPD top brass.
An NYPD official with experience in the Orthodox community told The Jewish Week it was “unconscionable” for the Brooklyn South Shomrim (which covers Borough Park) to have not called the police immediately upon learning of young Leiby going missing.
Asserting that the Shomrim members tend to “play cops” and take matters into their own hands, he called on the community to “ask the questions that need to be asked and answered” about how these groups operate.
“Who are they accountable to?” the official asked, adding that “we will never know” if the Shomrim, who keep their own files on neighborhood figures suspected of foul play, had prior information on the alleged killer. (Those files are not shared with the police.)
Time Lag
According to published accounts, Leiby was first reported missing to the Brooklyn South Shomrim by his mother. Statements made by Kelly note that there was “about a two or two and a half hour gap between the notification to Shomrim and the notification to the Police Department.”
While early accounts had Shomrim calling the report in to the police, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne told The Jewish Week that that the first 911 call was in fact made by the boy’s father at approximately 8:30 p.m., more than two hours after the mother’s call to Shomrim.
Calls by The Jewish Week to Yakov Daskal, founder and coordinator of the Brooklyn South Shomrim, were not returned. But in an interview with The Wall Street Journal he seemed to brush off the apparent discrepancy, saying that "it wouldn't have mattered [had the Shomrim reported to the police sooner] … And the police wouldn't have come right away."
While Commissioner Kelly also stated publicly that the time lag would not have made a difference in this case, he did acknowledge to The Wall Street Journal that the Shomrim often do not immediately notify police when they get reports and that this has been a “longstanding” issue for the department.
Both Daskal and Kelly’s remarks have angered some in the NYPD, who insist that police do in fact respond immediately to calls about missing children, and believe that the failure of Shomrim to report suspected crimes to law enforcement immediately (and, in some cases, at all) is a serious problem.
They believe that Kelly is downplaying his criticism of the Shomrim for political reasons, since the NYPD top brass and city officials value their relationship with the Shomrim groups.
“The first three hours of an investigation are key,” said a source within the NYPD. “And while Kelly said he would prefer [that the police] hear about [these situations] right away, it is outrageous to say it probably didn’t make a difference in this case,” especially in light of the fact that the authorities have been vague about the timeline of the murder.
Each of the Brooklyn-area Shomrim groups – in Crown Heights, Flatbush, Williamsburg and Borough Park – has its own personality and protocol, and there is an element of rivalry as well as cooperation among them.
Chaim Deutsch, the founder of the Flatbush Shomrim organization, insists that it is standard protocol within his group to call the police immediately when his volunteers receive a call about a “special category missing,” the term used to refer to a missing child or elderly or mentally ill person.
In such a situation, he told The Jewish Week, the “first thing is, [call] 911.”
Was Aron Known?
Among the questions that emerged this week was whether Levi Aron, the confessed killer, had previously been reported to either the Shomrim or the police.
At a press conference held by Commissioner Kelly, a reporter from the Orthodox publication, Hamodia, indicated that he had information that several 911 calls were made about Aron before this case, but Kelly said he had no knowledge of those calls.
Further, The Daily, a publication for Apple iPad tablet users published by News Corporation, has reported that the Shomrim were warned about Aron within the past several weeks, when he allegedly stalked an 11 year-old boy. However, Daskal of the Brooklyn South Shomrim denied these claims, both in The Daily and again on a radio show Saturday night.
A law enforcement source with knowledge of the case told The Jewish Week that there is “reason to believe,” based on the video footage of Aron and Leiby last Monday, that this was not, as the NYPD has publicly claimed, an abduction by a stranger, and that the two may have been acquainted prior to the tragic encounter.
Some sources within both the community and the NYPD believe the police and Shomrim are not disclosing the possibility that Aron’s violent tendencies and interest in boys were known to people in the community who should have, but failed, to report him.
List Of Suspected Molesters
Strictly Orthodox communities have a long history of not reporting crimes—and in particular, sexual crimes against children—to the secular authorities, preferring to police their own. Daskal acknowledged that his organization maintains a list of suspected molesters whom they do not report to the police because, as he told The Daily News, “the rabbis don’t let you. It’s not right.”
The issue is one of mesirah, a prohibition against informing on a Jew, which was prevalent in anti-Semitic European countries in earlier times.
The so-called list is actually a binder, which contains “mug shots” taken by Shomrim of suspected molesters and contains other information about the alleged perpetrators, including the make, model and license plate numbers of their cars, The Jewish Week has learned.
Daskal’s revelation that his group maintains such a list, though hardly news to many in the community, comes on the heels of statements made at a recent conference on Jewish law by representatives of the Orthodox umbrella organization Agudath Israel that those wishing to report child sexual abuse to the authorities must first consult with rabbis.
This opinion was reiterated last Tuesday night in Flatbush—at the same time the search for Leiby was underway— by Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky, the vice president of the Agudah’s Council of Rabbinic Sages. In an audio recording posted on the blog FailedMessiah.com, Rabbi Kaminetsky instructed attendees to bring allegations of child abuse to the authorities only after a “consultation with a rav [rabbi].”
While there are respected decisors of Jewish law who say the police should be called, it would appear their rulings generally are not being followed in Borough Park, where this attitude has apparently stymied police on numerous occasions.
An NYPD source knowledgeable about these issues said he feels the Shomrim only consult rabbis who “give them carte blanche” permission to do what they deem necessary to protect the reputation of the community.
Recounting two separate child abduction cases in recent years to which his organization was privy, Ben Hirsch, president and founder of the advocacy group Survivors for Justice, told The Jewish Week that “Borough Park Shomrim aggressively obstructed the investigations by intimidating members of the victims’ families who wished to assist the NYPD in the investigation.”
In each case, the girls were returned within hours, but the perpetrators were not caught and the cases remain unsolved.
Luzer Twersky is an actor, writer and film consultant who grew up in a chasidic family in Borough Park and was abused many years ago. He told The Jewish Week that “the person who caught my abuser red-handed 15 years ago was a Shomrim member, and he is still a Shomrim member. Yet the [abuser] was allowed to teach for 15 more years at various schools, until one parent took the courage to call the police.”
He said the police have a number of reasons “to cover for the Shomrim,” including not wanting to be labeled anti-Semitic. In addition, “the police need to keep the peace and the Shomrim feel the need to show that ‘we Jews can take care of ourselves.’ The police would rather have it that way than start a war.”
When asked for comment about whether or not his office would try to obtain the Brooklyn South Shomrim list of suspected molesters, a spokesman for the Brooklyn DA told The Jewish Week that “the DA encourages anyone with knowledge or suspicion of a crime to report that information to law enforcement authorities.”
The NYPD did not respond to a request for comment about the list.
Community watchdogs are praised, criticized for actions and delay.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Hella Winston Special to The Jewish Week
As the Borough Park community struggles with the brutal murder of 8-year-old Leiby Kletzky, and as more information surfaces about the history and emotional state of his accused killer, the tragedy is shining a light on the neighborhood watch groups that operate within the strictly Orthodox communities — and the largely under-the-surface tensions between these groups and the NYPD.
Those tensions became more apparent in recent days as sources in the community and the NYPD expressed frustration with how the Shomrim (Hebrew for “guardians”) operate – however well intentioned – with little accountability, sometimes hindering the work of the police.
The heartbreaking outcome in the Leiby case is seen by some in these circles as a dramatic case in point.
The Shomrim, who respond to calls about everything from vandalism to missing persons, domestic violence and sexual abuse, are highly respected in their communities. While they don’t have the power to make arrests, they tend to be trusted more than police in these tight-knit communities, as they have a reputation for responding quickly to calls and taking care of their own.
They have also been criticized at times for overzealousness bordering on vigilantism.
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly publicly praised the Shomrim for mobilizing the community in a massive search effort for the boy and his killer. But some close to the case question the public version of events in this case, and what they see as problematic practices engaged in by the Shomrim, often with the approval or outright cooperation of the NYPD top brass.
An NYPD official with experience in the Orthodox community told The Jewish Week it was “unconscionable” for the Brooklyn South Shomrim (which covers Borough Park) to have not called the police immediately upon learning of young Leiby going missing.
Asserting that the Shomrim members tend to “play cops” and take matters into their own hands, he called on the community to “ask the questions that need to be asked and answered” about how these groups operate.
“Who are they accountable to?” the official asked, adding that “we will never know” if the Shomrim, who keep their own files on neighborhood figures suspected of foul play, had prior information on the alleged killer. (Those files are not shared with the police.)
Time Lag
According to published accounts, Leiby was first reported missing to the Brooklyn South Shomrim by his mother. Statements made by Kelly note that there was “about a two or two and a half hour gap between the notification to Shomrim and the notification to the Police Department.”
While early accounts had Shomrim calling the report in to the police, NYPD spokesman Paul Browne told The Jewish Week that that the first 911 call was in fact made by the boy’s father at approximately 8:30 p.m., more than two hours after the mother’s call to Shomrim.
Calls by The Jewish Week to Yakov Daskal, founder and coordinator of the Brooklyn South Shomrim, were not returned. But in an interview with The Wall Street Journal he seemed to brush off the apparent discrepancy, saying that "it wouldn't have mattered [had the Shomrim reported to the police sooner] … And the police wouldn't have come right away."
While Commissioner Kelly also stated publicly that the time lag would not have made a difference in this case, he did acknowledge to The Wall Street Journal that the Shomrim often do not immediately notify police when they get reports and that this has been a “longstanding” issue for the department.
Both Daskal and Kelly’s remarks have angered some in the NYPD, who insist that police do in fact respond immediately to calls about missing children, and believe that the failure of Shomrim to report suspected crimes to law enforcement immediately (and, in some cases, at all) is a serious problem.
They believe that Kelly is downplaying his criticism of the Shomrim for political reasons, since the NYPD top brass and city officials value their relationship with the Shomrim groups.
“The first three hours of an investigation are key,” said a source within the NYPD. “And while Kelly said he would prefer [that the police] hear about [these situations] right away, it is outrageous to say it probably didn’t make a difference in this case,” especially in light of the fact that the authorities have been vague about the timeline of the murder.
Each of the Brooklyn-area Shomrim groups – in Crown Heights, Flatbush, Williamsburg and Borough Park – has its own personality and protocol, and there is an element of rivalry as well as cooperation among them.
Chaim Deutsch, the founder of the Flatbush Shomrim organization, insists that it is standard protocol within his group to call the police immediately when his volunteers receive a call about a “special category missing,” the term used to refer to a missing child or elderly or mentally ill person.
In such a situation, he told The Jewish Week, the “first thing is, [call] 911.”
Was Aron Known?
Among the questions that emerged this week was whether Levi Aron, the confessed killer, had previously been reported to either the Shomrim or the police.
At a press conference held by Commissioner Kelly, a reporter from the Orthodox publication, Hamodia, indicated that he had information that several 911 calls were made about Aron before this case, but Kelly said he had no knowledge of those calls.
Further, The Daily, a publication for Apple iPad tablet users published by News Corporation, has reported that the Shomrim were warned about Aron within the past several weeks, when he allegedly stalked an 11 year-old boy. However, Daskal of the Brooklyn South Shomrim denied these claims, both in The Daily and again on a radio show Saturday night.
A law enforcement source with knowledge of the case told The Jewish Week that there is “reason to believe,” based on the video footage of Aron and Leiby last Monday, that this was not, as the NYPD has publicly claimed, an abduction by a stranger, and that the two may have been acquainted prior to the tragic encounter.
Some sources within both the community and the NYPD believe the police and Shomrim are not disclosing the possibility that Aron’s violent tendencies and interest in boys were known to people in the community who should have, but failed, to report him.
List Of Suspected Molesters
Strictly Orthodox communities have a long history of not reporting crimes—and in particular, sexual crimes against children—to the secular authorities, preferring to police their own. Daskal acknowledged that his organization maintains a list of suspected molesters whom they do not report to the police because, as he told The Daily News, “the rabbis don’t let you. It’s not right.”
The issue is one of mesirah, a prohibition against informing on a Jew, which was prevalent in anti-Semitic European countries in earlier times.
The so-called list is actually a binder, which contains “mug shots” taken by Shomrim of suspected molesters and contains other information about the alleged perpetrators, including the make, model and license plate numbers of their cars, The Jewish Week has learned.
Daskal’s revelation that his group maintains such a list, though hardly news to many in the community, comes on the heels of statements made at a recent conference on Jewish law by representatives of the Orthodox umbrella organization Agudath Israel that those wishing to report child sexual abuse to the authorities must first consult with rabbis.
This opinion was reiterated last Tuesday night in Flatbush—at the same time the search for Leiby was underway— by Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetsky, the vice president of the Agudah’s Council of Rabbinic Sages. In an audio recording posted on the blog FailedMessiah.com, Rabbi Kaminetsky instructed attendees to bring allegations of child abuse to the authorities only after a “consultation with a rav [rabbi].”
While there are respected decisors of Jewish law who say the police should be called, it would appear their rulings generally are not being followed in Borough Park, where this attitude has apparently stymied police on numerous occasions.
An NYPD source knowledgeable about these issues said he feels the Shomrim only consult rabbis who “give them carte blanche” permission to do what they deem necessary to protect the reputation of the community.
Recounting two separate child abduction cases in recent years to which his organization was privy, Ben Hirsch, president and founder of the advocacy group Survivors for Justice, told The Jewish Week that “Borough Park Shomrim aggressively obstructed the investigations by intimidating members of the victims’ families who wished to assist the NYPD in the investigation.”
In each case, the girls were returned within hours, but the perpetrators were not caught and the cases remain unsolved.
Luzer Twersky is an actor, writer and film consultant who grew up in a chasidic family in Borough Park and was abused many years ago. He told The Jewish Week that “the person who caught my abuser red-handed 15 years ago was a Shomrim member, and he is still a Shomrim member. Yet the [abuser] was allowed to teach for 15 more years at various schools, until one parent took the courage to call the police.”
He said the police have a number of reasons “to cover for the Shomrim,” including not wanting to be labeled anti-Semitic. In addition, “the police need to keep the peace and the Shomrim feel the need to show that ‘we Jews can take care of ourselves.’ The police would rather have it that way than start a war.”
When asked for comment about whether or not his office would try to obtain the Brooklyn South Shomrim list of suspected molesters, a spokesman for the Brooklyn DA told The Jewish Week that “the DA encourages anyone with knowledge or suspicion of a crime to report that information to law enforcement authorities.”
The NYPD did not respond to a request for comment about the list.
De-funding the indefensible
Acknowledgements to the New York Post web site for the following
Shomrim shanda
Last Updated: 4:15 AM, August 7, 2011
Posted: August 07, 2011
Obstructing the police is bad enough. But it’s completely unacceptable if that obstruction is being funded by the taxpayer.
Yet that’s exactly what’s happening with the Shomrim, the Orthodox Jewish neighborhood patrol groups in Brooklyn.
Shomrim — which received $130,000 in City Council member items in the current budget — can be a useful asset to communities, discouraging graffiti and vandalism and keeping an eye out for criminals on the prowl.
But as Michael Lesher wrote in last Sunday’s Post, the Shomrim — with the blessing of community leaders — often act as if they are the actual police and give only minimal cooperation, if any, to the NYPD.
Last month, the Borough Park Shomrim were notified an hour after 8-year-old Leiby Kletzky went missing. But police weren’t alerted until two hours after that — a full three hours after Levi Aron snatched him — and then only by the missing boy’s father.
The Shomrim is not a monolithic group; each chapter has its own policy when it comes to working with the NYPD.
Nevertheless, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has said that the Shomrim’s failure to immediately notify police when members get reports has been a “longstanding” issue.
The NYPD officially says that the Shomrim’s involvement only marginally affected its investigation — this time. However, the private citizen who identified Leiby from local videotapes pointed out that the Shomrim had the same footage eight hours earlier — and weren’t able to do anything with it.
Which isn’t surprising — because, whether one calls them volunteers or vigilantes, the fact remains that they aren’t professionals: They don’t have the same skills as the NYPD; in serious incidents, they can be as much a hindrance as a helping hand.
Regardless, they don’t need taxpayer funds. The only reason they receive them is — what else? — political influence.
As with other “nonprofit” charities, elected officials steer money to the Shomrim with an eye out for community leaders remembering them come campaign season.
It’s unseemly in the best of circumstances, but downright offensive when it ends up subsidizing obstruction of legitimate police efforts.
Time to defund the Shomrim.
* Shanda: a Yiddish word meaning shame, or scandal
Read more:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/shomrim_shanda_c5vfO7y2A8wwnCCxgB2eLP#ixzz1VZUtjoCi
Shomrim shanda
Last Updated: 4:15 AM, August 7, 2011
Posted: August 07, 2011
Obstructing the police is bad enough. But it’s completely unacceptable if that obstruction is being funded by the taxpayer.
Yet that’s exactly what’s happening with the Shomrim, the Orthodox Jewish neighborhood patrol groups in Brooklyn.
Shomrim — which received $130,000 in City Council member items in the current budget — can be a useful asset to communities, discouraging graffiti and vandalism and keeping an eye out for criminals on the prowl.
But as Michael Lesher wrote in last Sunday’s Post, the Shomrim — with the blessing of community leaders — often act as if they are the actual police and give only minimal cooperation, if any, to the NYPD.
Last month, the Borough Park Shomrim were notified an hour after 8-year-old Leiby Kletzky went missing. But police weren’t alerted until two hours after that — a full three hours after Levi Aron snatched him — and then only by the missing boy’s father.
The Shomrim is not a monolithic group; each chapter has its own policy when it comes to working with the NYPD.
Nevertheless, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has said that the Shomrim’s failure to immediately notify police when members get reports has been a “longstanding” issue.
The NYPD officially says that the Shomrim’s involvement only marginally affected its investigation — this time. However, the private citizen who identified Leiby from local videotapes pointed out that the Shomrim had the same footage eight hours earlier — and weren’t able to do anything with it.
Which isn’t surprising — because, whether one calls them volunteers or vigilantes, the fact remains that they aren’t professionals: They don’t have the same skills as the NYPD; in serious incidents, they can be as much a hindrance as a helping hand.
Regardless, they don’t need taxpayer funds. The only reason they receive them is — what else? — political influence.
As with other “nonprofit” charities, elected officials steer money to the Shomrim with an eye out for community leaders remembering them come campaign season.
It’s unseemly in the best of circumstances, but downright offensive when it ends up subsidizing obstruction of legitimate police efforts.
Time to defund the Shomrim.
* Shanda: a Yiddish word meaning shame, or scandal
Read more:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/shomrim_shanda_c5vfO7y2A8wwnCCxgB2eLP#ixzz1VZUtjoCi
Pork barrelling? More like Salt Beef barrelling!
Acknowledgements to the New York Post Online for the following article
The odious and divisive practice of elected public authorities' 'bribing' of ethnic blocs of voters with grants and special treatment of every description, all at the expense of the host community, the English, must cease. The specific example of the Shomrim in New York, discussed below, is mirrored by the favoured treatment accorded the organizations of the same name in London by the Metropolitan police, by Hackney Council for Voluntary Service (a 'clearing house' for grants from Hackney Borough Council) and doubtless other public, or publicly-funded, bodies.
As Mr Lesher's article indicates, such vigilante groups as the Shomrim are racist in the sense that they both encourage racial antagonism (whether intentionally or not) and discriminate unfairly in favour of one ethno-religious community at the expense of the national community of the indigenous British as a whole.
Orthodox cops: Separate and unequal
New York City should stop funding separate, private police forces for Jews
By MICHAEL LESHER
Last Updated: 4:04 AM, August 1, 2011
Posted: 11:57 PM, July 30, 2011
Earlier this month, a horrified New York City reeled under the news that 8-year-old Leiby Kletzky, a Hasidic boy in Brooklyn’s Borough Park, had been abducted on his way home from a nearby day camp and, the next evening, smothered to death and dismembered by his captor, who was also an Orthodox Jew.
The public got a second shock when it learned that Leiby’s disappearance was only belatedly reported to the police, and that a privately run, Orthodox Jewish “patrol” called Shomrim reportedly had video evidence that went unused during the crucial hours before the murder, while untrained Jewish laymen tried to handle the investigation themselves.
And now comes what ought to be shock No. 3: Jewish vigilante groups like Shomrim, unskilled and ill-equipped for police work, and all too often driven by religious proscriptions to keep their community’s crimes out of the public eye, are being paid to interfere with the authorities by New York City taxpayers — through the generous offices of some City Council members.
The council’s just-finalized budget for 2012 includes more than $130,000 in “member item” donations to private Orthodox Jewish pseudo-police — gifts of taxpayer money that were personally authorized by Democratic Brooklyn City Councilmen Lewis Fidler, David Greenfield, Brad Lander and Stephen Levin. Remember that these Jewish patrols operate only in a few Brooklyn neighborhoods and answer to the needs of only one religious community.
Why, then, are city legislators doling out increasingly scarce public funds to help Jewish gendarmes compete with the NYPD?
I am an Orthodox Jew; I am also a lawyer with an extensive record of advocacy for victims of child abuse. And I have a message for politicians who curry favor with Jewish voting blocs by helping to fund their private patrols: Don’t do it.
It’s bad government, and bad law enforcement practice, to share taxpayer money with religion-based groups whose contribution to police work is doubtful at best and whose priorities may well conflict with the law.
Not so long ago, a warning against government funding for vigilantes would have been needless. When Curtis Sliwa founded the Guardian Angels in 1979, New York City officials, including then-Mayor Ed Koch, didn’t want them in New York City at all; those young idealists would have been laughed all the way across the Hudson if they’d had the temerity to ask City Council for handouts.
Does anyone truly believe that Orthodox Jewish vigilantes like the Flatbush Shomrim Safety Patrol, the Williamsburg Safety Patrol and the Shmira Civilian Volunteer Patrol of Borough Park — all of them on the take for budget dollars in 2012 — do the city a better service?
Read more:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/orthodox_cops_separate_and_unequal_KC3
The odious and divisive practice of elected public authorities' 'bribing' of ethnic blocs of voters with grants and special treatment of every description, all at the expense of the host community, the English, must cease. The specific example of the Shomrim in New York, discussed below, is mirrored by the favoured treatment accorded the organizations of the same name in London by the Metropolitan police, by Hackney Council for Voluntary Service (a 'clearing house' for grants from Hackney Borough Council) and doubtless other public, or publicly-funded, bodies.
As Mr Lesher's article indicates, such vigilante groups as the Shomrim are racist in the sense that they both encourage racial antagonism (whether intentionally or not) and discriminate unfairly in favour of one ethno-religious community at the expense of the national community of the indigenous British as a whole.
Orthodox cops: Separate and unequal
New York City should stop funding separate, private police forces for Jews
By MICHAEL LESHER
Last Updated: 4:04 AM, August 1, 2011
Posted: 11:57 PM, July 30, 2011
Earlier this month, a horrified New York City reeled under the news that 8-year-old Leiby Kletzky, a Hasidic boy in Brooklyn’s Borough Park, had been abducted on his way home from a nearby day camp and, the next evening, smothered to death and dismembered by his captor, who was also an Orthodox Jew.
The public got a second shock when it learned that Leiby’s disappearance was only belatedly reported to the police, and that a privately run, Orthodox Jewish “patrol” called Shomrim reportedly had video evidence that went unused during the crucial hours before the murder, while untrained Jewish laymen tried to handle the investigation themselves.
And now comes what ought to be shock No. 3: Jewish vigilante groups like Shomrim, unskilled and ill-equipped for police work, and all too often driven by religious proscriptions to keep their community’s crimes out of the public eye, are being paid to interfere with the authorities by New York City taxpayers — through the generous offices of some City Council members.
The council’s just-finalized budget for 2012 includes more than $130,000 in “member item” donations to private Orthodox Jewish pseudo-police — gifts of taxpayer money that were personally authorized by Democratic Brooklyn City Councilmen Lewis Fidler, David Greenfield, Brad Lander and Stephen Levin. Remember that these Jewish patrols operate only in a few Brooklyn neighborhoods and answer to the needs of only one religious community.
Why, then, are city legislators doling out increasingly scarce public funds to help Jewish gendarmes compete with the NYPD?
I am an Orthodox Jew; I am also a lawyer with an extensive record of advocacy for victims of child abuse. And I have a message for politicians who curry favor with Jewish voting blocs by helping to fund their private patrols: Don’t do it.
It’s bad government, and bad law enforcement practice, to share taxpayer money with religion-based groups whose contribution to police work is doubtful at best and whose priorities may well conflict with the law.
Not so long ago, a warning against government funding for vigilantes would have been needless. When Curtis Sliwa founded the Guardian Angels in 1979, New York City officials, including then-Mayor Ed Koch, didn’t want them in New York City at all; those young idealists would have been laughed all the way across the Hudson if they’d had the temerity to ask City Council for handouts.
Does anyone truly believe that Orthodox Jewish vigilantes like the Flatbush Shomrim Safety Patrol, the Williamsburg Safety Patrol and the Shmira Civilian Volunteer Patrol of Borough Park — all of them on the take for budget dollars in 2012 — do the city a better service?
Read more:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/orthodox_cops_separate_and_unequal_KC3
Friday, 19 August 2011
Their own police force they have
Acknowledgements to the web site of the Occidental Observer for the following
Mesirah is alive and well in Brooklyn
Kevin MacDonald on August 1, 2011
Writing in Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, Michael Lesher, an Orthodox Jew, argues that the city should not be giving money ($130,000) to street patrols manned by Orthodox Jews in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods (“Orthodox Cops: Separate and Unequal“). Lesher’s article comes in the wake of a kidnapping and murder of Leiby Kletzky, a Hasidic boy, by an Orthodox Jewish man. He points out that “Leiby’s disappearance was only belatedly reported to the police, and that a privately run, Orthodox Jewish ‘patrol’ called Shomrim reportedly had video evidence that went unused during the crucial hours before the murder, while untrained Jewish laymen tried to handle the investigation themselves.”
Lesher notes such groups “all too often driven by religious proscriptions to keep their community’s crimes out of the public eye.” In other words, the groups operate by the code of mesirah in which it is a forbidden to inform on Jews. But of course Lesher is himself violating mesirah by loudly blowing the whistle on his fellow Jews. He has been very courageous in performing this public service. I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes.
Publication in the Post probably won’t help Rupert Murdoch in his present travails either.
Mesirah is alive and well in Brooklyn
Kevin MacDonald on August 1, 2011
Writing in Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, Michael Lesher, an Orthodox Jew, argues that the city should not be giving money ($130,000) to street patrols manned by Orthodox Jews in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods (“Orthodox Cops: Separate and Unequal“). Lesher’s article comes in the wake of a kidnapping and murder of Leiby Kletzky, a Hasidic boy, by an Orthodox Jewish man. He points out that “Leiby’s disappearance was only belatedly reported to the police, and that a privately run, Orthodox Jewish ‘patrol’ called Shomrim reportedly had video evidence that went unused during the crucial hours before the murder, while untrained Jewish laymen tried to handle the investigation themselves.”
Lesher notes such groups “all too often driven by religious proscriptions to keep their community’s crimes out of the public eye.” In other words, the groups operate by the code of mesirah in which it is a forbidden to inform on Jews. But of course Lesher is himself violating mesirah by loudly blowing the whistle on his fellow Jews. He has been very courageous in performing this public service. I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes.
Publication in the Post probably won’t help Rupert Murdoch in his present travails either.
Thursday, 18 August 2011
Five minutes to midnight
One of the commonest arguments used by the promoters of today's multi-racial society is the claim that Britain has always been 'multi-racial', taking in new ethnic groups over the centuries. This is of course downright rubbish; all the migrations into Britain, up to those of the Jews from Eastern Europe in the last century, were by peoples of racial types very similar to ourselves and therefore easily assimilable within a generation or two (this is excepting the Jews who came over here in the wake of William the Conqueror and were subsequently expelled by Edward I, as mentioned earlier) [but invited to return to England by Oliver Cromwell]. In more recent years, we have taken in refugees from Poland, Hungary and the Baltic states, and these have caused few if any problems, again being Europeans sharing with us the same basic culture. These people have settled into our society and got ahead by their own efforts. They have not demanded, nor needed, 'positive discrimination' to get them jobs in preference to native British people. Their presence here has not resulted in riots.
We nationalists have, from the start, opposed Asian and Afro-Caribbean immigration specifically because we have been convinced that the immigrants concerned, not being European and therefore not sharing our cultural heritage, could never be successfully integrated. I came to hold this view in the 1950s, when I saw with my own eyes what was happening in the inner cities where these people had begun to settle, and, with others, I spoke out against the policy. We warned of catastrophe if it were continued. Instead of being listened to by the politicians and being given a fair hearing by the media, we were treated with scorn, and given every unpleasant label that the political dictionary can supply: 'extremists', 'bigots', 'haters', 'troublemakers', 'racist fanatics', 'nazis' and so on. You name it, we were called it. No epithet was considered too abusive to describe those of us at that time and since who forecast that multi-racialism in Britain would not work.
Many of us sounded these warnings long before Mr Enoch Powell made his entry into the racial controversy. By the time that Mr Powell decided, in 1968, that the moment had come to speak out in protest against what was happening, I had been saying just the same things for more than 10 years and I was 22 years younger than he and, not occupying any public office, had none of the facilities and information that were available to him whereby I could find out what was going on. And I was not unique or alone; men such as A.K. Chesterton, Sir Oswald Mosley, Colin Jordan and John Bean had been awakened to this situation before I was, and had used the very limited means available to them to warn people about it.
Naturally, we welcomed Mr Powell's conversion to our viewpoint on immigration on the basis of "better late than never." But we found it difficult to suppress a smile when we heard him described as the 'leader' of public protest on the issue. In this, as in many matters, the true lead in pointing forward to what had to be done came, not from parliament, but from men regarded as being on the despised 'fringe' of politics - a fact which surely says something about the political situation in post-war Britain.
Over the past three decades, as is common knowledge, the predictions made by Mr Powell, and by others long before him, have all been more than amply vindicated. The appalling riots of the 1980s, continuing into the 1990s, have served as a monument to the failure of the whole multi-racial policy that has had the backing, with only minor variations of commitment, of every government in Britain since 1945.
But with characteristic gall, those responsible for this disaster, instead of acknowledging honestly that events have proved them wrong and their opponents right, and setting to work to rectify the harm they have done by throwing the policy into reverse, have tried to shift the blame for the whole debacle onto the very people who warned correctly about the policy from the beginning. The promoters of the multi-racial fiasco do not indict and chastise themselves; they accuse and penalise those whom they call 'racists'. With every further piece of evidence that multi-racialism is not working, and that those who have opposed it have been right, they attempt to solve the problem by hounding, slandering, gagging and jailing those whom events have so decisively vindicated.
To back up this policy, our rulers and their acolytes of politics, the mass media and the Church have invented a phrase which conveniently sidetracks public attention from the core of the issue, and at the same time grossly misrepresents the motives of those who disagree with them: they have classified all opposition to the idea of a multi-ethnic Britain as 'racial hatred', and those who voice that opposition as 'hatemongers'.
The truth is that hatred does not come into the issue at all. We simply love our own race and want to preserve it. We have no hostile feelings towards members of other races; different individuals among those races are agreeable or disagreeable, just as is the case with our own white people. Our whole position on the race issue is based on a recognition of differences. With those Asians or Blacks who recognise these differences as we do and wish to co-operate with us in bringing about the peaceful separation of the races that is the only solution to the problem, we have no quarrel, and we are prepared to enter into amicable negotiation with them at any time. In fact, in the case of our party some small co-operation has already begun with members of a black group seeking repatriation from these shores.
Tyndall J, The Eleventh Hour: A call for British rebirth, Third Edition, Welling: Albion Press, pp 346-8
We nationalists have, from the start, opposed Asian and Afro-Caribbean immigration specifically because we have been convinced that the immigrants concerned, not being European and therefore not sharing our cultural heritage, could never be successfully integrated. I came to hold this view in the 1950s, when I saw with my own eyes what was happening in the inner cities where these people had begun to settle, and, with others, I spoke out against the policy. We warned of catastrophe if it were continued. Instead of being listened to by the politicians and being given a fair hearing by the media, we were treated with scorn, and given every unpleasant label that the political dictionary can supply: 'extremists', 'bigots', 'haters', 'troublemakers', 'racist fanatics', 'nazis' and so on. You name it, we were called it. No epithet was considered too abusive to describe those of us at that time and since who forecast that multi-racialism in Britain would not work.
Many of us sounded these warnings long before Mr Enoch Powell made his entry into the racial controversy. By the time that Mr Powell decided, in 1968, that the moment had come to speak out in protest against what was happening, I had been saying just the same things for more than 10 years and I was 22 years younger than he and, not occupying any public office, had none of the facilities and information that were available to him whereby I could find out what was going on. And I was not unique or alone; men such as A.K. Chesterton, Sir Oswald Mosley, Colin Jordan and John Bean had been awakened to this situation before I was, and had used the very limited means available to them to warn people about it.
Naturally, we welcomed Mr Powell's conversion to our viewpoint on immigration on the basis of "better late than never." But we found it difficult to suppress a smile when we heard him described as the 'leader' of public protest on the issue. In this, as in many matters, the true lead in pointing forward to what had to be done came, not from parliament, but from men regarded as being on the despised 'fringe' of politics - a fact which surely says something about the political situation in post-war Britain.
Over the past three decades, as is common knowledge, the predictions made by Mr Powell, and by others long before him, have all been more than amply vindicated. The appalling riots of the 1980s, continuing into the 1990s, have served as a monument to the failure of the whole multi-racial policy that has had the backing, with only minor variations of commitment, of every government in Britain since 1945.
But with characteristic gall, those responsible for this disaster, instead of acknowledging honestly that events have proved them wrong and their opponents right, and setting to work to rectify the harm they have done by throwing the policy into reverse, have tried to shift the blame for the whole debacle onto the very people who warned correctly about the policy from the beginning. The promoters of the multi-racial fiasco do not indict and chastise themselves; they accuse and penalise those whom they call 'racists'. With every further piece of evidence that multi-racialism is not working, and that those who have opposed it have been right, they attempt to solve the problem by hounding, slandering, gagging and jailing those whom events have so decisively vindicated.
To back up this policy, our rulers and their acolytes of politics, the mass media and the Church have invented a phrase which conveniently sidetracks public attention from the core of the issue, and at the same time grossly misrepresents the motives of those who disagree with them: they have classified all opposition to the idea of a multi-ethnic Britain as 'racial hatred', and those who voice that opposition as 'hatemongers'.
The truth is that hatred does not come into the issue at all. We simply love our own race and want to preserve it. We have no hostile feelings towards members of other races; different individuals among those races are agreeable or disagreeable, just as is the case with our own white people. Our whole position on the race issue is based on a recognition of differences. With those Asians or Blacks who recognise these differences as we do and wish to co-operate with us in bringing about the peaceful separation of the races that is the only solution to the problem, we have no quarrel, and we are prepared to enter into amicable negotiation with them at any time. In fact, in the case of our party some small co-operation has already begun with members of a black group seeking repatriation from these shores.
Tyndall J, The Eleventh Hour: A call for British rebirth, Third Edition, Welling: Albion Press, pp 346-8
King Pym
If Strafford embodied the spirit of tyranny, John Pym, the leader of the Commons from the first meeting of the new Houses at Westminster, stands out for all after time as the embodiment of law. A Somersetshire gentleman of good birth and competent fortune, he entered on public life in the Parliament of 1614, and was imprisoned for his patriotism at its close. He had been a leading member in that of 1620, and one of the "twelve ambassadors" for whom James ordered chairs to be set at Whitehall. Of the band of patriots with whom he had stood side by side in the constitutional struggle against the earlier despotism of Charles he was the sole survivor. Coke had died of old age; Cotton's heart was broken by oppression; Eliot had perished in the Tower; Wentworth [ie, Strafford] had apostasized. Pym alone remained, resolute, patient as of old; and as the sense of his greatness grew silently during the eleven years of deepening tyranny, the hope and faith of better things clung almost passionately to the man who never doubted of the final triumph of freedom and the law. At their close, Clarendon tells us, in words all the more notable for their bitter tone of hate, "he was the most popular man, and the most able to do hurt, that have lived at any time." He had shown he knew how to wait, and when waiting was over he showed he knew how to act. On the eve of the Long Parliament he rode through England to quicken the electors to a sense of the crisis which had come at last; and on the assembling of the Commons he took his place, not merely as member for Tavistock, but as their acknowledged head. Few of the country gentlemen, indeed, who formed the bulk of the members, had sat in any previous House; and of the few, none represented in so eminent a way the Parliamentary tradition on which the coming struggle was to turn. Pym's eloquence, inferior in boldness and originality to that of Eliot or Wentworth, was better suited by its massive and logical force to convince and guide a great party; and it was backed by a calmness of temper, a dexterity and order in the management of public business, and a practical power of shaping the course of debate, which gave a form and method to parliamentary proceedings such as they had never had before. Valuable, however, as these qualities were, it was a yet higher quality which raised Pym into the greatest, as he was the first, of Parliamentary leaders. Of the five hundred members who sate round him at St Stephen's, he was the one man who had clearly foreseen, and as clearly resolved how to meet, the difficulties which lay before them. It was certain that Parliament would be drawn into a struggle with the Crown. It was probable that in such a struggle the House of Commons would be hampered, as it had been hampered before, by the House of Lords. The legal antiquarians of the older constitutional school stood helpless before such a conflict of co-ordinate powers, a conflict for which no provision had been made by the law, and on which precedents threw only a doubtful and conflicting light. But with a knowledge of precedent as great as their own, Pym rose high above them in his grasp of constitutional principles. He was the first English statesman who discovered, and applied to the political circumstances around him, what may be called the doctrine of constitutional proportion. He saw that as an element of constitutional life Parliament was of higher value than the Crown; he saw, too, that in Parliament itself the one essential part was the House of Commons. On these two facts he based his whole policy in the contest which followed. When Charles refused to act with the Parliament, Pym treated the refusal as a temporary abdication on the part of the sovereign, which vested the executive power in the two Houses, until new arrangements were made. When the Lords obstructed public business, he warned them that obstruction would only force the Commons "to save the kingdom alone". Revolutionary as these principles seemed at the time, they have both been recognized as bases of our constitution since the days of Pym. The first principle was established by the Convention and Parliament which followed on the departure of James the Second; the second by the acknowledgement on all sides since the Reform Bill of 1832 that the government of the country is really in the hands of the House of Commons, and can only be carried on by ministers who represent the majority of that House. Pym's temper, indeed, was the very opposite of the temper of a revolutionist. Few natures have ever been wider in their range of sympathy or action. Serious as his purpose was, his manners were genial, and even courtly: he turned easily from an invective against Strafford to a chat with Lady Carlisle; and the grace and gaiety of his social tone, even when the care and weight of public affairs were bringing him to his grave, gave rise to a hundred silly scandals among the prurient Royalists. It was this striking combination of genial versatility with a massive force in his nature which marked him out from the first moment of power as a born ruler of men. He proved himself at once the subtlest of diplomatists and the grandest of demagogues. He was equally at home in tracking the subtle intricacies of the Army Plot, or in kindling popular passion with words of fire. Though past middle life when his work really began, for he was born in 1584, four years before the coming of the Armada, he displayed from the first meeting of the Long Parliament the qualities of a great administrator, an immense faculty for labour, a genius for organization, patience, tact, a power of inspiring confidence in all whom he touched, calmness and moderation under good fortune or ill, an immovable courage, an iron will. No English ruler has ever shown greater nobleness of natural temper or a wider capacity for government than the Somersetshire squire whom his enemies, made clear-sighted by their hate, greeted truly enough as "King Pym."
Green JR, A Short History of the English People, London: Macmillan and Co, 1885, pp 518-20
Green JR, A Short History of the English People, London: Macmillan and Co, 1885, pp 518-20
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
Strafford must be put out of service
Mr Hogarth paints an insalubrious picture, but an all too accurate one I'm afraid. Is non-member and open multiculturalist Pat Harrington playing Strafford to Mr Griffin's Charles I? That would make Mr Brons John Pym and his supporters the patriots. If the life-blood of any political party is not simply money as such, but rather the quality and number of its elected representatives, candidates, activists and members, then the phrase "this man of blood" might well be regarded as descriptive of the current chairman of the British National Party.
Notwithstanding this, however, in the words of another great Englishman, Oliver Cromwell, “We look for no compulsion but that of light and reason.”
Is the Chairman Going Insane?
Some Parallels with King Charles I
Posted by admin, on 17 August, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site // 3 Comments
By Hogarth.
The purpose of this website is to encourage articles and policies from sensible contributors, with a view to discussing and improving the condition of our country. Positive and constructive debate should always be welcomed.
Another purpose is to provide constructive criticism in terms of the manner in which the party is directed. This is especially important at this crucial juncture for nationalism. We wish to keep nationalists aboard and avoid their alienation.
That we have reached a juncture cannot be doubted. In the past two years, the party has been heavily on the retreat. It has lost its credibility.
We have lost councillor after councillor, either through defection or by failure to obtain re-election. The national elections’ officer has presided over one failure after another.
Moreover, we have lost most of our activists, some of whom have defected to rival parties. We have experienced the collapse of units, branches and entire regions. We have overseen the collapse of our vote in our own strongholds. We have witnessed one incompetent appointment after another, including retards, dimwits and the semi-criminal class. Leading officials have been involved in brawls.
Members have also discovered the accumulation of vast debts and financial incompetence on a Himalayan scale.
More recently, we have experienced a leadership election in which one side panicked, broke its own rules and issued offensive and mendacious bulletins and illicit communications from unfit Regional Organisers. A margin of merely nine votes swung the contest.
In essence, the current Chairman is without a mandate. He can only run the party with the support of the wing of the party that backed his opponent. In those circumstances, it would then be possible to reach a degree of unity and shared purpose. Unfortunately, this possibility appears unlikely.
This site has made its requirements known on several occasions. In particular, it has requested the removal of the non party member, multiracialist and political adversary who runs much of the party and advises the Chairman. His removal would be met with applause by both wings of the party.
The Chairman’s failure to remove him denotes a close relationship between the two and, seemingly, a determination to keep the party split and accentuate the division.
The most recent example of poor judgement, which has caused members to question the Chairman’s sanity, was his ill-advised public statement on the recent riots, which few intelligent nationalists could possibly have supported. This video was advertised in a members’ bulletin and carried over the official party website.
Using a teleprompter, the Chairman read his statement. In it he employed swear words, such as “flies round shit” and “the little bastards”. He spoke of judicial punishments which would entail handcuffing culprits to lamp posts for 48 hours.
He also boasted of the party’s ‘black members’, which suggested he sought the advice of the party’s political rival, multiracialist and non member.
What sane leader would produce a video for the party’s members, leave alone for public consumption, which embraced wild and intemperate statements of the flavour provided above?
Could it be that his general advice is almost wholly dependent upon retards, tattoed no-necks, knuckle-draggers and cranks, because everyone with any sense or expertise has departed or been excluded?
Could it be that the Chairman has simply gone off his rocker?
It seems his condition has deteriorated after the appalling manner in which he conducted himself a year ago during the invitation to attend the Queen’s Garden Party. What a fool he made of himself. What a figure of fun he has become to many, who need merely point at him to deprecate nationalism.
No wonder much of the public support many of our policies but consider the party to be beyond the bounds. That this is so is in large measure due to many of the crazed, deranged, impulsive, imprudent and unhinged utterances of the Chairman.
That he was re-elected to office is because his team broke the election rules.
In the next month or so, we shall also discover the extent to which he and his team misrepresented the affairs of the party to the membership during the election contest.
This website has already documented the failure of the party, yet again, to submit its accounts on time to the Electoral Commission. Similarly, it has documented some of the bills outstanding, including one to HM Customs and Revenue. Fortunately for the Chairman, these facts were revealed after the election, but only just.
The Chairman may have won the election with a wafer thin majority of nine votes, after his team employed illicit tactics, but his position is becoming increasingly untenable. Indeed, the party’s financial position depends upon numerous pending Court hearings.
The Chairman has also failed to call a meeting of the NEC under the new Constitution adopted at the recent Extraordinary Meeting. Perhaps, rather like King Charles 1, who thought he could rule without Parliament, the Chairman believes he can rule the party without its governing body. The King eventually had to recall Parliament to raise taxes. The Chairman might have to depend upon the NEC and his opposing wing in the party to raise funds.
Whether or not he is off his rocker, he might remember that through sheer incompetence and intransigence, the King eventually lost his head.
Let us all hope the Chairman does not bring the party any lower in the public conscience and into any further gross disrepute. After all, some people are already saying he has lost his head.
3 Responses to " Is the Chairman Going Insane? Some Parallels with King Charles I "
Geoff Crompton says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:02 am
I don’t believe the Chairman has become mentally ill, his behaviour is not totally irrational. His behaviour seems quite calculating and extremely defensive of himself and his immediate entourage. His appointment of Pat Harrington is also indicative of the fact that Mr. Harrington has his total trust, which is extremely worrying for all true Nationalists. The Chairman is hanging on to power by his fingertips and is bringing our party into disrepute and the quiet mockery of our Marxist enemies. He is also now blatantly damaging our parties image and credibility, which leads us to wonder whether he has been doing this intentionally for some time now. His behaviour on the BBC’s “Question Time” was cringe-worthy and embarrassing to say the least, even given the circumstances. If the Chairman cared enough about the party and put the interests of British Nationalism above his own he would have been honest about the parties financial crises and stepped aside for a better man with better judgement to repair what’s left and urgently rebuild the parties trust and its activist base. I am convinced that blind loyalty by mostly non-active members saw him re-elected by this tiny margin. He has no mandate to lead the party, especially now the lies he told to the members are being exposed. I can only pose one question to myself and anyone who will listen now. That is; Is Nick Griffin intentionally trying to destroy the BNP? If he is not, he certainly is doing a marvellous impression of a man who is.
Reply
Jerry Owen says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:18 am
Thankyou for this article.
I was absolutely shocked to hear him swear the way he did. we all no doubt share his anger but certain things you keep to yourself. By and large the British public are mild people hence the continued election of mainstream parties with little vote for the radical parties.
This language will frighten many people and compound already held opinions that we are just a bit ‘too much’ ( which when you ask people what they mean they don’t actually know!).
I know that in the part of the SE region where I am the party is in non existence, from having squads of leafletters and table top volunteers at every need, to not even meetings now.
I am a life member and as such I was promised free publications of Identity and Freedom. Needless to say I have never received a single publication. Clearly this life membership was for a quick cash injection to the ‘party’ with an offer that was never to be that is dishonest. They have broken their pledge to me, how can I pledge myself to the party at present? and if I can’t support my party at the present why should any member of the public vote for us?
Reply
mercia says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:31 am
In my opinion the problems within the BNP began with the appearance upon the scene of Harrington. I understand that there is no love lost between him and Griffin, yet Griffin employs both Harrington and Harrington’s wife (none of which are members), at members’ expense (£50,000 per annum?). So what is going on?
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes – when you eliminate the impossible whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth.
Does Harrington have something big and bad on Griffin – is that the answer?
As for “powersharing” with Brons – that simply is not going to happen. How can it – “powersharing” implies making the financial records of the party available – about the very last thing Griffin can afford to do.
Maybe – just maybe – Harrington’s apparent hold over Griffin and Griffin’s reluctance to power share and make the party’s financial records visible, are linked?
Notwithstanding this, however, in the words of another great Englishman, Oliver Cromwell, “We look for no compulsion but that of light and reason.”
Is the Chairman Going Insane?
Some Parallels with King Charles I
Posted by admin, on 17 August, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site // 3 Comments
By Hogarth.
The purpose of this website is to encourage articles and policies from sensible contributors, with a view to discussing and improving the condition of our country. Positive and constructive debate should always be welcomed.
Another purpose is to provide constructive criticism in terms of the manner in which the party is directed. This is especially important at this crucial juncture for nationalism. We wish to keep nationalists aboard and avoid their alienation.
That we have reached a juncture cannot be doubted. In the past two years, the party has been heavily on the retreat. It has lost its credibility.
We have lost councillor after councillor, either through defection or by failure to obtain re-election. The national elections’ officer has presided over one failure after another.
Moreover, we have lost most of our activists, some of whom have defected to rival parties. We have experienced the collapse of units, branches and entire regions. We have overseen the collapse of our vote in our own strongholds. We have witnessed one incompetent appointment after another, including retards, dimwits and the semi-criminal class. Leading officials have been involved in brawls.
Members have also discovered the accumulation of vast debts and financial incompetence on a Himalayan scale.
More recently, we have experienced a leadership election in which one side panicked, broke its own rules and issued offensive and mendacious bulletins and illicit communications from unfit Regional Organisers. A margin of merely nine votes swung the contest.
In essence, the current Chairman is without a mandate. He can only run the party with the support of the wing of the party that backed his opponent. In those circumstances, it would then be possible to reach a degree of unity and shared purpose. Unfortunately, this possibility appears unlikely.
This site has made its requirements known on several occasions. In particular, it has requested the removal of the non party member, multiracialist and political adversary who runs much of the party and advises the Chairman. His removal would be met with applause by both wings of the party.
The Chairman’s failure to remove him denotes a close relationship between the two and, seemingly, a determination to keep the party split and accentuate the division.
The most recent example of poor judgement, which has caused members to question the Chairman’s sanity, was his ill-advised public statement on the recent riots, which few intelligent nationalists could possibly have supported. This video was advertised in a members’ bulletin and carried over the official party website.
Using a teleprompter, the Chairman read his statement. In it he employed swear words, such as “flies round shit” and “the little bastards”. He spoke of judicial punishments which would entail handcuffing culprits to lamp posts for 48 hours.
He also boasted of the party’s ‘black members’, which suggested he sought the advice of the party’s political rival, multiracialist and non member.
What sane leader would produce a video for the party’s members, leave alone for public consumption, which embraced wild and intemperate statements of the flavour provided above?
Could it be that his general advice is almost wholly dependent upon retards, tattoed no-necks, knuckle-draggers and cranks, because everyone with any sense or expertise has departed or been excluded?
Could it be that the Chairman has simply gone off his rocker?
It seems his condition has deteriorated after the appalling manner in which he conducted himself a year ago during the invitation to attend the Queen’s Garden Party. What a fool he made of himself. What a figure of fun he has become to many, who need merely point at him to deprecate nationalism.
No wonder much of the public support many of our policies but consider the party to be beyond the bounds. That this is so is in large measure due to many of the crazed, deranged, impulsive, imprudent and unhinged utterances of the Chairman.
That he was re-elected to office is because his team broke the election rules.
In the next month or so, we shall also discover the extent to which he and his team misrepresented the affairs of the party to the membership during the election contest.
This website has already documented the failure of the party, yet again, to submit its accounts on time to the Electoral Commission. Similarly, it has documented some of the bills outstanding, including one to HM Customs and Revenue. Fortunately for the Chairman, these facts were revealed after the election, but only just.
The Chairman may have won the election with a wafer thin majority of nine votes, after his team employed illicit tactics, but his position is becoming increasingly untenable. Indeed, the party’s financial position depends upon numerous pending Court hearings.
The Chairman has also failed to call a meeting of the NEC under the new Constitution adopted at the recent Extraordinary Meeting. Perhaps, rather like King Charles 1, who thought he could rule without Parliament, the Chairman believes he can rule the party without its governing body. The King eventually had to recall Parliament to raise taxes. The Chairman might have to depend upon the NEC and his opposing wing in the party to raise funds.
Whether or not he is off his rocker, he might remember that through sheer incompetence and intransigence, the King eventually lost his head.
Let us all hope the Chairman does not bring the party any lower in the public conscience and into any further gross disrepute. After all, some people are already saying he has lost his head.
3 Responses to " Is the Chairman Going Insane? Some Parallels with King Charles I "
Geoff Crompton says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:02 am
I don’t believe the Chairman has become mentally ill, his behaviour is not totally irrational. His behaviour seems quite calculating and extremely defensive of himself and his immediate entourage. His appointment of Pat Harrington is also indicative of the fact that Mr. Harrington has his total trust, which is extremely worrying for all true Nationalists. The Chairman is hanging on to power by his fingertips and is bringing our party into disrepute and the quiet mockery of our Marxist enemies. He is also now blatantly damaging our parties image and credibility, which leads us to wonder whether he has been doing this intentionally for some time now. His behaviour on the BBC’s “Question Time” was cringe-worthy and embarrassing to say the least, even given the circumstances. If the Chairman cared enough about the party and put the interests of British Nationalism above his own he would have been honest about the parties financial crises and stepped aside for a better man with better judgement to repair what’s left and urgently rebuild the parties trust and its activist base. I am convinced that blind loyalty by mostly non-active members saw him re-elected by this tiny margin. He has no mandate to lead the party, especially now the lies he told to the members are being exposed. I can only pose one question to myself and anyone who will listen now. That is; Is Nick Griffin intentionally trying to destroy the BNP? If he is not, he certainly is doing a marvellous impression of a man who is.
Reply
Jerry Owen says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:18 am
Thankyou for this article.
I was absolutely shocked to hear him swear the way he did. we all no doubt share his anger but certain things you keep to yourself. By and large the British public are mild people hence the continued election of mainstream parties with little vote for the radical parties.
This language will frighten many people and compound already held opinions that we are just a bit ‘too much’ ( which when you ask people what they mean they don’t actually know!).
I know that in the part of the SE region where I am the party is in non existence, from having squads of leafletters and table top volunteers at every need, to not even meetings now.
I am a life member and as such I was promised free publications of Identity and Freedom. Needless to say I have never received a single publication. Clearly this life membership was for a quick cash injection to the ‘party’ with an offer that was never to be that is dishonest. They have broken their pledge to me, how can I pledge myself to the party at present? and if I can’t support my party at the present why should any member of the public vote for us?
Reply
mercia says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:31 am
In my opinion the problems within the BNP began with the appearance upon the scene of Harrington. I understand that there is no love lost between him and Griffin, yet Griffin employs both Harrington and Harrington’s wife (none of which are members), at members’ expense (£50,000 per annum?). So what is going on?
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes – when you eliminate the impossible whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth.
Does Harrington have something big and bad on Griffin – is that the answer?
As for “powersharing” with Brons – that simply is not going to happen. How can it – “powersharing” implies making the financial records of the party available – about the very last thing Griffin can afford to do.
Maybe – just maybe – Harrington’s apparent hold over Griffin and Griffin’s reluctance to power share and make the party’s financial records visible, are linked?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
