Sunday 30 October 2011
"Look at me, everyone - I'm so not a racist"
 |
| Rev Jim Jones, leader of the religio-political cult, the Peoples Temple, liked to promote himself as the head of a "Rainbow Family" and as "the ultimate socialist". |
"Your Kool - Aid is ready"
The following is an extract from the Wikipedia article, Jonestown.
White Nights
Jones made frequent addresses to Temple members regarding Jonestown's safety, including statements that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were conspiring with "capitalist pigs" to destroy Jonestown and harm its members.[46][61][62] After work, when purported emergencies arose, the Temple sometimes conducted what Jones referred to as "White Nights".[63] During such events, Jones would sometimes give the Jonestown members four choices: (1) attempt to flee to the Soviet Union; (2) commit "revolutionary suicide"; (3) stay in Jonestown and fight the purported attackers or (4) flee into the jungle.[64]
On at least two occasions during White Nights, after a "revolutionary suicide" vote was reached, a simulated mass suicide was rehearsed. Peoples Temple defector Deborah Layton described the event in an affidavit:
"Everyone, including the children, was told to line up. As we passed through the line, we were given a small glass of red liquid to drink. We were told that the liquid contained poison and that we would die within 45 minutes. We all did as we were told. When the time came when we should have dropped dead, Rev. Jones explained that the poison was not real and that we had just been through a loyalty test. He warned us that the time was not far off when it would become necessary for us to die by our own hands."[65]
The Temple had received monthly half-pound shipments of cyanide since 1976 after Jones obtained a jeweler's license to buy the chemical, purportedly to clean gold.[66]
White Nights
Jones made frequent addresses to Temple members regarding Jonestown's safety, including statements that the CIA and other intelligence agencies were conspiring with "capitalist pigs" to destroy Jonestown and harm its members.[46][61][62] After work, when purported emergencies arose, the Temple sometimes conducted what Jones referred to as "White Nights".[63] During such events, Jones would sometimes give the Jonestown members four choices: (1) attempt to flee to the Soviet Union; (2) commit "revolutionary suicide"; (3) stay in Jonestown and fight the purported attackers or (4) flee into the jungle.[64]
On at least two occasions during White Nights, after a "revolutionary suicide" vote was reached, a simulated mass suicide was rehearsed. Peoples Temple defector Deborah Layton described the event in an affidavit:
"Everyone, including the children, was told to line up. As we passed through the line, we were given a small glass of red liquid to drink. We were told that the liquid contained poison and that we would die within 45 minutes. We all did as we were told. When the time came when we should have dropped dead, Rev. Jones explained that the poison was not real and that we had just been through a loyalty test. He warned us that the time was not far off when it would become necessary for us to die by our own hands."[65]
The Temple had received monthly half-pound shipments of cyanide since 1976 after Jones obtained a jeweler's license to buy the chemical, purportedly to clean gold.[66]
Saturday 29 October 2011
The "ultimate nationalist"?
The following is an extract from the Wikipedia article Peoples Temple.
Organizational structure
Although some descriptions of the Peoples Temple emphasize Jones's autocratic control over Temple operation, in actuality, the Temple possessed a complex leadership structure with decision-making power unevenly dispersed among its members. However, within that structure, Temple members were subjected unwittingly and gradually to sophisticated mind control and behavior modification techniques borrowed from post-revolutionary People's Republic of China and North Korea.[25] The Temple brightly defined psychological borders over which "enemies", such as "traitors" to the Temple, crossed at their own peril.[25] While the secrecy and caution he demanded in recruiting led to decreased overall membership, they also helped Jones to better foster a hero worship of himself as the "ultimate socialist".[25]
In the early 1970s, the Temple established a more formal hierarchy for its socialistic model.[26] At the top were the Temple's Staff, a select group of eight to ten unquestionably obedient college-educated women that undertook the most sensitive missions for the Temple.[26] They necessarily acclimated themselves to an "ends justify the means" philosophy.[26] The earliest member was Sandy Bradshaw, a 24-year-old socialist from Syracuse, New York.[26] Others included Carolyn Layton, a 31-year-old Communist since the age of 15 who was the mother of a child with Jones; Sharon Amos, who worked for the social services department; Patty Cartmell, Jones' secretary; and Terry Buford, a Navy brat turned pacifist.[26] The group was often scorned as being elitist within the egalitarian Temple organization and were viewed as Temple secret police.[26]
The Temple's Planning Commission was its governing board.[27][28] Membership quickly ballooned from 50 to over 100.[27][28] During the week, members convened for meetings in various Redwood Valley locations, sometimes until dawn.[27] The Planning Commission was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Temple, including key decision making, financial and legal planning, and oversight of the organization.[29] The Planning Commission sat over various other committees, such as the Diversions Committee, which carried out tasks such as writing huge numbers of letters to politicians from fictional people mailed from various locations around the U.S.,[30] and the Mertles Committee, which undertook activities against defectors Al and Jeannie Mills.[31]
A group of rank-and-file members, referred to by outsiders as "the troops", consisted of working-class members that were 70–80% black who set up chairs for meetings, filled offering boxes and did other tasks.[26] Most made the leap from Christianity to the Temple's quasi-socialism both because of the Temple's political reeducation and because "the troops" were responding to the form rather than the substance of the Temple's services.[26] Jones also surrounded himself with several dozen mostly white privileged members in their twenties and thirties who had skills in law, accounting, nursing, teaching, music and administration.[26] This latter group carried out public relations, financial duties and more mundane chores while bringing in good salaries from well-paying outside jobs.[26]
Organizational structure
Although some descriptions of the Peoples Temple emphasize Jones's autocratic control over Temple operation, in actuality, the Temple possessed a complex leadership structure with decision-making power unevenly dispersed among its members. However, within that structure, Temple members were subjected unwittingly and gradually to sophisticated mind control and behavior modification techniques borrowed from post-revolutionary People's Republic of China and North Korea.[25] The Temple brightly defined psychological borders over which "enemies", such as "traitors" to the Temple, crossed at their own peril.[25] While the secrecy and caution he demanded in recruiting led to decreased overall membership, they also helped Jones to better foster a hero worship of himself as the "ultimate socialist".[25]
In the early 1970s, the Temple established a more formal hierarchy for its socialistic model.[26] At the top were the Temple's Staff, a select group of eight to ten unquestionably obedient college-educated women that undertook the most sensitive missions for the Temple.[26] They necessarily acclimated themselves to an "ends justify the means" philosophy.[26] The earliest member was Sandy Bradshaw, a 24-year-old socialist from Syracuse, New York.[26] Others included Carolyn Layton, a 31-year-old Communist since the age of 15 who was the mother of a child with Jones; Sharon Amos, who worked for the social services department; Patty Cartmell, Jones' secretary; and Terry Buford, a Navy brat turned pacifist.[26] The group was often scorned as being elitist within the egalitarian Temple organization and were viewed as Temple secret police.[26]
The Temple's Planning Commission was its governing board.[27][28] Membership quickly ballooned from 50 to over 100.[27][28] During the week, members convened for meetings in various Redwood Valley locations, sometimes until dawn.[27] The Planning Commission was responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Temple, including key decision making, financial and legal planning, and oversight of the organization.[29] The Planning Commission sat over various other committees, such as the Diversions Committee, which carried out tasks such as writing huge numbers of letters to politicians from fictional people mailed from various locations around the U.S.,[30] and the Mertles Committee, which undertook activities against defectors Al and Jeannie Mills.[31]
A group of rank-and-file members, referred to by outsiders as "the troops", consisted of working-class members that were 70–80% black who set up chairs for meetings, filled offering boxes and did other tasks.[26] Most made the leap from Christianity to the Temple's quasi-socialism both because of the Temple's political reeducation and because "the troops" were responding to the form rather than the substance of the Temple's services.[26] Jones also surrounded himself with several dozen mostly white privileged members in their twenties and thirties who had skills in law, accounting, nursing, teaching, music and administration.[26] This latter group carried out public relations, financial duties and more mundane chores while bringing in good salaries from well-paying outside jobs.[26]
The Ideal BNP
Message from Andrew Brons MEP
Friday, 28 October 2011
Dear Fellow Nationalist
I must, first of all, thank you for your attendance at the BNP Ideas Conference.
The quality of the debate and of those contributing to it said so much about the people whom the Party has lost over recent months and years and those whom it is continuing to lose. If the Party had set out to alienate and deprive itself of talent of all kinds, it could not have done a better job. The Party has lost: national, regional and local officials of the highest calibre; councillors, speakers; writers; editors of publications and of websites; and experienced administrators.
The positive side of this haemorrhage of talent is that it has not been lost for ever. These people have gravitated towards the BNP Ideas website and towards the 22nd October Conference. This is something about which we can be optimistic.
The Conference was remarkable in many ways. There was a unity of a very special kind. It was not that everybody came to the meeting of one mind and then proceeded to engage in mutual congratulation and spontaneous and ill-considered congratulation. People came with a variety of different and mutually inconsistent and even incompatible proposals and default positions. A consensus of sorts did emerge but only after agonised reflection, re-consideration and reasoned argument.
One house rule was established from the outset and this rule permeated the whole atmosphere of the meeting. It was that there would be an almost unprecedented freedom of speech, complemented by an agreement to listen to views with which one disagreed and to contest those views only after the speaker had finished.
Richard Edmonds made an early plea for spiritual unity, even if institutional unity eluded us. It was echoed by one speaker after another and it was agreed that there would be mutual tolerance for members who had taken different paths and end up in different organisations. That might be regarded by later chroniclers as ‘a historic moment’ or even ‘an historic moment’!
Another remarkable feature of the meeting was the conviviality between people who had not always been allies. I hope that these features of the meeting will endure to create a new political culture among Nationalists.
Perhaps the most unusual feature of the Conference was that it was not stage-managed in advance. It was described as a ‘bottom-up’ rather than a ‘top down’ meeting. Cynics might observe that this had at least as much to do with the fact that its organisers were not completely in agreement, as it had to do with a passion for liberal democracy.
Many had come to the Conference disposed to form a new party without delay. Most were persuaded that break-away parties that are established when the ‘parent party’ is still operative, invariably fail. Furthermore, they accepted, reluctantly, that parties cannot be founded immediately on the collapse of the ‘parent party’.
As you know, it was agreed to establish a ‘parallel structure’ that would initially fill the gaps left by the BNP for those who were not disposed to work closely with the current regime. However, it would be ready to establish a successor party when the ‘parent party’ had been driven into the ground by the current suicidal strategy of driving all critics out of it.
It is important to start to build this parallel structure without delay. We cannot afford to be unprepared when the avalanche of debts and criminal and civil actions destroy what remains of the present party.
1. Individuals should register their names with the ‘structure’ without delay by sending an e-mail to the BNP Ideas website or by writing to my home address. Please understand that I might not have the time to enter into any protracted correspondence and might have to delegate this task to others.
2. Meetings of past, present and possible members in localities, preferably with a guest speaker and some planned activities locally.
3. As many people as possible should be encouraged to view the BNP Ideas website and to register there as individuals. People who would like to contribute articles to the website should send them there by e-mail.
4. It is to be hoped that a template for leaflets bearing your local address or box number will be available.
5. You should contribute to the campaign for a referendum to get Britain out of the EU.
6. Make contact with as many other Nationalists as possible and invite them to keep in contact with the ‘structure’ even if they have left and joined other parties.
The Conference that was held last Saturday was a great success. Let us make sure that it does not become a lost opportunity.
A further more detailed communication will follow next week.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Brons MEP
Friday, 28 October 2011
Dear Fellow Nationalist
I must, first of all, thank you for your attendance at the BNP Ideas Conference.
The quality of the debate and of those contributing to it said so much about the people whom the Party has lost over recent months and years and those whom it is continuing to lose. If the Party had set out to alienate and deprive itself of talent of all kinds, it could not have done a better job. The Party has lost: national, regional and local officials of the highest calibre; councillors, speakers; writers; editors of publications and of websites; and experienced administrators.
The positive side of this haemorrhage of talent is that it has not been lost for ever. These people have gravitated towards the BNP Ideas website and towards the 22nd October Conference. This is something about which we can be optimistic.
The Conference was remarkable in many ways. There was a unity of a very special kind. It was not that everybody came to the meeting of one mind and then proceeded to engage in mutual congratulation and spontaneous and ill-considered congratulation. People came with a variety of different and mutually inconsistent and even incompatible proposals and default positions. A consensus of sorts did emerge but only after agonised reflection, re-consideration and reasoned argument.
One house rule was established from the outset and this rule permeated the whole atmosphere of the meeting. It was that there would be an almost unprecedented freedom of speech, complemented by an agreement to listen to views with which one disagreed and to contest those views only after the speaker had finished.
Richard Edmonds made an early plea for spiritual unity, even if institutional unity eluded us. It was echoed by one speaker after another and it was agreed that there would be mutual tolerance for members who had taken different paths and end up in different organisations. That might be regarded by later chroniclers as ‘a historic moment’ or even ‘an historic moment’!
Another remarkable feature of the meeting was the conviviality between people who had not always been allies. I hope that these features of the meeting will endure to create a new political culture among Nationalists.
Perhaps the most unusual feature of the Conference was that it was not stage-managed in advance. It was described as a ‘bottom-up’ rather than a ‘top down’ meeting. Cynics might observe that this had at least as much to do with the fact that its organisers were not completely in agreement, as it had to do with a passion for liberal democracy.
Many had come to the Conference disposed to form a new party without delay. Most were persuaded that break-away parties that are established when the ‘parent party’ is still operative, invariably fail. Furthermore, they accepted, reluctantly, that parties cannot be founded immediately on the collapse of the ‘parent party’.
As you know, it was agreed to establish a ‘parallel structure’ that would initially fill the gaps left by the BNP for those who were not disposed to work closely with the current regime. However, it would be ready to establish a successor party when the ‘parent party’ had been driven into the ground by the current suicidal strategy of driving all critics out of it.
It is important to start to build this parallel structure without delay. We cannot afford to be unprepared when the avalanche of debts and criminal and civil actions destroy what remains of the present party.
1. Individuals should register their names with the ‘structure’ without delay by sending an e-mail to the BNP Ideas website or by writing to my home address. Please understand that I might not have the time to enter into any protracted correspondence and might have to delegate this task to others.
2. Meetings of past, present and possible members in localities, preferably with a guest speaker and some planned activities locally.
3. As many people as possible should be encouraged to view the BNP Ideas website and to register there as individuals. People who would like to contribute articles to the website should send them there by e-mail.
4. It is to be hoped that a template for leaflets bearing your local address or box number will be available.
5. You should contribute to the campaign for a referendum to get Britain out of the EU.
6. Make contact with as many other Nationalists as possible and invite them to keep in contact with the ‘structure’ even if they have left and joined other parties.
The Conference that was held last Saturday was a great success. Let us make sure that it does not become a lost opportunity.
A further more detailed communication will follow next week.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Brons MEP
Friday 28 October 2011
Remember Captain Boycott
BOYCOTTS: LET'S TAKE BACK SOME POWER; LET'S HAVE SOME FUN
by Polemics
Money counts for more than votes
Boycotts work. If you are feeling depressed and disenfranchised don't be; you have (some) money in your pocket. Money is power - use it. What we lack in individual wealth we compensate for in numbers (and ideally organisation). Nearly one million voters supported the BNP in the Euro elections of '09 and that level of support was maintained in the 2010 General Election. Think of votes as a kind of currency - one million voters spent their votes on us. Now, supposing we could harness those voters to spend, or not spend, their pounds in ways which would promote our political objectives. For example, if in 2010 the Party leadership had wished to teach Unilever a lesson; to make it clear that business was not to interfere in politics; that nationalists were not impressed by their derogatory Marmite advertising campaign; that ridiculing the BNP with their "Love Hate" campaign would hit their bottom line and in the process wipe the smirk off the faces of the cocky young politically correct and comformist "creatives" at their ad agency - all the BNP had to do was post a message on their hugely popular website calling for a boycott of Unilever's products together with a list of those products. Unilever operates in a very competitive field and with products which are readily substitutable. Imagine a situation where a million voters immediately stopped buying "Persil" and bought Proctor & Gamble's "Ariel". That boycott could have been felt by their sales department possibly within hours!
There are plenty of organisations and businesses which are hostile to our objectives:
the BBC is a nest of Marxist vipers almost wholly dependent on licence fee revenues. Throw out the television and stop paying the licence fee. Removing the television from one's life has two important benefits; first one saves money on the licence fee tax; secondly and perhaps more importantly, one starts to feel better mentally. The media really is bad for one's mental health; ditto for the radio; and the newspapers are financially on the ropes thanks to the internet and independent blogging. It is perfectly within our power to deliver the knockout blow: stop buying them; stop picking up the freebies; and stop reading them even when it's someone else's copy of the "Daily Backstabber".
Think long and hard with whom you do business, and remember buying a pint of milk is doing business.
There are plenty of businesses who promote images of the soft/stealth genocide - race mixing. It is important we boycott these organisations. Race mixing has psychological and health implications. On health grounds alone it should not be encouraged.
To recap, boycotts are good because they are fun; we feel empowered; our mental health improves; we do not need to win elections to further our objectives; we have the satisfaction of punishing the people and organisations harming us; we save money, which we can then direct to people and organisations, who at the very least, do not actively harm us.
by Polemics
Money counts for more than votes
Boycotts work. If you are feeling depressed and disenfranchised don't be; you have (some) money in your pocket. Money is power - use it. What we lack in individual wealth we compensate for in numbers (and ideally organisation). Nearly one million voters supported the BNP in the Euro elections of '09 and that level of support was maintained in the 2010 General Election. Think of votes as a kind of currency - one million voters spent their votes on us. Now, supposing we could harness those voters to spend, or not spend, their pounds in ways which would promote our political objectives. For example, if in 2010 the Party leadership had wished to teach Unilever a lesson; to make it clear that business was not to interfere in politics; that nationalists were not impressed by their derogatory Marmite advertising campaign; that ridiculing the BNP with their "Love Hate" campaign would hit their bottom line and in the process wipe the smirk off the faces of the cocky young politically correct and comformist "creatives" at their ad agency - all the BNP had to do was post a message on their hugely popular website calling for a boycott of Unilever's products together with a list of those products. Unilever operates in a very competitive field and with products which are readily substitutable. Imagine a situation where a million voters immediately stopped buying "Persil" and bought Proctor & Gamble's "Ariel". That boycott could have been felt by their sales department possibly within hours!
There are plenty of organisations and businesses which are hostile to our objectives:
the BBC is a nest of Marxist vipers almost wholly dependent on licence fee revenues. Throw out the television and stop paying the licence fee. Removing the television from one's life has two important benefits; first one saves money on the licence fee tax; secondly and perhaps more importantly, one starts to feel better mentally. The media really is bad for one's mental health; ditto for the radio; and the newspapers are financially on the ropes thanks to the internet and independent blogging. It is perfectly within our power to deliver the knockout blow: stop buying them; stop picking up the freebies; and stop reading them even when it's someone else's copy of the "Daily Backstabber".
Think long and hard with whom you do business, and remember buying a pint of milk is doing business.
There are plenty of businesses who promote images of the soft/stealth genocide - race mixing. It is important we boycott these organisations. Race mixing has psychological and health implications. On health grounds alone it should not be encouraged.
To recap, boycotts are good because they are fun; we feel empowered; our mental health improves; we do not need to win elections to further our objectives; we have the satisfaction of punishing the people and organisations harming us; we save money, which we can then direct to people and organisations, who at the very least, do not actively harm us.
Thursday 27 October 2011
Tuesday 25 October 2011
Shut uppa your face!
"By Giuseppe De Santis – Anyone who has been involved with the British National Party knows extremely well how nasty the mainstream media are, especially during the elections. In a normal country such abuse of power would never be tolerated, but Britain is not a normal country anymore, as democracy and free speech died a long time ago."
This is an extract from an article by the Uruguayan immigrant's assistant, the Italian immigrant, recently published on the main web site of the BNP.
Perhaps Signor De Santis believes that there is less corruption in his land of ethnic origin, Italy, where the prime minister becomes the prime minister because he owns most of the country's television stations.
Well, if De Santis would prefer to live in a "normal" country he only has to let me know and I'll drive him to the airport.
This is an extract from an article by the Uruguayan immigrant's assistant, the Italian immigrant, recently published on the main web site of the BNP.
Perhaps Signor De Santis believes that there is less corruption in his land of ethnic origin, Italy, where the prime minister becomes the prime minister because he owns most of the country's television stations.
Well, if De Santis would prefer to live in a "normal" country he only has to let me know and I'll drive him to the airport.
Monday 24 October 2011
The greatest conqueror is he who overcomes the enemy without a blow
THE BNP Ideas Conference on Saturday was the nicest and friendliest, as well as the most professionally organized, British National Party event I think I have ever attended.
Was this because of the absence of Mr Griffin and his entourage?
No doubt their absence helped to make the ambience much more civilized than it would otherwise have been.
But there was more to it than that.
The 150 plus activists in attendance, both past and present members of the BNP, were the party's best and bravest. Some of the best minds in nationalism discussed the impasse in which the movement currently languishes and arrived at the best solution. Of that there can be little doubt.
A list of the names of those present at the Conference reads like a Who's Who of British Nationalism.
Uncannily, nationalism has been in this situation before, with the same prominent nationalists opposing each other now just as they did back in the late 1980s.
Messrs Griffin and Harrington no doubt hoped that Andrew Brons would form a new political party with his supporters, leaving a remnant of the BNP in their hands.
But Griffin and Harrington can hardly have forgotten the victorious strategy of the Flag Group between 1986 and 1989. This is the 'Fabian strategy' they most dread and with good reason.
This is, inter alia, to continue to self-identify as BNP members, even if unjustly expelled from the party by means of Griffin's abuse of the disciplinary/disputes procedure. Existing members should maintain their party membership, renewing it as it falls due, in order to retain (or to acquire) the right to vote, which an unforeseen exigency may enable them to exercise.
If one has allowed one's membership to lapse, which approximately ten thousand members have over the last eighteen months or so, then, by taking the trouble to register as a supporter of Andrew Brons' new 'Flag Group' within the BNP one will be doing one's bit to oppose Griffin's misrule: helping to build a parallel, or alternative, party structure - in effect a new leadership in waiting.
The strategy is also one of a withdrawal of co-operation and goodwill. A 'work to rule', if you will. How each member and/or supporter interprets this in practice is to be left to their own discretion.
One should also eschew joining other parties, whether genuinely nationalist or not. The other genuinely nationalist parties are too small and their media profile is too low (can a flat line be described as a profile?) to make any difference. The aim is to seize, and thereby rescue, the BNP at the most propitious moment. This is likely to come sooner rather than later, but in any case within the next six to nine months.
Resorting to the courts is not cost effective. A political problem, namely Griffin's abuse of power, requires a political solution, rather than a legal one.
Disciplinary action by Griffin is nothing to be feared. If he knows that you, as a BNP member, have supported a constitutional challenge to his leadership then your card is marked in any case, whether formal disciplinary action has yet been instituted against you or not.
In the event that you receive notification of a local party meeting and turn up to it, if you are not turned away at the door, the fact that you are persona non grata with the party leader is likely to be communicated to you in other ways by his supporters.
Furthermore, even if you voted for Griffin in the leadership election, you ought to understand by now that under his continuing leadership the party is going in only one direction: down the plug-hole.
Consequently you have nothing to lose and your party to gain, by disregarding, as unlawful, any disciplinary action the party purports to take against you, if, as is likely, it contravenes the rules of natural justice. Griffin and Harrington, in their anxiety to purge anyone whom they suspect of being capable of getting between them and the BNP feeding trough, tend to overlook little details like observing natural justice.
The rules of natural justice cannot be abrogated by any written constitution, notwithstanding any pretended claim to the contrary within such a document.
It is enough to know this and to act accordingly in the full confidence that right is on one's side, without paying to go to court in order to prove it, though this always remains an option for up to six years after the event.
My own view is that the new 'Flag Group' (its real name has not yet been announced) should not field candidates against the 'official' BNP in the way that the 1980s Flag Group did against the 'official' National Front, on at least one occasion. I see nothing wrong with 'Flag Group' members/supporters standing as Independents though, for example in certain London Assembly constituencies, provided there is no 'official' BNP candidate standing in the constituencies concerned.
The outcome of the current power struggle within the BNP is likely to be similar in certain ways to the outcome of that which took place within the National Front between 1986 and 1989. That saw Griffin become a discredited outcast, wandering in the political wilderness for years as a pariah-dog, until given a chance to redeem himself by a magnanimous John Tyndall.
We know how Griffin chose to repay his patron's generosity: with a knife in the back.
Napoleon was also given a second chance to behave himself, which he declined to take. But he was not given a third chance.
As Andrew Brons has said "Some people never learn". This is a great pity because Griffin has clearly made a historic contribution to the nationalist cause.
As Shakespeare has Mark Antony say, "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones..."
Was this because of the absence of Mr Griffin and his entourage?
No doubt their absence helped to make the ambience much more civilized than it would otherwise have been.
But there was more to it than that.
The 150 plus activists in attendance, both past and present members of the BNP, were the party's best and bravest. Some of the best minds in nationalism discussed the impasse in which the movement currently languishes and arrived at the best solution. Of that there can be little doubt.
A list of the names of those present at the Conference reads like a Who's Who of British Nationalism.
Uncannily, nationalism has been in this situation before, with the same prominent nationalists opposing each other now just as they did back in the late 1980s.
Messrs Griffin and Harrington no doubt hoped that Andrew Brons would form a new political party with his supporters, leaving a remnant of the BNP in their hands.
But Griffin and Harrington can hardly have forgotten the victorious strategy of the Flag Group between 1986 and 1989. This is the 'Fabian strategy' they most dread and with good reason.
This is, inter alia, to continue to self-identify as BNP members, even if unjustly expelled from the party by means of Griffin's abuse of the disciplinary/disputes procedure. Existing members should maintain their party membership, renewing it as it falls due, in order to retain (or to acquire) the right to vote, which an unforeseen exigency may enable them to exercise.
If one has allowed one's membership to lapse, which approximately ten thousand members have over the last eighteen months or so, then, by taking the trouble to register as a supporter of Andrew Brons' new 'Flag Group' within the BNP one will be doing one's bit to oppose Griffin's misrule: helping to build a parallel, or alternative, party structure - in effect a new leadership in waiting.
The strategy is also one of a withdrawal of co-operation and goodwill. A 'work to rule', if you will. How each member and/or supporter interprets this in practice is to be left to their own discretion.
One should also eschew joining other parties, whether genuinely nationalist or not. The other genuinely nationalist parties are too small and their media profile is too low (can a flat line be described as a profile?) to make any difference. The aim is to seize, and thereby rescue, the BNP at the most propitious moment. This is likely to come sooner rather than later, but in any case within the next six to nine months.
Resorting to the courts is not cost effective. A political problem, namely Griffin's abuse of power, requires a political solution, rather than a legal one.
Disciplinary action by Griffin is nothing to be feared. If he knows that you, as a BNP member, have supported a constitutional challenge to his leadership then your card is marked in any case, whether formal disciplinary action has yet been instituted against you or not.
In the event that you receive notification of a local party meeting and turn up to it, if you are not turned away at the door, the fact that you are persona non grata with the party leader is likely to be communicated to you in other ways by his supporters.
Furthermore, even if you voted for Griffin in the leadership election, you ought to understand by now that under his continuing leadership the party is going in only one direction: down the plug-hole.
Consequently you have nothing to lose and your party to gain, by disregarding, as unlawful, any disciplinary action the party purports to take against you, if, as is likely, it contravenes the rules of natural justice. Griffin and Harrington, in their anxiety to purge anyone whom they suspect of being capable of getting between them and the BNP feeding trough, tend to overlook little details like observing natural justice.
The rules of natural justice cannot be abrogated by any written constitution, notwithstanding any pretended claim to the contrary within such a document.
It is enough to know this and to act accordingly in the full confidence that right is on one's side, without paying to go to court in order to prove it, though this always remains an option for up to six years after the event.
My own view is that the new 'Flag Group' (its real name has not yet been announced) should not field candidates against the 'official' BNP in the way that the 1980s Flag Group did against the 'official' National Front, on at least one occasion. I see nothing wrong with 'Flag Group' members/supporters standing as Independents though, for example in certain London Assembly constituencies, provided there is no 'official' BNP candidate standing in the constituencies concerned.
The outcome of the current power struggle within the BNP is likely to be similar in certain ways to the outcome of that which took place within the National Front between 1986 and 1989. That saw Griffin become a discredited outcast, wandering in the political wilderness for years as a pariah-dog, until given a chance to redeem himself by a magnanimous John Tyndall.
We know how Griffin chose to repay his patron's generosity: with a knife in the back.
Napoleon was also given a second chance to behave himself, which he declined to take. But he was not given a third chance.
As Andrew Brons has said "Some people never learn". This is a great pity because Griffin has clearly made a historic contribution to the nationalist cause.
As Shakespeare has Mark Antony say, "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones..."
Wednesday 19 October 2011
More free advice
A week ago today I posted a short article on this blog, entitled 'Let's have the truth, not propaganda', in which I drew attention to certain factual inaccuracies in a statement above Mr Griffin's name on the main web site of the British National Party, http://www.bnp.org.uk/.
Having visited the site today and looked at the page in question (click on the tab marked 'Introduction' on the home page) I note that, despite the statement concerned having been re-drafted, the factual inaccuracies concerned are still there, though they now appear towards the end of the statement, rather than at the beginning.
I also note that a 'thermometer' appealing for donations for a campaign to re-take the BNP's seat on the London Assembly (still being incorrectly described as the Greater London Assembly) has appeared on the site's home page. This is a belated acknowledgement that the BNP currently does not hold a seat on the London Assembly, a fact which I pointed out in the aforementioned article.
Readers may be either amused, or saddened, to note that the home page of the BNP's main web site now clearly contradicts the statement above Mr Griffin's name on the Introduction page, as regards the party's former seat on the London Assembly. Mr Griffin's message on the Introduction page states that the BNP has a seat on the Assembly, while the home page refers to a campaign to re-take the seat in question!
This blog intends to continue to patronize the incompetent leadership of the BNP with unwanted, though always principled and constructive, criticism, until they see reason and start to do the right thing.
Having visited the site today and looked at the page in question (click on the tab marked 'Introduction' on the home page) I note that, despite the statement concerned having been re-drafted, the factual inaccuracies concerned are still there, though they now appear towards the end of the statement, rather than at the beginning.
I also note that a 'thermometer' appealing for donations for a campaign to re-take the BNP's seat on the London Assembly (still being incorrectly described as the Greater London Assembly) has appeared on the site's home page. This is a belated acknowledgement that the BNP currently does not hold a seat on the London Assembly, a fact which I pointed out in the aforementioned article.
Readers may be either amused, or saddened, to note that the home page of the BNP's main web site now clearly contradicts the statement above Mr Griffin's name on the Introduction page, as regards the party's former seat on the London Assembly. Mr Griffin's message on the Introduction page states that the BNP has a seat on the Assembly, while the home page refers to a campaign to re-take the seat in question!
This blog intends to continue to patronize the incompetent leadership of the BNP with unwanted, though always principled and constructive, criticism, until they see reason and start to do the right thing.
Tuesday 18 October 2011
Monday 17 October 2011
BNP policy winning debate over European Union
Acknowledgements to the Civitas web site for the following press release
EU holds back UK economic recovery
Britain must plan exit strategy from failing EU, but should keep trade links
As Europe's leaders gamble their nations' finances on saving the Euro, a new Civitas report reveals that the European Union is damaging Britain's economic recovery and sapping job growth. Time to Say No, by Ian Milne, shows that a break with the EU need not represent a drastic break with Europe itself. Instead, it will permit a pragmatic reform of trade and immigration relations. Existing international institutions can achieve this without the current burdens of bureaucracy in the EU. It will also revive democracy at home.
So long and thanks for all the fish quotas
The report argues that the British must rejoin the 95% of the global population that remain in countries outside the EU, such as the British Commonwealth nations. These countries have far better prospects for growth in the 21st century than many of the tired economies of mainland Europe:
The EU is in long-term structural demographic and economic decline. It also costs a fortune to belong to. UK withdrawal would result in the British people rejoining the 95 per cent of the world's population who live in self-governing states and successfully trade with each other-and with the EU-multilaterally. [p. 15]
The Great Escape
The report sets out a timetable for an orderly withdrawal from the European Union. It begins in June 2014, following a national referendum on membership of the EU. After receiving the mandate to return to full sovereignty, the British Government would gradually reduce its contributions to the EU budget over a 24-month period. Milne proposes the temporary creation of a Ministry of EU Transitional Arrangements (META) to manage the process from beginning to end, ensuring that government departments are equipped to take over EU functions. [p. 19]
From June 2014, disputes between the European Court of Justice and British law would be mediated using an international dispute settlement procedure. At the end of the withdrawal process in 2016, British laws based on EU regulations would remain in place but could be repealed at the will of Parliament.
By June 2016, the UK would:
•cease all involvement in the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies
•regain control of immigration policy and be able to secure its borders on its own terms
•cease to be regulated by EU trading regulations but continue trading with the EU-26 using rules already set down in WTO, UN, NATO, OECD agreements and other relevant treaties [pp. 20-21]
Spoilt for choice
Milne sets out a number of alternative arrangements that would allow Britain to continue to co-operate in trade with the EU but on a more equal footing. They include:
•The 'Norwegian option'. Under this proposal, Britain remains a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), which provides for an internal European market but does require adherence to some labour laws, consumer protection and health and safety legislation. Crucially, EEA members make a substantially smaller contribution to European organisations than full EU members:
In 2009 this was seven times smaller, per capita, than the UK gross contribution to "Brussels". [p. 13]
Norway is the 7th most prosperous country per head in the world.
•The 'Swiss option'. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but remains outside both the EEA and the EU. By making only bi-lateral trade agreements, it retains full control over all regulations covered by Swiss-EU FTAs, which can be cancelled at any time. Britain could do the same. This is not an inferior trading relationship but merely one that avoids giving excessive powers to Brussels:
Switzerland [exports to the EU] about three times more goods per capita than the UK. [p. 7]
Switzerland is the 17th most prosperous country per head (the UK ranks 37th).
•Unilateral Free Trade and renewed focus on the Commonwealth. Milne explains there is nothing holding Britain back from establishing an ordinary and productive trading relationship with the EU without an explicit treaty:
On withdrawal, the EU would continue to trade with the UK. EU-26's biggest single customer worldwide is the UK, and EU-26 sells far more to the UK than it imports from the UK. Under Articles 3, 8 and 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU is constitutionally obliged to negotiate 'free and fair trade' with non-EU countries...[p. 16]
A looser framework would allow Britain to take the forward-looking approach of establishing closer trade relationships with the Commonwealth:
In 2050, viewed from the UK, the rest of the Commonwealth will constitute a market nine times greater than that of Continental EU. [p. 11]
As a result, there is nothing to fear, but a lot to gain, from re-establishing British sovereignty over the United Kingdom.
For more information contact:
Civitas on 020 77996677
Notes for Editors
i. Ian Milne is the Director of the cross-party think tank, Global Britain. His business career was in industry and merchant banking in the UK, France and Belgium.
ii. Time to Say No: Alternatives to EU Membership is available from the Civitas shop (RRP: £8.00) and by calling 020 7799 6677.
iii. National prosperity ranks are based on GDP per capita (PPP) as shown in the CIA World Factbook.
iv. Civitas is an independent social policy think tank. It has no links to any political party and its research programme receives no state funding.
EU holds back UK economic recovery
Britain must plan exit strategy from failing EU, but should keep trade links
As Europe's leaders gamble their nations' finances on saving the Euro, a new Civitas report reveals that the European Union is damaging Britain's economic recovery and sapping job growth. Time to Say No, by Ian Milne, shows that a break with the EU need not represent a drastic break with Europe itself. Instead, it will permit a pragmatic reform of trade and immigration relations. Existing international institutions can achieve this without the current burdens of bureaucracy in the EU. It will also revive democracy at home.
So long and thanks for all the fish quotas
The report argues that the British must rejoin the 95% of the global population that remain in countries outside the EU, such as the British Commonwealth nations. These countries have far better prospects for growth in the 21st century than many of the tired economies of mainland Europe:
The EU is in long-term structural demographic and economic decline. It also costs a fortune to belong to. UK withdrawal would result in the British people rejoining the 95 per cent of the world's population who live in self-governing states and successfully trade with each other-and with the EU-multilaterally. [p. 15]
The Great Escape
The report sets out a timetable for an orderly withdrawal from the European Union. It begins in June 2014, following a national referendum on membership of the EU. After receiving the mandate to return to full sovereignty, the British Government would gradually reduce its contributions to the EU budget over a 24-month period. Milne proposes the temporary creation of a Ministry of EU Transitional Arrangements (META) to manage the process from beginning to end, ensuring that government departments are equipped to take over EU functions. [p. 19]
From June 2014, disputes between the European Court of Justice and British law would be mediated using an international dispute settlement procedure. At the end of the withdrawal process in 2016, British laws based on EU regulations would remain in place but could be repealed at the will of Parliament.
By June 2016, the UK would:
•cease all involvement in the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies
•regain control of immigration policy and be able to secure its borders on its own terms
•cease to be regulated by EU trading regulations but continue trading with the EU-26 using rules already set down in WTO, UN, NATO, OECD agreements and other relevant treaties [pp. 20-21]
Spoilt for choice
Milne sets out a number of alternative arrangements that would allow Britain to continue to co-operate in trade with the EU but on a more equal footing. They include:
•The 'Norwegian option'. Under this proposal, Britain remains a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), which provides for an internal European market but does require adherence to some labour laws, consumer protection and health and safety legislation. Crucially, EEA members make a substantially smaller contribution to European organisations than full EU members:
In 2009 this was seven times smaller, per capita, than the UK gross contribution to "Brussels". [p. 13]
Norway is the 7th most prosperous country per head in the world.
•The 'Swiss option'. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but remains outside both the EEA and the EU. By making only bi-lateral trade agreements, it retains full control over all regulations covered by Swiss-EU FTAs, which can be cancelled at any time. Britain could do the same. This is not an inferior trading relationship but merely one that avoids giving excessive powers to Brussels:
Switzerland [exports to the EU] about three times more goods per capita than the UK. [p. 7]
Switzerland is the 17th most prosperous country per head (the UK ranks 37th).
•Unilateral Free Trade and renewed focus on the Commonwealth. Milne explains there is nothing holding Britain back from establishing an ordinary and productive trading relationship with the EU without an explicit treaty:
On withdrawal, the EU would continue to trade with the UK. EU-26's biggest single customer worldwide is the UK, and EU-26 sells far more to the UK than it imports from the UK. Under Articles 3, 8 and 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU is constitutionally obliged to negotiate 'free and fair trade' with non-EU countries...[p. 16]
A looser framework would allow Britain to take the forward-looking approach of establishing closer trade relationships with the Commonwealth:
In 2050, viewed from the UK, the rest of the Commonwealth will constitute a market nine times greater than that of Continental EU. [p. 11]
As a result, there is nothing to fear, but a lot to gain, from re-establishing British sovereignty over the United Kingdom.
For more information contact:
Civitas on 020 77996677
Notes for Editors
i. Ian Milne is the Director of the cross-party think tank, Global Britain. His business career was in industry and merchant banking in the UK, France and Belgium.
ii. Time to Say No: Alternatives to EU Membership is available from the Civitas shop (RRP: £8.00) and by calling 020 7799 6677.
iii. National prosperity ranks are based on GDP per capita (PPP) as shown in the CIA World Factbook.
iv. Civitas is an independent social policy think tank. It has no links to any political party and its research programme receives no state funding.
Saturday 15 October 2011
Masterly inactivity
With the British National Party Ideas Conference now only a week away, the minds of BNP members, both past and present, are no doubt concentrated on determining the best way forward for our party and the nationalist movement as a whole.
Having reviewed the history of the movement since the end of the Second World War, it seems to me that nationalism has suffered from two major fault-lines running through it, right up to the present day.
The first is the question, still a vexed one, of nationalism versus populism (or 'culturalism'). The second is the question of authoritarianism versus democracy. These fault-lines intersect, but paradoxically not in the way that perhaps might have been expected. Most of the populists (or 'culturalists') favour authoritarianism, while most of the nationalists (a rather smaller number) favour democracy.
I should perhaps at this point state that I regard myself as a nationalist who favours democracy, while I would regard Mr Griffin, for example, as a populist who favours authoritarianism.
These two ideological dimensions, namely nationalism - populism and authoritarianism - democracy, have been the ostensible source of numerous schisms and secessions over the past two generations. The schisms and the secessions have effectively been self-defeating for the movement, if success is to be defined as, if not governing the country ourselves, at least having our key policies properly implemented by others.
I say these ideological differences have been the ostensible source of schisms and secessions because there is, I suggest, always another source or factor in play, which acts as a catalyst or accelerant. That is, the very human desire to get one's own way and to safeguard one's own position against a challenge by potential rivals.
All political parties are coalitions of individuals who come together for collective action because they believe they have more in common with their colleagues than they would have with others. Naturally, one will find some colleagues more congenial than others. Some, one would not be likely to associate with were it not that they were party colleagues. The same situation pertains in any work-place.
Very rarely, fortunately, one may find that one is faced with a matter of principle which requires one to leave a party, or a job, for that matter. Usually, certainly in the case of a party, one's natural inclination is to stay, to work for progress from within and to hope for better days.
I regard the unification which led to the formation of the National Front, in 1967, as having been a great and positive achievement of nationalism, one which both John Tyndall and John Bean played no small part in bringing to fruition.
In the late 1970s it really did look as though that party was on the verge of an electoral breakthrough, with increasingly promising election results and growing media attention.
In some ways the situation post 2010 parallels the situation post 1979. In the general election campaign of each of these years the premier nationalist party of the day over-extended itself, having aroused inflated and unrealistic expectations amongst its activists, and then went down in a welter of factious blood-letting. Prior to the 2010 general election I took the liberty of writing to Mr Griffin suggesting that it would be financially prudent not to field more than about 160 parliamentary candidates. In the event the party actually fielded 336, fewer than one in four of whom saved their £500 deposit.
Mr Tyndall, in an article published in Spearhead in April 2005, (entitled 'New Party A Non-Starter')made a cogent plea for nationalist unity. He asked all members of the BNP to stay with the party, regardless of how badly they were treated by its leadership. He made this altruistic plea as someone who had both founded the party and been expelled from it by the man he had been grooming to be his successor. Indeed, he was expelled twice from the BNP by Mr Griffin (being reinstated once after court proceedings) and was in that state of exile when he wrote the article selflessly recommending that others stay within the BNP and not attempt to set up a new party, or parties.
Mr Tyndall knew, from his more than forty years' experience of the movement, that '...it is the BNP or nothing'. He knew that no other party could grow and thrive under the shadow of the BNP. We have seen Mr Tyndall's prediction verified on several occasions only recently. He even acknowledged that his own departure from the National Front in 1980 and formation of the BNP in 1982, might have been a mistake, in hindsight.
Any party, but particularly any nationalist party, requires a certain critical mass of members before it is able to make any significant impression on the consciousness of the electorate. If it is fortunate enough ever to reach that stage then it is going to have both a 'left wing' and a 'right wing'. If the two wings of the party cannot learn to coexist in reasonable harmony then the electorate is most unlikely to find the party very appealing, and it may well simply disintegrate into two or more ineffectual sects, as happened to the National Front during the 1980s. Keeping a political party united is, of course, one of the most crucially important tasks of its leader. Some leaders are more adept than others when it comes to this aspect of leadership.
Andrew Brons MEP has added his own caveat in an article ('Proposals for a New Political Movement') published on the BNP Ideas web site, on 24 August, in which he refers to an "iron law" of political parties. Andrew perspicaciously points out the improbability of any breakaway party ever overtaking the BNP, with its household name brand recognition, and its thousands of armchair members, while the BNP remains operational.
However, to quote Andrew, "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."
I'm reminded of a line from the hit sit-com Yes, Minister, where the minister, Jim Hacker, turns to his permanent secretary, Sir Humphrey, and says "Well, we must do something. We can't just do nothing!" Sir Humphrey replies "Why not? It's usually best".
Having reviewed the history of the movement since the end of the Second World War, it seems to me that nationalism has suffered from two major fault-lines running through it, right up to the present day.
The first is the question, still a vexed one, of nationalism versus populism (or 'culturalism'). The second is the question of authoritarianism versus democracy. These fault-lines intersect, but paradoxically not in the way that perhaps might have been expected. Most of the populists (or 'culturalists') favour authoritarianism, while most of the nationalists (a rather smaller number) favour democracy.
I should perhaps at this point state that I regard myself as a nationalist who favours democracy, while I would regard Mr Griffin, for example, as a populist who favours authoritarianism.
These two ideological dimensions, namely nationalism - populism and authoritarianism - democracy, have been the ostensible source of numerous schisms and secessions over the past two generations. The schisms and the secessions have effectively been self-defeating for the movement, if success is to be defined as, if not governing the country ourselves, at least having our key policies properly implemented by others.
I say these ideological differences have been the ostensible source of schisms and secessions because there is, I suggest, always another source or factor in play, which acts as a catalyst or accelerant. That is, the very human desire to get one's own way and to safeguard one's own position against a challenge by potential rivals.
All political parties are coalitions of individuals who come together for collective action because they believe they have more in common with their colleagues than they would have with others. Naturally, one will find some colleagues more congenial than others. Some, one would not be likely to associate with were it not that they were party colleagues. The same situation pertains in any work-place.
Very rarely, fortunately, one may find that one is faced with a matter of principle which requires one to leave a party, or a job, for that matter. Usually, certainly in the case of a party, one's natural inclination is to stay, to work for progress from within and to hope for better days.
I regard the unification which led to the formation of the National Front, in 1967, as having been a great and positive achievement of nationalism, one which both John Tyndall and John Bean played no small part in bringing to fruition.
In the late 1970s it really did look as though that party was on the verge of an electoral breakthrough, with increasingly promising election results and growing media attention.
In some ways the situation post 2010 parallels the situation post 1979. In the general election campaign of each of these years the premier nationalist party of the day over-extended itself, having aroused inflated and unrealistic expectations amongst its activists, and then went down in a welter of factious blood-letting. Prior to the 2010 general election I took the liberty of writing to Mr Griffin suggesting that it would be financially prudent not to field more than about 160 parliamentary candidates. In the event the party actually fielded 336, fewer than one in four of whom saved their £500 deposit.
Mr Tyndall, in an article published in Spearhead in April 2005, (entitled 'New Party A Non-Starter')made a cogent plea for nationalist unity. He asked all members of the BNP to stay with the party, regardless of how badly they were treated by its leadership. He made this altruistic plea as someone who had both founded the party and been expelled from it by the man he had been grooming to be his successor. Indeed, he was expelled twice from the BNP by Mr Griffin (being reinstated once after court proceedings) and was in that state of exile when he wrote the article selflessly recommending that others stay within the BNP and not attempt to set up a new party, or parties.
Mr Tyndall knew, from his more than forty years' experience of the movement, that '...it is the BNP or nothing'. He knew that no other party could grow and thrive under the shadow of the BNP. We have seen Mr Tyndall's prediction verified on several occasions only recently. He even acknowledged that his own departure from the National Front in 1980 and formation of the BNP in 1982, might have been a mistake, in hindsight.
Any party, but particularly any nationalist party, requires a certain critical mass of members before it is able to make any significant impression on the consciousness of the electorate. If it is fortunate enough ever to reach that stage then it is going to have both a 'left wing' and a 'right wing'. If the two wings of the party cannot learn to coexist in reasonable harmony then the electorate is most unlikely to find the party very appealing, and it may well simply disintegrate into two or more ineffectual sects, as happened to the National Front during the 1980s. Keeping a political party united is, of course, one of the most crucially important tasks of its leader. Some leaders are more adept than others when it comes to this aspect of leadership.
Andrew Brons MEP has added his own caveat in an article ('Proposals for a New Political Movement') published on the BNP Ideas web site, on 24 August, in which he refers to an "iron law" of political parties. Andrew perspicaciously points out the improbability of any breakaway party ever overtaking the BNP, with its household name brand recognition, and its thousands of armchair members, while the BNP remains operational.
However, to quote Andrew, "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."
I'm reminded of a line from the hit sit-com Yes, Minister, where the minister, Jim Hacker, turns to his permanent secretary, Sir Humphrey, and says "Well, we must do something. We can't just do nothing!" Sir Humphrey replies "Why not? It's usually best".
Love me, love Adam
Acknowledgements to the Left Futures site for the following article
The real Adam Werrity scandal
The key point about the weekend revelations over Adam Werrity is not just, or even mainly, whether Fox keeps his job or not. The real scandal is that Werrity was able to inveigle himself into so many compromising situations without anyone calling a stop to it or blowing the whistle. Indeed had it not been for the legal spat between Harvey Boulter, a private equity boss and commercial partner of MoD, and the US conglomerate 3M which led to court proceedings in the US, even now it is likely that no alarm would have been raised about the Werrity affair. What is above all shocking is that despite all the previous revelations about lobbyists and defence contracts, nothing has been done to regulate lobbyists at Westminster. Even worse, when this latest affair has blown over, will anything be done even then?
It’s not that there isn’t a public campaign for proper accountability. There is; it’s just that it’s repeatedly ignored. The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency has regularly called for public scrutiny of relations between Ministers/legislators and those who are effectively professional hustlers. The tone (i.e. deafness) was set by Thatcher squashing any investigation of kickbacks over the enormously lucrative Al Yamamah contract in the 1980s, and then again by Blair blocking the SFO investigation into another huge BAE bribery scandal again involving the Saudis in 2005. But there have been plenty of other scandals along the way involving access for lobbyists. In 2008, for example, Lady Harris in the Lords gave a researcher’s pass to Robin Ashby whose company lobbies Ministers for BAE Systems and other arms manufacturers.
So why haven’t the rules been tightened up? Actually they’ve been loosened. The new Ministerial code published in 2007 ended the requirement that meetings between Ministers and lobbyists should be recorded. Then in January 2009 the Public Administration Committee proposed a framework of anti-corruption rules. It was greeted with horror in government, and nothing was done. We now see the result.
In the US, as a result of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act 2007, an internet search will reveal who is lobbying whom, how much they’re paid, and who they represent, and anyone failing to obey these rules can be sent to prison for 5 years. The comparison with Britain, with its atmosphere of complacency and collusion, is truly shocking.
The real Adam Werrity scandal
The key point about the weekend revelations over Adam Werrity is not just, or even mainly, whether Fox keeps his job or not. The real scandal is that Werrity was able to inveigle himself into so many compromising situations without anyone calling a stop to it or blowing the whistle. Indeed had it not been for the legal spat between Harvey Boulter, a private equity boss and commercial partner of MoD, and the US conglomerate 3M which led to court proceedings in the US, even now it is likely that no alarm would have been raised about the Werrity affair. What is above all shocking is that despite all the previous revelations about lobbyists and defence contracts, nothing has been done to regulate lobbyists at Westminster. Even worse, when this latest affair has blown over, will anything be done even then?
It’s not that there isn’t a public campaign for proper accountability. There is; it’s just that it’s repeatedly ignored. The Alliance for Lobbying Transparency has regularly called for public scrutiny of relations between Ministers/legislators and those who are effectively professional hustlers. The tone (i.e. deafness) was set by Thatcher squashing any investigation of kickbacks over the enormously lucrative Al Yamamah contract in the 1980s, and then again by Blair blocking the SFO investigation into another huge BAE bribery scandal again involving the Saudis in 2005. But there have been plenty of other scandals along the way involving access for lobbyists. In 2008, for example, Lady Harris in the Lords gave a researcher’s pass to Robin Ashby whose company lobbies Ministers for BAE Systems and other arms manufacturers.
So why haven’t the rules been tightened up? Actually they’ve been loosened. The new Ministerial code published in 2007 ended the requirement that meetings between Ministers and lobbyists should be recorded. Then in January 2009 the Public Administration Committee proposed a framework of anti-corruption rules. It was greeted with horror in government, and nothing was done. We now see the result.
In the US, as a result of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act 2007, an internet search will reveal who is lobbying whom, how much they’re paid, and who they represent, and anyone failing to obey these rules can be sent to prison for 5 years. The comparison with Britain, with its atmosphere of complacency and collusion, is truly shocking.
Friday 14 October 2011
Play the white man, Mr Cameron!
Acknowledgements to the British Resistance web site for the following excellent letter
From: Dr Frank Ellis
To: Mr David Cameron, Prime Minister MP
Date: 12th October 2011
Re: The Prime Minister’s Speech on Immigration delivered to the Institute of Government 10th October 2011
Dear Mr Cameron
Mass immigration is not a natural disaster akin to some tsunami, drought or earthquake that periodically and unpredictably overwhelms a country. Mass immigration is a purely man-made phenomenon which is encouraged openly or covertly by people who benefit from it economically or by people who for ideological reasons wish to see England looking like some failed Third-World state, Pakistan, for example.
Mass immigration, especially mass non-white immigration, poses real dangers for the future of England. The idea that England can survive the mass, continual influx of hundreds of thousands of non-white immigrants is hideously naïve. As the white indigenous people of England are relentlessly displaced by the rapid and aggressive breeding of non-whites, the whole texture and nature of our towns and cities will be changed forever, is already changing, and, in some places, Bradford, Birmingham, whole swathes of London, have already changed for the worse.
I do not regard these huge, unprecedented changes, changes which were imposed on the white indigenous English without any consultation or any regard for England’s future, with no regard for the links to our past and heritage, as in any way beneficial. In every possible regard they are disastrous. As I have made clear to you before the changes brought about by mass, non-white immigration represent the racial, cultural, physical and psychological dispossession of the white indigenous English.
In what way, pray tell, do the indigenous English, especially those left in London, benefit from having their capital, my capital, overrun with non-whites? The short answer is that they do not benefit from being overrun by non-whites. They suffer from overcrowding, reduced quality in public services, noise, freakish behaviour, poor education provision as a consequence of schools overrun with immigrants, exceptionally high levels of crime and corruption and high taxes to pay for foreigners. Moreover, they are daily bombarded with BBC and other state-sponsored propaganda that they should actually be grateful for all these non-white immigrants being here. Furthermore, should the white indigenous English protest about what is happening to their country, they will be vilified as something monstrous when in fact their opposition to being dispossessed is entirely rational and moral, in every way normal. What is not normal, what is perverse, what is most decidedly unnatural is that white politicians such as you Mr Cameron are actively encouraging hordes of non-whites currently resident in England, and others swarming across our borders, to overwhelm our country. Mass, non-white immigration has not delivered a single benefit at all to the white indigenous English.
Your portrayal of the immigration debate as one dominated by extremes is itself extreme (and wrong) and designed to show you as the conciliator, the moderate with sensible proposals when in fact you have a long record of colluding with those who have sponsored mass non-white immigration. Some form of immigration subject to exceptionally tough controls is acceptable but the numbers involved should be very small indeed and it should be made clear that employment in England does not in any way imply a right to permanent residence. There are absolutely no benefits to be derived from the mass influx of unemployable Third-World immigrants. One of the main problems, especially with regard to Indian and Pakistani immigrants is the reliability of any qualifications. In the NHS this can literally be a matter of life and death or lead to operations which are bungled because they are carried out by incompetents. Remember Daniel Ubani, the Nigerian with a German passport? Ever heard of the Indian, Manjit Bhamra?
One of the weak links in your immigration proposal is that you show no understanding of the race factor. Race and race differences matter and they cannot be made not to matter by government diktat. Nor can endless race relations laws and amendments deny the basic consequences of race and race differences. Large numbers of non-whites in a white country will always be a permanent source of tension and very often violence. We see the evidence for this all over the world. That for most of her history our England has been racially homogenous has been a great blessing. Racial diversity is a curse. As the number of non-whites increases, as it has done grotesquely over the last 30 years, so the racial, social and economic stresses become ever harder to hide or to deny. Blacks engaging in looting and rapine are just obvious and visible examples of how mass, non-white immigration has failed and how the white population bears the costs, economic, cultural and psychological.
Immigration is not just about the on-going immigrant threat to England it must also face the problem of those who have come here in large numbers and who have managed to secure a British passport. They have come here and wish to stay because they enjoy a standard of living in a First-World economy that would be impossible in Pakistan or Africa. If the numbers involved were exiguous and all further non-white immigration was almost impossible except for a highly-qualified and suitable few then all the legitimate fears and worries about immigration would disappear. That the rational, logical, healthy and morally reasonable fears of the white English indigenous people with regard to mass, non-white immigration show no sign whatsoever of abating is because the problems associated with mass, non-white immigration – crime, corruption, child abuse, depraved honour killings and forced marriages violence, physical dispossession and overcrowding/overpopulation – are getting worse. On these trends the English will be reduced to a racial minority in their own country some time in this century. Do you really want that outcome for your children Mr Cameron? Immigration policy must therefore deal with two problems: one immediate; the other long term.
The threat posed to England by mass, non-white immigration is largely a consequence of immigrants exploiting legal instruments which oblige us to accept them. The obvious first step is to rescind all legislation that prevents or hinders the expulsion of immigrants. Your view, Mr Cameron, that ‘Britain will always be open to those who are seeking asylum from persecution’ is an outrageous proposition and one that has done so much to make it possible for immigrants to enter England under false pretences. It leaves us permanently vulnerable to events in other parts of the world over which we have no control but which when they lead to political collapse mean that we are obliged to permit hordes of so-called asylum seekers (criminals and illegal immigrants) to enter England and “enrich” us. This is something that must change if we are to have any chance of saving England. Leaving the EU must also be a very high priority.
The immediate problem is to prevent all further immigration. It must be a matter of the highest priority to hunt down, round up and to deport all illegal immigrants. If they have assets these can be seized to cover the costs of deportation. The next step is make it clear to non-whites currently resident in this country, especially blacks, that they shall not be permitted to enjoy any special status merely because they are non-whites. If large numbers of blacks are incarcerated, having been subjected to the due process of English law then that must be seen as an indication of a black predisposition to commit crime not some insidious racist plot as in the Marxist slander of institutional racism. Again, black educational failure reflects low mean black IQ – well documented – not a white conspiracy. Blacks will have to learn to live with their limitations. Whites are not responsible for black failure and the psychological terror aimed at whites, often by other whites, to make white society feel guilty for black failure should be dismissed out of hand.
The next step is to recognise that the welfare state has created a massive parasitic underclass. People who refuse to provide services in return for welfare handouts should be denied any money at all and housed in government hostels where they will receive basic survival provision and no more. This means a bed, basic food and a roof. For those who show willing there will be firmness but fairness and maybe at times some warmth. Those that riot can expect ruthless counter measures to restore order and discipline. Respect, dignity, status, self-esteem, a sense of achievement cannot be donated by charity: they have to be earned. The only politician in England who grasps these facts of life is Frank Field, a very honourable and decent man.
Other measures some of which I noted earlier this year can also be taken. First, long term, every effort must be made to encourage large numbers of non-whites to return to their own countries. Generous financial benefits and inducements can be made to encourage repatriation. Second, under no circumstances must there ever be an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Third, under no circumstances will the creation of an independent Islamic/Muslim state ever be permitted within the territory of the United Kingdom. Fourth, the provisions of Sharia are grossly incompatible with the legal, political and cultural traditions of England and shall not be permitted. Fifth, family migration cannot be used as an excuse to bring relatives to this country. People who cannot bear to be separated from their families should not separate themselves from their wife (wives) in Pakistan. That these individuals are allegedly in search of a better life is an irrelevance, an emotional red herring, and imposes no obligation, moral or legal, on England to end this self-induced separation.
When you say - ‘immigration is not just about people coming to live here for a while. Some will want to settle and then join us as fellow British citizens…’- you ignore one very important consideration. Do I, as a white Englishman, want these people to join me? What happens when I emphatically do not want these people to join me? How can millions of non-white immigrants just ‘join me’? The answer is they cannot and they must not be encouraged to believe that they are welcome to ‘join us’. I do not want to have to endure the psychologically distressing sight of English cities overrun with immigrants. And it is not just the cities that face invasion. The next attack wave to hit white England, currently being planned by your government, is the calculated destruction and concreting of the countryside, including the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and National Parks. The aim here is to impose thousands of non-white immigrants on areas which have so far escaped them. And when your party has managed to tear up the planning laws – not a perfect legal instrument by any means – and given the red light to rapacious developers, what will be the result? The result will be hundreds of thousands of shoddy, high-density, anti-social housing units in the countryside. For the first time there is now the real risk that mosques, hitherto confined to cities, will appear in the countryside. It is a truly dreadful thought. The long term problems will be racial tension, soaring council taxes, more crime, certainly more violent crime and Third-World squalor in England’s ancient shires. And when hordes of blacks imported to Ludlow, Ripon, and why not Witney, as part of government policy, start to engage in a bit of looting and violence, because that is what they do in the hood, the liberals will explain this degenerate behaviour as arising from a lack of opportunities for ‘young black people’ in a market town: the rioters were alienated and misunderstood; it’s not the fault of the ‘young black people’. The final result of permitting the developers to run riot and to build these shanty towns will be the destruction of a priceless asset.
So Mr Cameron: it really is time to stop the talking, posing, the endless consulting and act.
Yours sincerely
Frank Ellis
From: Dr Frank Ellis
To: Mr David Cameron, Prime Minister MP
Date: 12th October 2011
Re: The Prime Minister’s Speech on Immigration delivered to the Institute of Government 10th October 2011
Dear Mr Cameron
Mass immigration is not a natural disaster akin to some tsunami, drought or earthquake that periodically and unpredictably overwhelms a country. Mass immigration is a purely man-made phenomenon which is encouraged openly or covertly by people who benefit from it economically or by people who for ideological reasons wish to see England looking like some failed Third-World state, Pakistan, for example.
Mass immigration, especially mass non-white immigration, poses real dangers for the future of England. The idea that England can survive the mass, continual influx of hundreds of thousands of non-white immigrants is hideously naïve. As the white indigenous people of England are relentlessly displaced by the rapid and aggressive breeding of non-whites, the whole texture and nature of our towns and cities will be changed forever, is already changing, and, in some places, Bradford, Birmingham, whole swathes of London, have already changed for the worse.
I do not regard these huge, unprecedented changes, changes which were imposed on the white indigenous English without any consultation or any regard for England’s future, with no regard for the links to our past and heritage, as in any way beneficial. In every possible regard they are disastrous. As I have made clear to you before the changes brought about by mass, non-white immigration represent the racial, cultural, physical and psychological dispossession of the white indigenous English.
In what way, pray tell, do the indigenous English, especially those left in London, benefit from having their capital, my capital, overrun with non-whites? The short answer is that they do not benefit from being overrun by non-whites. They suffer from overcrowding, reduced quality in public services, noise, freakish behaviour, poor education provision as a consequence of schools overrun with immigrants, exceptionally high levels of crime and corruption and high taxes to pay for foreigners. Moreover, they are daily bombarded with BBC and other state-sponsored propaganda that they should actually be grateful for all these non-white immigrants being here. Furthermore, should the white indigenous English protest about what is happening to their country, they will be vilified as something monstrous when in fact their opposition to being dispossessed is entirely rational and moral, in every way normal. What is not normal, what is perverse, what is most decidedly unnatural is that white politicians such as you Mr Cameron are actively encouraging hordes of non-whites currently resident in England, and others swarming across our borders, to overwhelm our country. Mass, non-white immigration has not delivered a single benefit at all to the white indigenous English.
Your portrayal of the immigration debate as one dominated by extremes is itself extreme (and wrong) and designed to show you as the conciliator, the moderate with sensible proposals when in fact you have a long record of colluding with those who have sponsored mass non-white immigration. Some form of immigration subject to exceptionally tough controls is acceptable but the numbers involved should be very small indeed and it should be made clear that employment in England does not in any way imply a right to permanent residence. There are absolutely no benefits to be derived from the mass influx of unemployable Third-World immigrants. One of the main problems, especially with regard to Indian and Pakistani immigrants is the reliability of any qualifications. In the NHS this can literally be a matter of life and death or lead to operations which are bungled because they are carried out by incompetents. Remember Daniel Ubani, the Nigerian with a German passport? Ever heard of the Indian, Manjit Bhamra?
One of the weak links in your immigration proposal is that you show no understanding of the race factor. Race and race differences matter and they cannot be made not to matter by government diktat. Nor can endless race relations laws and amendments deny the basic consequences of race and race differences. Large numbers of non-whites in a white country will always be a permanent source of tension and very often violence. We see the evidence for this all over the world. That for most of her history our England has been racially homogenous has been a great blessing. Racial diversity is a curse. As the number of non-whites increases, as it has done grotesquely over the last 30 years, so the racial, social and economic stresses become ever harder to hide or to deny. Blacks engaging in looting and rapine are just obvious and visible examples of how mass, non-white immigration has failed and how the white population bears the costs, economic, cultural and psychological.
Immigration is not just about the on-going immigrant threat to England it must also face the problem of those who have come here in large numbers and who have managed to secure a British passport. They have come here and wish to stay because they enjoy a standard of living in a First-World economy that would be impossible in Pakistan or Africa. If the numbers involved were exiguous and all further non-white immigration was almost impossible except for a highly-qualified and suitable few then all the legitimate fears and worries about immigration would disappear. That the rational, logical, healthy and morally reasonable fears of the white English indigenous people with regard to mass, non-white immigration show no sign whatsoever of abating is because the problems associated with mass, non-white immigration – crime, corruption, child abuse, depraved honour killings and forced marriages violence, physical dispossession and overcrowding/overpopulation – are getting worse. On these trends the English will be reduced to a racial minority in their own country some time in this century. Do you really want that outcome for your children Mr Cameron? Immigration policy must therefore deal with two problems: one immediate; the other long term.
The threat posed to England by mass, non-white immigration is largely a consequence of immigrants exploiting legal instruments which oblige us to accept them. The obvious first step is to rescind all legislation that prevents or hinders the expulsion of immigrants. Your view, Mr Cameron, that ‘Britain will always be open to those who are seeking asylum from persecution’ is an outrageous proposition and one that has done so much to make it possible for immigrants to enter England under false pretences. It leaves us permanently vulnerable to events in other parts of the world over which we have no control but which when they lead to political collapse mean that we are obliged to permit hordes of so-called asylum seekers (criminals and illegal immigrants) to enter England and “enrich” us. This is something that must change if we are to have any chance of saving England. Leaving the EU must also be a very high priority.
The immediate problem is to prevent all further immigration. It must be a matter of the highest priority to hunt down, round up and to deport all illegal immigrants. If they have assets these can be seized to cover the costs of deportation. The next step is make it clear to non-whites currently resident in this country, especially blacks, that they shall not be permitted to enjoy any special status merely because they are non-whites. If large numbers of blacks are incarcerated, having been subjected to the due process of English law then that must be seen as an indication of a black predisposition to commit crime not some insidious racist plot as in the Marxist slander of institutional racism. Again, black educational failure reflects low mean black IQ – well documented – not a white conspiracy. Blacks will have to learn to live with their limitations. Whites are not responsible for black failure and the psychological terror aimed at whites, often by other whites, to make white society feel guilty for black failure should be dismissed out of hand.
The next step is to recognise that the welfare state has created a massive parasitic underclass. People who refuse to provide services in return for welfare handouts should be denied any money at all and housed in government hostels where they will receive basic survival provision and no more. This means a bed, basic food and a roof. For those who show willing there will be firmness but fairness and maybe at times some warmth. Those that riot can expect ruthless counter measures to restore order and discipline. Respect, dignity, status, self-esteem, a sense of achievement cannot be donated by charity: they have to be earned. The only politician in England who grasps these facts of life is Frank Field, a very honourable and decent man.
Other measures some of which I noted earlier this year can also be taken. First, long term, every effort must be made to encourage large numbers of non-whites to return to their own countries. Generous financial benefits and inducements can be made to encourage repatriation. Second, under no circumstances must there ever be an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Third, under no circumstances will the creation of an independent Islamic/Muslim state ever be permitted within the territory of the United Kingdom. Fourth, the provisions of Sharia are grossly incompatible with the legal, political and cultural traditions of England and shall not be permitted. Fifth, family migration cannot be used as an excuse to bring relatives to this country. People who cannot bear to be separated from their families should not separate themselves from their wife (wives) in Pakistan. That these individuals are allegedly in search of a better life is an irrelevance, an emotional red herring, and imposes no obligation, moral or legal, on England to end this self-induced separation.
When you say - ‘immigration is not just about people coming to live here for a while. Some will want to settle and then join us as fellow British citizens…’- you ignore one very important consideration. Do I, as a white Englishman, want these people to join me? What happens when I emphatically do not want these people to join me? How can millions of non-white immigrants just ‘join me’? The answer is they cannot and they must not be encouraged to believe that they are welcome to ‘join us’. I do not want to have to endure the psychologically distressing sight of English cities overrun with immigrants. And it is not just the cities that face invasion. The next attack wave to hit white England, currently being planned by your government, is the calculated destruction and concreting of the countryside, including the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and National Parks. The aim here is to impose thousands of non-white immigrants on areas which have so far escaped them. And when your party has managed to tear up the planning laws – not a perfect legal instrument by any means – and given the red light to rapacious developers, what will be the result? The result will be hundreds of thousands of shoddy, high-density, anti-social housing units in the countryside. For the first time there is now the real risk that mosques, hitherto confined to cities, will appear in the countryside. It is a truly dreadful thought. The long term problems will be racial tension, soaring council taxes, more crime, certainly more violent crime and Third-World squalor in England’s ancient shires. And when hordes of blacks imported to Ludlow, Ripon, and why not Witney, as part of government policy, start to engage in a bit of looting and violence, because that is what they do in the hood, the liberals will explain this degenerate behaviour as arising from a lack of opportunities for ‘young black people’ in a market town: the rioters were alienated and misunderstood; it’s not the fault of the ‘young black people’. The final result of permitting the developers to run riot and to build these shanty towns will be the destruction of a priceless asset.
So Mr Cameron: it really is time to stop the talking, posing, the endless consulting and act.
Yours sincerely
Frank Ellis
Thursday 13 October 2011
Wednesday 12 October 2011
Let's have the truth, not propaganda
"Finally, there is an alternative! The British National Party is Britain's fastest growing political party, with over 100 parish, district, borough and county councillors, a seat on the Greater London Assembly and two seats in the European Parliament."
This is an extract from a statement, above Mr Griffin's name, which appears on the BNP web site, www.bnp.org.uk/, (click on the "Introduction" tab on the Home page).
The statement is factually inaccurate and hence misleading.
The BNP has had no seat on the London Assembly (it's the London Assembly, not the Greater London Assembly) since Mr Griffin expelled Richard Barnbrook last year, following Richard's call for an inquiry into alleged wrongdoing at the top of the party.
Furthermore, I strongly suspect that the BNP now has fewer than 100 councillors, even if one includes parish councillors within the total, a practice which runs the risk of making the party a laughing-stock.
Let's keep the party real, Mr Griffin.
This is an extract from a statement, above Mr Griffin's name, which appears on the BNP web site, www.bnp.org.uk/, (click on the "Introduction" tab on the Home page).
The statement is factually inaccurate and hence misleading.
The BNP has had no seat on the London Assembly (it's the London Assembly, not the Greater London Assembly) since Mr Griffin expelled Richard Barnbrook last year, following Richard's call for an inquiry into alleged wrongdoing at the top of the party.
Furthermore, I strongly suspect that the BNP now has fewer than 100 councillors, even if one includes parish councillors within the total, a practice which runs the risk of making the party a laughing-stock.
Let's keep the party real, Mr Griffin.
Griffin in the hot seat
This attempt at damage limitation unintentionally illustrates a couple of the ways in which the British National Party is handicapped by having Mr Griffin as our leader.
For one thing the sound quality is poor. I have excellent hearing and yet for much of the time I can barely make out what is being said on this video.
Mr Griffin speaks far too quickly. He gabbles like a naughty child whose hand has become stuck in the cookie jar. He touches his face, as if he wished to hide his mouth. He fidgets. He looks uncomfortable in his own skin.
Why didn't Mr Griffin avail himself of the golden opportunity to set the record straight and answer any and every question and allegation that the BBC's Mr MacIntyre cared to put to him?
If there were any unfairness in editing Mr Griffin's replies (as there might have been) it could have been corrected via the BNP's web site after the event. But the impression left on the minds of the viewing public by Mr Griffin's bungled attempt to "turn the tables on the BBC" was one of a man who "fled the interview", of a man with something to hide, of a man who could not withstand close questioning, and whose actions could not withstand close scrutiny.
Let's have some openness and honesty, Mr Griffin. Stop miscalling your internal critics "useful idiots", submit the party's overdue 2010 Accounts to the Electoral Commission, as required by law, and announce that you will attend the BNP Ideas Conference on Saturday, 22 October, in order to answer any questions party members, past and present, wish to put to you.
Tuesday 11 October 2011
Griffin's career sleeps with the fishes
Following the devastating Panorama expose, broadcast yesterday evening, Nick Griffin's career is now as dead as any fish you might be handed wrapped in a newspaper.
Last night's documentary, which contained damning testimony from former senior officers, contractors and employees of the British National Party to the incompetence (let us call it this and nothing worse, for now) of Griffin's leadership, is a "Sicilian message" to the members: Griffin's career is defunct.
It now only remains to give it a decent burial, and to move on.
If any members have any lingering doubts about this then the fact that the party's main web site, http://www.bnp.org.uk/, has been down for much of the day should help them to make up their minds.
Griffin, true to form, is selfishly continuing to drag the BNP down with him into an abyss of insolvency and public discredit, while at the same time his mercenary creatures, such as the non-member Harrington, dismiss any criticism as coming from "dark forces", or "useful idiots". Such is the contempt in which those of us who have the party's best interests at heart, and are not mere hirelings, are held by its so-called leadership.
If only Griffin himself were a "useful idiot" instead of a useless one the party might still, against all the odds, survive. But then, perhaps being useless to us makes him useful to those "dark forces" to which he invariably refers whenever any member presumes to impeach his disastrous maladministration of the BNP.
Our party has urgent tasks to perform. We owe it to ourselves to look to the future and to prepare ourselves properly for the challenges that lie ahead. We cannot do that with the burnt-out case Griffin hanging like an albatross around the party's neck.
Change is never easy, but it is only through change that progress comes, and it is progress that we, the BNP and our people need above all else.
Monday 10 October 2011
We are treated as fairly as we treat our own
BNP facing accusations of fraud
The British National Party is under investigation by the European Union and the Metropolitan Police for alleged fraud and breaches of electoral law.
The dual investigations come as a former BNP administrator told the BBC's Panorama programme that she was instructed to falsify invoices. Those invoices were then submitted by the BNP to the Electoral Commission. The BNP has strongly denied any suggestion of wrongdoing.
The allegations come as the party struggles with debts run up during the 2010 general election campaign. Internal party documents seen by Panorama reveal that 12 months ago the BNP owed creditors more than £570,000. Party chairman Nick Griffin recently said the party now owes just £52,000.
Former party worker Marion Thomas said after the 2010 general election she was instructed by the party's treasurer, Clive Jefferson, to alter invoices and in at least one case stamp an outstanding invoice as "paid". The invoices were submitted to the Electoral Commission and had been altered, Mrs Thomas said, in order for it to appear that the BNP had complied with the law on election spending. Asked how she felt about doing this, Mrs Thomas said: "I made my objections known."
She added: "You can't do that, you cannot do that. That is fraud."
Mr Jefferson told the programme that Mrs Thomas' allegations are "untrue".
Mrs Thomas, who now works for Britain First, a rival political organisation, has since been interviewed about her claims by detectives from the Metropolitan Police who are investigating alleged breaches of electoral law by the BNP. That investigation began after Richard Barnbrook, who used to be the BNP member of the London Assembly and Mr Griffin's 2010 election agent, went to the High Court to say that he had submitted printing invoices totalling nearly £10,000 as paid when they too were outstanding.
Mr Griffin also signed those returns. Both he and Mr Barnbrook, who has since been expelled from the party and now sits as an independent in London, have said they acted in good faith, believing the bills had indeed been paid. The High Court judge has referred the case the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Metropolitan Police were notified.
Another former party worker, Alistair Barbour, was recruited to Mr Griffin's European staff after he and one other BNP candidate were elected members of the European Parliament in 2009. Mr Barbour was hired to work on European Parliament business and was to be paid out of the £260,000 pot of EU money that each MEP has available to them to pay for staff and expenses. He told the programme that some money intended for MEP business was diverted to help bolster the party itself.
"Europe was the big cash cow you know, 'let's get our noses in the trough and see what we can get out and... see what we can fund the party with,'" he said of the approach to the MEP funds. He added: "This is what it was all about, party work and just trying to figure out what expenses we could get out of the European Union."
Other party insiders have told the programme that at one point electricity from Nick Griffin's European constituency headquarters on an industrial estate in rural Cumbria was siphoned to the unit next door which served as the BNP's national headquarters.
When the European Parliament's fraud unit, OLAF, travelled to Cumbria five months later to investigate the allegations they found no evidence of an electricity scam but Panorama understands that they continue to investigate other allegations of misuse of European money by the BNP. The BNP has denied using money from the European Union to fund national party work.
Panorama: BNP - The Fraud Exposed, BBC One, Monday, 10 October at 2030BST and then available in the UK on the BBC iPlayer.
BBC
The British National Party is under investigation by the European Union and the Metropolitan Police for alleged fraud and breaches of electoral law.
The dual investigations come as a former BNP administrator told the BBC's Panorama programme that she was instructed to falsify invoices. Those invoices were then submitted by the BNP to the Electoral Commission. The BNP has strongly denied any suggestion of wrongdoing.
The allegations come as the party struggles with debts run up during the 2010 general election campaign. Internal party documents seen by Panorama reveal that 12 months ago the BNP owed creditors more than £570,000. Party chairman Nick Griffin recently said the party now owes just £52,000.
Former party worker Marion Thomas said after the 2010 general election she was instructed by the party's treasurer, Clive Jefferson, to alter invoices and in at least one case stamp an outstanding invoice as "paid". The invoices were submitted to the Electoral Commission and had been altered, Mrs Thomas said, in order for it to appear that the BNP had complied with the law on election spending. Asked how she felt about doing this, Mrs Thomas said: "I made my objections known."
She added: "You can't do that, you cannot do that. That is fraud."
Mr Jefferson told the programme that Mrs Thomas' allegations are "untrue".
Mrs Thomas, who now works for Britain First, a rival political organisation, has since been interviewed about her claims by detectives from the Metropolitan Police who are investigating alleged breaches of electoral law by the BNP. That investigation began after Richard Barnbrook, who used to be the BNP member of the London Assembly and Mr Griffin's 2010 election agent, went to the High Court to say that he had submitted printing invoices totalling nearly £10,000 as paid when they too were outstanding.
Mr Griffin also signed those returns. Both he and Mr Barnbrook, who has since been expelled from the party and now sits as an independent in London, have said they acted in good faith, believing the bills had indeed been paid. The High Court judge has referred the case the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Metropolitan Police were notified.
Another former party worker, Alistair Barbour, was recruited to Mr Griffin's European staff after he and one other BNP candidate were elected members of the European Parliament in 2009. Mr Barbour was hired to work on European Parliament business and was to be paid out of the £260,000 pot of EU money that each MEP has available to them to pay for staff and expenses. He told the programme that some money intended for MEP business was diverted to help bolster the party itself.
"Europe was the big cash cow you know, 'let's get our noses in the trough and see what we can get out and... see what we can fund the party with,'" he said of the approach to the MEP funds. He added: "This is what it was all about, party work and just trying to figure out what expenses we could get out of the European Union."
Other party insiders have told the programme that at one point electricity from Nick Griffin's European constituency headquarters on an industrial estate in rural Cumbria was siphoned to the unit next door which served as the BNP's national headquarters.
When the European Parliament's fraud unit, OLAF, travelled to Cumbria five months later to investigate the allegations they found no evidence of an electricity scam but Panorama understands that they continue to investigate other allegations of misuse of European money by the BNP. The BNP has denied using money from the European Union to fund national party work.
Panorama: BNP - The Fraud Exposed, BBC One, Monday, 10 October at 2030BST and then available in the UK on the BBC iPlayer.
BBC
Sunday 9 October 2011
English with its sleeves rolled up
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.
Mark Twain
Mark Twain
Friday 7 October 2011
Ignorance is not always bliss
"Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College"
by Thomas Gray
Ye distant spires, ye antique towers,
That crown the watery glade,
Where grateful Science still adores
Her Henry's holy Shade;
And ye, that from the stately brow
Of Windsor's heights the expanse below
Of grove, of lawn, of mead survey,
Whose turf, whose shade, whose flowers among
Wanders the hoary Thames along
His silver-winding way.
Ah happy hills, ah pleasing shade,
Ah fields beloved in vain,
Where once my careless childhood strayed,
A stranger yet to pain!
I feel the gales, that from ye blow,
A momentary bliss bestow,
As waving fresh their gladsome wing,
My weary soul they seem to soothe,
And, redolent of joy and youth,
To breathe a second spring.
Say, Father Thames, for thou hast seen
Full many a sprightly race
Disporting on thy margent green
The paths of pleasure trace,
Who foremost now delight to cleave
With pliant arm thy glassy wave?
The captive linnet which enthrall?
What idle progeny succeed
To chase the rolling circle's speed,
Or urge the flying ball?
While some on earnest business bent
Their murmuring labours ply
'Gainst graver hours, that bring constraint
To sweeten liberty:
Some bold adventurers disdain
The limits of their little reign,
And unknown regions dare descry:
Still as they run they look behind,
They hear a voice in every wind,
And snatch a fearful joy.
Gay hope is theirs by fancy fed,
Less pleasing when possessed;
The tear forgot as soon as shed,
The sunshine of the breast:
Their buxom health of rosy hue,
Wild wit, invention ever-new,
And lively cheer of vigour born;
The thoughtless day, the easy night,
The spirits pure, the slumbers light,
That fly the approach of morn.
Alas, regardless of their doom,
The little victims play!
No sense have they of ills to come,
Nor care beyond today:
Yet see how all around 'em wait
The ministers of human fate,
And black Misfortune's baleful train!
Ah, show them where in ambush stand
To seize their prey the murtherous band!
Ah, tell them, they are men!
These shall the fury Passions tear,
The vultures of the mind,
Disdainful Anger, pallid Fear,
And Shame that skulks behind;
Or pining Love shall waste their youth,
Or Jealousy with rankling tooth,
That inly gnaws the secret heart,
And Envy wan, and faded Care,
Grim-visaged comfortless Despair,
And Sorrow's piercing dart.
Ambition this shall tempt to rise,
Then whirl the wretch from high,
To bitter Scorn a sacrifice,
And grinning Infamy.
The stings of Falsehood those shall try,
And hard Unkindness' altered eye,
That mocks the tear it forced to flow;
And keen Remorse with blood defiled,
And moody Madness laughing wild
Amid severest woe.
Lo, in the vale of years beneath
A grisly troop are seen,
The painful family of Death,
More hideous than their Queen:
This racks the joints, this fires the veins,
That every labouring sinew strains,
Those in the deeper vitals rage:
Lo, Poverty, to fill the band,
That numbs the soul with icy hand,
And slow-consuming Age.
To each his sufferings: all are men,
Condemned alike to groan;
The tender for another's pain,
The unfeeling for his own.
Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies.
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise.
by Thomas Gray
Ye distant spires, ye antique towers,
That crown the watery glade,
Where grateful Science still adores
Her Henry's holy Shade;
And ye, that from the stately brow
Of Windsor's heights the expanse below
Of grove, of lawn, of mead survey,
Whose turf, whose shade, whose flowers among
Wanders the hoary Thames along
His silver-winding way.
Ah happy hills, ah pleasing shade,
Ah fields beloved in vain,
Where once my careless childhood strayed,
A stranger yet to pain!
I feel the gales, that from ye blow,
A momentary bliss bestow,
As waving fresh their gladsome wing,
My weary soul they seem to soothe,
And, redolent of joy and youth,
To breathe a second spring.
Say, Father Thames, for thou hast seen
Full many a sprightly race
Disporting on thy margent green
The paths of pleasure trace,
Who foremost now delight to cleave
With pliant arm thy glassy wave?
The captive linnet which enthrall?
What idle progeny succeed
To chase the rolling circle's speed,
Or urge the flying ball?
While some on earnest business bent
Their murmuring labours ply
'Gainst graver hours, that bring constraint
To sweeten liberty:
Some bold adventurers disdain
The limits of their little reign,
And unknown regions dare descry:
Still as they run they look behind,
They hear a voice in every wind,
And snatch a fearful joy.
Gay hope is theirs by fancy fed,
Less pleasing when possessed;
The tear forgot as soon as shed,
The sunshine of the breast:
Their buxom health of rosy hue,
Wild wit, invention ever-new,
And lively cheer of vigour born;
The thoughtless day, the easy night,
The spirits pure, the slumbers light,
That fly the approach of morn.
Alas, regardless of their doom,
The little victims play!
No sense have they of ills to come,
Nor care beyond today:
Yet see how all around 'em wait
The ministers of human fate,
And black Misfortune's baleful train!
Ah, show them where in ambush stand
To seize their prey the murtherous band!
Ah, tell them, they are men!
These shall the fury Passions tear,
The vultures of the mind,
Disdainful Anger, pallid Fear,
And Shame that skulks behind;
Or pining Love shall waste their youth,
Or Jealousy with rankling tooth,
That inly gnaws the secret heart,
And Envy wan, and faded Care,
Grim-visaged comfortless Despair,
And Sorrow's piercing dart.
Ambition this shall tempt to rise,
Then whirl the wretch from high,
To bitter Scorn a sacrifice,
And grinning Infamy.
The stings of Falsehood those shall try,
And hard Unkindness' altered eye,
That mocks the tear it forced to flow;
And keen Remorse with blood defiled,
And moody Madness laughing wild
Amid severest woe.
Lo, in the vale of years beneath
A grisly troop are seen,
The painful family of Death,
More hideous than their Queen:
This racks the joints, this fires the veins,
That every labouring sinew strains,
Those in the deeper vitals rage:
Lo, Poverty, to fill the band,
That numbs the soul with icy hand,
And slow-consuming Age.
To each his sufferings: all are men,
Condemned alike to groan;
The tender for another's pain,
The unfeeling for his own.
Yet ah! why should they know their fate?
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies.
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise.
Thursday 6 October 2011
The passing scene
I've no doubt that, since you're reading this, you, like me, will probably be watching Panorama on BBC 1, next Monday, 10 October, at 8.30 pm.
Mr Griffin and his henchmen are hoping that, especially if you're a member of the British National Party, you don't watch the programme. He'd like BNP members to stick their fingers in their ears, shut their eyes and chant "La, la, la, not listening, la, la, la". Well, ignorance is bliss, so they say.
There can be no doubt that the BBC, as an institution, is, like the rest of the Establishment, inimical to the BNP. That has been proved on many occasions. Does that mean that we, as nationalists, should have nothing to do with the BBC, or indeed the rest of the, similarly hostile, 'mainstream' media? Of course it doesn't. Why, Mr Griffin chose to appear on the BBC Question Time programme, did he not?
For a politician to complain about media hostility is very much like a ship's captain complaining about the weather. Storms and squalls go with the territory and should be faced philosophically. The state of the mass media is always a reflection of the state of the society, the audience, it serves.
Our aim as a political party is to change society radically for the better. As we gradually achieve that aim, the media too, as a part of society, will change. But to expect fairness from the media of an unfair society is simply naive. In any case the BBC treats the BNP no less fairly than the BNP treats its own members, employees, donors and creditors. The BBC abides by its charter in the same way that our chairman abides by the BNP's constitution: by paying lip service to the letter while flouting the spirit. People who live in glass houses may indeed choose to throw stones. Whether it is wise for them to do so, however, is another matter entirely.
It has been said that our enemies are closer to the truth in their estimation of us than we are ourselves. As John Tyndall once said: they, the media, do not believe their own propaganda about the supposed benefits of a multiracial society. They too live in it so this fact need not surprise us too much. They live the lie of "celebrating diversity", like the rest of the Establishment, because their careers, their power, privilege and prestige, depend upon them toeing the line, just as that of the Nomenklatura depended upon their toeing the Communist Party line, in the last years of the Soviet Union.
If our enemies criticize us for our political beliefs and are willing to engage in debate with us, we should welcome such criticism. Let truth and falsehood grapple, as Milton said. Truth will prevail, as it always does in the end.
Of course, our enemies, who are not fools, know this too. That is why they usually seek ways to avoid debating the issues with us, preferring instead to focus on personalities and their baggage, their past indiscretions, faults and failings, as they did with Mr Griffin on Question Time in 2009.
That is why we, as a party, need not only to be whiter than white, but also to be seen to be so. It can be no defence for us, nor should it be, that those who accuse our party of corruption and wrongdoing are themselves guilty of corruption and wrongdoing. That may make them hypocrites, it cannot exonerate us.
Our message to the British people should be one of reformation and renewal. The BNP is either a moral crusade for a new and better society and way of life, or it is a cranky cult of personality: it cannot be both.
It is far more damaging and demoralizing for the leadership of a radical party such as ours to be found lacking in ethics than it is for the leadership of the failed parties of the Establishment. For their leaders to be exposed as greedy, dishonest, lying charlatans comes as no great surprise to anyone, and merely confirms electors in their low opinion of politicians in general as "in it for what they can get out of it".
We are, or should be, different. Certainly, we used to be. I believe, no, I know, we can be again.
Mr Griffin and his henchmen are hoping that, especially if you're a member of the British National Party, you don't watch the programme. He'd like BNP members to stick their fingers in their ears, shut their eyes and chant "La, la, la, not listening, la, la, la". Well, ignorance is bliss, so they say.
There can be no doubt that the BBC, as an institution, is, like the rest of the Establishment, inimical to the BNP. That has been proved on many occasions. Does that mean that we, as nationalists, should have nothing to do with the BBC, or indeed the rest of the, similarly hostile, 'mainstream' media? Of course it doesn't. Why, Mr Griffin chose to appear on the BBC Question Time programme, did he not?
For a politician to complain about media hostility is very much like a ship's captain complaining about the weather. Storms and squalls go with the territory and should be faced philosophically. The state of the mass media is always a reflection of the state of the society, the audience, it serves.
Our aim as a political party is to change society radically for the better. As we gradually achieve that aim, the media too, as a part of society, will change. But to expect fairness from the media of an unfair society is simply naive. In any case the BBC treats the BNP no less fairly than the BNP treats its own members, employees, donors and creditors. The BBC abides by its charter in the same way that our chairman abides by the BNP's constitution: by paying lip service to the letter while flouting the spirit. People who live in glass houses may indeed choose to throw stones. Whether it is wise for them to do so, however, is another matter entirely.
It has been said that our enemies are closer to the truth in their estimation of us than we are ourselves. As John Tyndall once said: they, the media, do not believe their own propaganda about the supposed benefits of a multiracial society. They too live in it so this fact need not surprise us too much. They live the lie of "celebrating diversity", like the rest of the Establishment, because their careers, their power, privilege and prestige, depend upon them toeing the line, just as that of the Nomenklatura depended upon their toeing the Communist Party line, in the last years of the Soviet Union.
If our enemies criticize us for our political beliefs and are willing to engage in debate with us, we should welcome such criticism. Let truth and falsehood grapple, as Milton said. Truth will prevail, as it always does in the end.
Of course, our enemies, who are not fools, know this too. That is why they usually seek ways to avoid debating the issues with us, preferring instead to focus on personalities and their baggage, their past indiscretions, faults and failings, as they did with Mr Griffin on Question Time in 2009.
That is why we, as a party, need not only to be whiter than white, but also to be seen to be so. It can be no defence for us, nor should it be, that those who accuse our party of corruption and wrongdoing are themselves guilty of corruption and wrongdoing. That may make them hypocrites, it cannot exonerate us.
Our message to the British people should be one of reformation and renewal. The BNP is either a moral crusade for a new and better society and way of life, or it is a cranky cult of personality: it cannot be both.
It is far more damaging and demoralizing for the leadership of a radical party such as ours to be found lacking in ethics than it is for the leadership of the failed parties of the Establishment. For their leaders to be exposed as greedy, dishonest, lying charlatans comes as no great surprise to anyone, and merely confirms electors in their low opinion of politicians in general as "in it for what they can get out of it".
We are, or should be, different. Certainly, we used to be. I believe, no, I know, we can be again.
No smoke without fire?
Tu quoque
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tu quoque ( /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a kind of logical fallacy. It is a Latin term for "you too" or "you also". A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view on an issue on the argument that the person is inconsistent in that very thing.[2] It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[3]
Illegitimate use
In many cases tu quoque arguments are used in a logically fallacious way, to draw a conclusion which is not supported by the premises of the argument.
You too version
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
Examples:
"He cannot accuse me of libel because he was just successfully sued for libel."
Person 1: It should be illegal to make clothing out of animals.
Person 2: But, you are wearing a leather jacket.
Person 1: People shouldn't drink. It's a very damaging habit.
Person 2: But you're drunk.
Inconsistency version
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes claim P.
A has also made past claims which are inconsistent with P.
Therefore, P is false.
This is a logical fallacy because the conclusion that P is false does not follow from the premises; even if A has made past claims which are inconsistent with P, it does not necessarily prove that P is either true or false.
Examples:
"You say aircraft are able to fly because of the laws of physics, but this is false because twenty years ago you also said aircraft fly because of magic."
Senator Smith: It is important that we all vote for this legislation.
Senator Jones: You just said last week that voting for it was a bad idea.
The legitimate form of the argument
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, A is dismissed (from his/her role as a model of the principle that motivates criticism P).
The difference from the illegitimate form is that the latter would try to dismiss P along with A. It is illegitimate to conflate the logically separate questions of whether P is a valid criticism and whether A is a good role model. [Emphasis mine, AE].
Examples of legitimate use:
In disqualifying a self-appointed judge. "He can indeed accuse me of libel even though he was just successfully sued for libel, but perhaps he shouldn't."
Legal aspects
In common law, a legal maxim exists stating a person cannot approach the courts of equity with unclean hands. If there is a nexus between the applicant's wrongful act and the rights he wishes to enforce, the court may not grant the applicant's request. To illustrate, if a landlord breaches a term in a tenancy agreement and then issues an eviction notice to the tenant for the tenant's breach of a term in the tenancy agreement, the law might permit the tenant to stay because of the landlord's own breach of the tenancy agreement.
This argument has been unsuccessfully used before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in several cases when the accused tried to justify their crimes by insisting that the opposing side had also committed such crimes. However, the argument tu quoque, from the basis of international humanitarian law is completely irrelevant, as the ICTY has stated in these cases.[4][5][6][7]
Historically, however, at the Nuremberg trial of Karl Dönitz tu quoque was accepted not as a defence to the crime itself, or to the prosecution proceedings, but only as a plea for mitigation of punishment.[8] At the Dachau trials Otto Skorzeny and officers of Panzer Brigade 150 successfully used tu quoque evidence to be acquitted of violating the laws of war by using American uniforms to infiltrate Allied lines in the false flag Operation Greif in the Battle of the Bulge. Evidence was introduced that the Allies themselves had on at least one occasion worn German uniforms, demonstrating that the prosecution was not clean with regards to this particular crime.
References
1.^ OED
2.^ Bluedorn, Nathaniel (2002, 2003). The Fallacy Detective. pp. 54. ISBN 0-9745315-0-2.
3.^ Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque
4.^ Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Kupreškić et al.. (January 2000), para. 765
5.^ Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Kunarac et al.. (February 2001), para. 580
6.^ Judgment of the Appeals Chamber in Case Kunarac et al.. (January 2002), para. 87.
7.^ Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Limaj et al. (November 2005), para. 193
8.^ Yee, Sienho (2004), "The Tu Quoque Argument as a defence to International Crimes, Prosecution, or Punishment", Chinese Journal of International Law, 3, p. 87-133.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tu quoque ( /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/),[1] or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a kind of logical fallacy. It is a Latin term for "you too" or "you also". A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view on an issue on the argument that the person is inconsistent in that very thing.[2] It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.[3]
Illegitimate use
In many cases tu quoque arguments are used in a logically fallacious way, to draw a conclusion which is not supported by the premises of the argument.
You too version
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, P is dismissed.
Examples:
"He cannot accuse me of libel because he was just successfully sued for libel."
Person 1: It should be illegal to make clothing out of animals.
Person 2: But, you are wearing a leather jacket.
Person 1: People shouldn't drink. It's a very damaging habit.
Person 2: But you're drunk.
Inconsistency version
This form of the argument is as follows:
A makes claim P.
A has also made past claims which are inconsistent with P.
Therefore, P is false.
This is a logical fallacy because the conclusion that P is false does not follow from the premises; even if A has made past claims which are inconsistent with P, it does not necessarily prove that P is either true or false.
Examples:
"You say aircraft are able to fly because of the laws of physics, but this is false because twenty years ago you also said aircraft fly because of magic."
Senator Smith: It is important that we all vote for this legislation.
Senator Jones: You just said last week that voting for it was a bad idea.
The legitimate form of the argument
A makes criticism P.
A is also guilty of P.
Therefore, A is dismissed (from his/her role as a model of the principle that motivates criticism P).
The difference from the illegitimate form is that the latter would try to dismiss P along with A. It is illegitimate to conflate the logically separate questions of whether P is a valid criticism and whether A is a good role model. [Emphasis mine, AE].
Examples of legitimate use:
In disqualifying a self-appointed judge. "He can indeed accuse me of libel even though he was just successfully sued for libel, but perhaps he shouldn't."
Legal aspects
In common law, a legal maxim exists stating a person cannot approach the courts of equity with unclean hands. If there is a nexus between the applicant's wrongful act and the rights he wishes to enforce, the court may not grant the applicant's request. To illustrate, if a landlord breaches a term in a tenancy agreement and then issues an eviction notice to the tenant for the tenant's breach of a term in the tenancy agreement, the law might permit the tenant to stay because of the landlord's own breach of the tenancy agreement.
This argument has been unsuccessfully used before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in several cases when the accused tried to justify their crimes by insisting that the opposing side had also committed such crimes. However, the argument tu quoque, from the basis of international humanitarian law is completely irrelevant, as the ICTY has stated in these cases.[4][5][6][7]
Historically, however, at the Nuremberg trial of Karl Dönitz tu quoque was accepted not as a defence to the crime itself, or to the prosecution proceedings, but only as a plea for mitigation of punishment.[8] At the Dachau trials Otto Skorzeny and officers of Panzer Brigade 150 successfully used tu quoque evidence to be acquitted of violating the laws of war by using American uniforms to infiltrate Allied lines in the false flag Operation Greif in the Battle of the Bulge. Evidence was introduced that the Allies themselves had on at least one occasion worn German uniforms, demonstrating that the prosecution was not clean with regards to this particular crime.
References
1.^ OED
2.^ Bluedorn, Nathaniel (2002, 2003). The Fallacy Detective. pp. 54. ISBN 0-9745315-0-2.
3.^ Logical Fallacy: Tu Quoque
4.^ Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Kupreškić et al.. (January 2000), para. 765
5.^ Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Kunarac et al.. (February 2001), para. 580
6.^ Judgment of the Appeals Chamber in Case Kunarac et al.. (January 2002), para. 87.
7.^ Judgment of the Trial Chamber in Case Limaj et al. (November 2005), para. 193
8.^ Yee, Sienho (2004), "The Tu Quoque Argument as a defence to International Crimes, Prosecution, or Punishment", Chinese Journal of International Law, 3, p. 87-133.
Wednesday 5 October 2011
Monday 3 October 2011
Saturday 1 October 2011
Truth is stranger than fiction
Acknowledgements to the web site barbelith.com for the following pseudonymous book review. The review, published on a discussion forum in 2005, is written from the perspective of a politically 'correct' bigot but nevertheless provides some useful information.
Fugue for a Darkening Island
by Christopher Priest
Although it was pretty well regarded when it was published in the ‘70s, [1972] this book is rarely sold, read or mentioned these days. This is possibly because from the evidence of the rather misguided title and a brief summary of the plot, it could easily be mistaken for some kind of reactionary anti-immigration scare story. But I know Priest is a good egg, so I read it anyway, and I’m glad I did.
In brief, it goes a bit like this; After a series of ominously ill-defined catastrophes in Africa, an endless succession of rickety ships and barges begin docking all over England’s south coast baring [sic] hundreds of thousands of refugees. The right-wing government in power at the time deals with the crisis in the worst way imaginable, establishing virtual concentration camps with no real plan as to what to do, and encouraging the wave of racist attacks that sweep through middle England. Liberal opposition to this policy precipitates a parliamentary crisis, but still neither side know what to do. The Africans, tired of such shoddy and inept treatment, muster their strength as their numbers increase and are soon roaming the Home Counties attacking and occupying villages. Then comes confusion, displacement, civil war, greed and cruelty – stuff we’ve seen on the news a hundred times before, but bringing it back home to England is a chillingly effective device in upturning the reader’s perceptions of it. Like 'Random Acts..', 'Fugue..' is a short, sharp shock and Priest pulls no punches in exploring the nightmare he’s created through the eyes of the cynical, Ballard-esque protagonist as he tries rather haphazardly to protect his family and figure out which way to turn as they find themselves as helplessly stranded as any African refugee.
Obviously Priest doesn’t court xenophobia, but neither does he jump for any of the liberal open goals the plotline might suggest – like 'Heart of Darkness' (which I guess this is kind of an update of in a lot of ways), the book remains non-partisan and offers no heavy-handed political message and no easy answers – the narrative remains cold, simplistic, amoral and brutal as the characters try to stay alive – the violence and betrayals are shocking and harrowing. The basic message - "this is everyone’s fault – we’re all ******". It's the good old Wyndham-esque English disaster novel turned very, very dark indeed.
The following comes from Christopher Priest's own web site
Fugue for a Darkening Island
Published Earthlight, 1999. ISBN 0 671 03390 5 [paperback £6.99; pp.251]. First published in hardcover by Faber. This edition is a joint publication with Inverted World (as 'Omnibus 2'). Also available in translation.
What they say "A chilling and convincing new novel with a remarkably topical title. Mr Priest's novel is short and stark but his character study is solid and completely credible. A provocative and disturbing allegory that has echoes for us all." - Graham Lord, Sunday Express.
One of Chris Priest's earliest novels (first published in 1972). In its day Fugue was thought of as a modern version of the familiar 'British catastrophe' science fiction novel, but subsequent world events have given the story a sinister topicality. Tragic refugees escaping political and military upheaval at home are now all too frequently seeking asylum elsewhere. In Fugue, survivors of a terrible African war flee their blighted continent, and look for refuge in the countries of the West.
[ENDS]
The book may be ordered from Amazon. Alternatively, one could request to borrow Fugue for a Darkening Island from one's local public library. Even if it is not held in stock the library would be able to obtain a copy for loan, and this sounds like the kind of book that deserves as wide an audience as possible.
Mr Priest revised the novel some years ago, perhaps partly with a view to defending himself against accusations of 'racism' from the usual quarters. However, copies of the story as first published are on sale via Amazon.
Fugue for a Darkening Island
by Christopher Priest
Although it was pretty well regarded when it was published in the ‘70s, [1972] this book is rarely sold, read or mentioned these days. This is possibly because from the evidence of the rather misguided title and a brief summary of the plot, it could easily be mistaken for some kind of reactionary anti-immigration scare story. But I know Priest is a good egg, so I read it anyway, and I’m glad I did.
In brief, it goes a bit like this; After a series of ominously ill-defined catastrophes in Africa, an endless succession of rickety ships and barges begin docking all over England’s south coast baring [sic] hundreds of thousands of refugees. The right-wing government in power at the time deals with the crisis in the worst way imaginable, establishing virtual concentration camps with no real plan as to what to do, and encouraging the wave of racist attacks that sweep through middle England. Liberal opposition to this policy precipitates a parliamentary crisis, but still neither side know what to do. The Africans, tired of such shoddy and inept treatment, muster their strength as their numbers increase and are soon roaming the Home Counties attacking and occupying villages. Then comes confusion, displacement, civil war, greed and cruelty – stuff we’ve seen on the news a hundred times before, but bringing it back home to England is a chillingly effective device in upturning the reader’s perceptions of it. Like 'Random Acts..', 'Fugue..' is a short, sharp shock and Priest pulls no punches in exploring the nightmare he’s created through the eyes of the cynical, Ballard-esque protagonist as he tries rather haphazardly to protect his family and figure out which way to turn as they find themselves as helplessly stranded as any African refugee.
Obviously Priest doesn’t court xenophobia, but neither does he jump for any of the liberal open goals the plotline might suggest – like 'Heart of Darkness' (which I guess this is kind of an update of in a lot of ways), the book remains non-partisan and offers no heavy-handed political message and no easy answers – the narrative remains cold, simplistic, amoral and brutal as the characters try to stay alive – the violence and betrayals are shocking and harrowing. The basic message - "this is everyone’s fault – we’re all ******". It's the good old Wyndham-esque English disaster novel turned very, very dark indeed.
The following comes from Christopher Priest's own web site
Fugue for a Darkening Island
Published Earthlight, 1999. ISBN 0 671 03390 5 [paperback £6.99; pp.251]. First published in hardcover by Faber. This edition is a joint publication with Inverted World (as 'Omnibus 2'). Also available in translation.
What they say "A chilling and convincing new novel with a remarkably topical title. Mr Priest's novel is short and stark but his character study is solid and completely credible. A provocative and disturbing allegory that has echoes for us all." - Graham Lord, Sunday Express.
One of Chris Priest's earliest novels (first published in 1972). In its day Fugue was thought of as a modern version of the familiar 'British catastrophe' science fiction novel, but subsequent world events have given the story a sinister topicality. Tragic refugees escaping political and military upheaval at home are now all too frequently seeking asylum elsewhere. In Fugue, survivors of a terrible African war flee their blighted continent, and look for refuge in the countries of the West.
[ENDS]
The book may be ordered from Amazon. Alternatively, one could request to borrow Fugue for a Darkening Island from one's local public library. Even if it is not held in stock the library would be able to obtain a copy for loan, and this sounds like the kind of book that deserves as wide an audience as possible.
Mr Priest revised the novel some years ago, perhaps partly with a view to defending himself against accusations of 'racism' from the usual quarters. However, copies of the story as first published are on sale via Amazon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
