Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

Monday, 31 December 2012

A Nationalist Concordat for 2013

As we come to the end of an eventful 2012 and face a possibly even more eventful 2013, it behooves us all, as patriots, to take stock politically and to look back, in order to see what lessons may be learnt from the year that is ending, for the year that is about to begin.
I would suggest that each of the patriotic parties, excluding UKIP, which remains a pariah for every principled patriot (because of its blackballing of former members of nationalist parties, as well as its support for mass non-white immigration) should agree not to stand candidates against one another in elections.
In view of the fact that at the last local elections the BNP fielded fewer than 150 candidates throughout the entire country and all of its nationalist (again excluding UKIP) rival parties collectively fielded even fewer candidates than did the BNP, it seems most likely that there will be many more seats and more authorities, without a single nationalist candidate, than there will be with one.
Under such circumstances, it makes no sense whatsoever for nationalist candidates of different parties to stand against one another.
Indeed, rather than stand against another nationalist candidate it would be preferable to withdraw from a particular contest and allow the other party's candidate a clear run.
We need all of the nationalist parties to do their bit, however inadequately, until such time as circumstances permit a coalescence of all (or almost all) remaining nationalist forces.

It's a Wonderful Anti-White Christmas

Sunday, 23 December 2012

Christmas Greetings from New Leadership

A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all my readers, past, present and future.

An Open Letter to Compatriots

Dear Compatriot
Thank you for visiting the web site of Patria, the party of nationalist patriots.
Patria successfully registered with the Electoral Commission on 9 November 2012 and we held our hugely successful inauguratory meeting on 10 December, in the New Forest, a few days after our web site went live.
Like a healthy baby, Patria is growing fast and like every party, we are only as strong as our members and our supporters choose to make us.
Patria will be holding a series of open meetings, up and down the country, starting early in the New Year and running up to the local elections, at which we shall field a number of candidates.
A year’s membership of Patria is a real bargain at only £10 and dual membership with another party is permissible, so please join today, online, via the Memberships page at www.patria-uk.org and help to make Patria the great success it is destined to become.
My colleagues and I look forward to meeting you in the New Year, where great things await.
Yours Sincerely
Dr A Emerson
PS You could help Patria even more by forwarding this message to every patriot in your address book. Let’s help Patria’s message of hope go viral!

Sunday, 9 December 2012

Patria makes the news

Nationalists up and down the country are talking about the new kid on the block, the new look nationalist party, Patria, our stylish web site and our launch meeting, tomorrow evening, at a prestigious venue in the New Forest.

If the Green Arrow's British Resistance web site is nationalism's equivalent of The Sun, then Patria just made the front page with a very good article published earlier today, which you may read here.

Saturday, 8 December 2012

Patria's web site goes live!

Patria's classy new web site is now running live, at www.patria-uk.org. Just click on the first link shown on the list of Useful Links on the right of this page and you'll be taken there.

Don't forget to leave a comment.

Thursday, 29 November 2012

Patria, the party of nationalist patriots

Well, here we are, at the beginning of winter and the preparations for the launch of a new and respectable, broad church ethno-nationalist party are almost complete, after much hard work.

The party has been registered with the Electoral Commission. Our bank account is being set up, as is the web site, as you read these words. The bespoke plastic membership cards are due to arrive at Party HQ tomorrow, by special delivery.

The party will be holding its inauguratory meeting at a prestigious location near the south coast, on the evening of Monday 10 December.

What are Patria's policies? Who is its leader? Why not come along to the meeting, at which these and many other questions will be answered by our joint leadership team?

You will be sure of a warm nationalist welcome (and a buffet) if you do.   Further details may be obtained by sending an e-mail to draemerson@yahoo.co.uk, or, alternatively, phoning  me on 01243 533932.

Friday, 23 November 2012

Marriage fights back!

Panic in Downing Street over redefining marriage

Dear Marriage supporter

According to this morning’s newspapers, panicking Downing Street spin doctors have suggested David Cameron would rush through plans to redefine marriage, with talk of MPs getting their first opportunity to vote in the New Year. But since then, other Government spokespeople have hurriedly denied the legislation will be fast-tracked.

We will wait and see. We always knew such claims could be made, because we knew that our campaign was hitting home very effectively. We knew we were making headway and that the Government could panic like this.

According to senior Government sources quoted in the press today, there are indeed fears that we have been winning the argument and gaining too much ground. Our polling this week found that 62% of voters support traditional marriage. In terms of the party breakdown: 68% of Tory voters oppose redefining marriage, as do 58% of Labour voters and 52% of Liberal Democrat voters.

Our ComRes poll found that for every one disaffected Conservative voter gained back, the Party lost eight votes. In April the ratio was one to three. So the haemorrhage is deepening. The Tories have lost around 1.35 million votes. That will easily translate into the loss of over 30 seats. Downing Street’s panicked reaction shows that we, and you, have been doing precisely the right things in opposition to this unpopular and unnecessary plan.

It was always arrogant for the Government to think it could rewrite the meaning of marriage. It would be even worse for them to do it in a rush, knowing – as they surely must – that the plans bring monumental legal difficulties, not least for the civil liberties of those who disagree. In today’s Times, gay journalist Matthew Parris says that opponents of redefining marriage “have some dangerously cogent arguments at their disposal”. It would be completely reckless for the Government to plough on ahead and ignore the fact that people like Adrian Smith have been punished for their beliefs on traditional marriage. If that is the case now, how much more so if gay marriage is legalised?

So, with the Government panicking, now is the time to redouble our efforts and keep the pressure on. We are not going away.

When the time comes please respond to our action alerts to contact your MP. Even if you have done it many times before, please do so again. We know it is having a great impact at Westminster.

Please make a generous contribution to support the campaign. We have a fight on our hands, but if you give us the resources we believe we can win the argument.

Please give £50, £100, £200 or whatever you can afford.

DONATE safely, privately.

Yours sincerely

Colin Hart
Campaign Director
Coalition for Marriage

Sunday, 11 November 2012


It little profits that an idle king,

By this still hearth, among these barren crags,

Match'd with an aged wife, I mete and dole

Unequal laws unto a savage race,

That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.

I cannot rest from travel: I will drink

Life to the lees: all times I have enjoy'd

Greatly, have suffer'd greatly, both with those

That loved me, and alone; on shore, and when

Thro' scudding drifts the rainy Hyades

Vext the dim sea: I am become a name;

For always roaming with a hungry heart

Much have I seen and known; cities of men

And manners, climates, councils, governments,

Myself not least, but honour'd of them all;

And drunk delight of battle with my peers,

Far on the ringing plains of windy Troy.

I am a part of all that I have met;

Yet all experience is an arch wherethro'

Gleams that untravell'd world, whose margin fades

For ever and for ever when I move.

How dull it is to pause, to make an end,

To rust unburnish'd, not to shine in use!

As tho' to breathe were life. Life piled on life

Were all too little, and of one to me

Little remains: but every hour is saved

From that eternal silence, something more,

A bringer of new things; and vile it were

For some three suns to store and hoard myself,

And this gray spirit yearning in desire

To follow knowledge, like a sinking star,

Beyond the utmost bound of human thought.

This is my son, mine own Telemachus,

To whom I leave the sceptre and the isle--

Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfil

This labour, by slow prudence to make mild

A rugged people, and thro' soft degrees

Subdue them to the useful and the good.

Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere

Of common duties, decent not to fail

In offices of tenderness, and pay

Meet adoration to my household gods,

When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.

There lies the port: the vessel puffs her sail:

There gloom the dark broad seas. My mariners,

Souls that have toil'd and wrought, and thought with me--

That ever with a frolic welcome took

The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed

Free hearts, free foreheads--you and I are old;

Old age hath yet his honour and his toil;

Death closes all; but something ere the end,

Some work of noble note, may yet be done,

Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.

The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks:

The long day wanes: the slow moon climbs: the deep

Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends,

'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.

Push off, and sitting well in order smite

The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds

To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths

Of all the western stars, until I die.

It may be that the gulfs will wash us down:

It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,

And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.

Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'

We are not now that strength which in old days

Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;

One equal temper of heroic hearts,

Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Lord Tennyson  1809-1892

Saturday, 10 November 2012

The Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come

Papa Luigi's article is, contra the title of this thread, not a 'new' bag at all. At least not for him and not for those of us who have read his contributions to this forum over the last few months. He has been propagating his rather nebulous strategy of the eschewing of electoral politics, in favour of the development of a semi-clandestine network of nationalist donors, increasingly openly.

What should one make of such a proposed strategy? Well, the first thing to say is that it is fundamentally flawed. Fundraising is certainly an important element in politics, on that much most nationalists can agree. But fundraising as an activity is inseparably linked to the front end activities of any political group. When the fundraising activity of a group that has supposedly political aims becomes its top priority, becomes effectively an end in itself, displacing the formal goal of winning political power, as we saw in the case of the BNP from 2008 to 2010, then donors begin to ask themselves the question: where is all this money going and what good is it doing?

Now, for all I know there may be nationalists who are willing to re-live their experience of 2008-2010 with the BNP, minus the electioneering which was the ostensible justification for that party's fundraising efforts. If so, then one can only marvel at the triumph of hope over experience.

Where fundraising is concerned there must always be scrupulous candour and accountability, if the confidence of donors is to be won and maintained. A semi-clandestine group, with no formal constitution or membership, even if led by an honest man, by virtue of its very secrecy militates against such needed candour and accountability, just as the BNP militated against them, despite possessing a formal constitution and membership, because it was led by a dishonest man who employed other dishonest men.

Donors expect to receive something in return for their donations. In the case of a political party that return is activity in the shape of campaigning and contesting elections. If these activities produce observable progress and positive results then fundraising revenue tends to rise, whereas if the hoped for progress fails to materialize fundraising revenue tends to decline. But provided a party continues to fly the flag of nationalism in elections nationalist donors have some reason to contribute, on the grounds that even standing in an election is in itself a minor victory, in that nationalism's message of hope is still being propagated, however ineptly.

Of course, one 'advantage' of a semi-clandestine group is that when sceptics say "But what are you actually doing?" and "What are you using this money for?" it can reply "It's a secret. But become a donor and I'll tell you more". The Emperor's new clothes come to mind at this point.

The history of the BNP over the last ten years demonstrates that a nationalist party can win elections without spending vast sums of money. Most of the BNP's electoral victories, including its earliest, have been in council elections in which highly successful campaigns have been conducted on a shoe-string budget. With a more rigorous and impartial selection process for candidates and crucially, a proper scheme of ongoing training and support for both prospective candidates and elected councillors, there is every likelihood of a nationalist party succeeding in winning control of councils in the future. And the control of councils is the best springboard for the winning of seats in parliament.

Those who have focused upon the venal charade of the European 'parliament', as if play-acting in its masquerade were of any benefit to nationalism, have led nationalists up a blind alley, while those who counsel the abandonment of electoral politics entirely, in favour of some kind of cultic retreatism or anarcho-localism, are equally in error, be their motives what they may.

Am I advocating a renewed support of the BNP then, or calling for the support of any of the other extant nationalist parties? God forbid. Before Christmas a new nationalist party will be launched, one with which I am proud to be associated and which, I hope, many others will also be proud to join. A new party is needed because none of the other nationalist parties have the characteristics, or the leadership, necessary to inspire the thousands of disillusioned former members of the BNP, or even to win many decent new converts to nationalism.

My colleagues and I are under no illusion regarding the difficulty of the task we face. None of us expects overnight success. We are here for the long-haul because we love our country and our people and because no sacrifice seems too great in the sacred cause of the patriot.

Originally published on the British Democracy Forum

Saturday, 29 September 2012

Too Liddle, too late

So Mr Liddle at long last acknowledges (in The Sun) that the BNP was right all along about the issue of Muslim paedophile gangs preying upon English children.

Only he cannot bring himself to use the word English. Instead, in common with the bulk of 'mainstream' journalists, he uses the generic term white. This unwillingness to name the ethnic nationality of the great majority of the thousands of child-victims is in itself a further insult both to them and to the English people as a whole. It sits uneasily with Mr Liddle's supposed role as a critic and debunker of the evil ideology of political 'correctness' that he himself should be a slave to that ideology in his use of language. The word hypocrite comes to mind, 'traitor' even. But then perhaps Mr Liddle is not English and feels no loyalty to, or solidarity with the English.

After the criminal offenders (predominantly Muslims) themselves, it is those whose duty it is to care for and protect these socially disadvantaged children, including social workers and police officers, who are seriously at fault here. Also culpable are the Establishment politicians who promoted and still maintain, the anti-English ideology of political 'correctness' and pursued the disastrous policy of encouraging the mass immigration of ethnic aliens from the Third World. Such a combination of anti-national policies was inevitably going to create a political culture in which Muslim gangs would regard themselves as above the law and be emboldened to prey upon the most vulnerable of our people, our children, secure in the knowledge that the kufrs' dhimmified police and social services, media and politicians would look the other way.

One of the main reasons these Muslim paedophiles behave in the way they do is that they know that the Establishment and officialdom (eg, social workers, police officers, journalists and politicians) are running scared of allegations of 'racism' (whatever this curious term is supposed to mean). The Muslim rapists know full well that the pusillanimous police and politicians are willing to engage in suppressio veri (suppression of the truth) in a vain attempt to maintain the fiction that the 'diversity' of races, religions and cultures within our society, which an open-door immigration policy has created, is a boon to the English.

Another important reason for their criminal behaviour is the racial and religious hatred which many Muslims feel for the English and 'infidels' in general. Such hostile attitudes are culturally mainstream in Islam. You don't see gangs of Muslims raping the children of other Muslims. Why not? Because they have strong feelings of solidarity with their co-religionists and fellow-tribesmen, but antipathy towards others; exactly the kind of natural feelings which, in the English, are condemned by the Establishment as 'racism'. Talk about double standards!

The hypocrisy of the Establishment is even more reprehensible in view of the fact that there is a social class dimension to it. A Cabinet consisting largely of wealthy individuals from privileged backgrounds presides over a system that permits the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society, children from deprived backgrounds, to be brutally abused and exploited, as a direct consequence of their administration's politically 'correct' (ie, anti-English) policies.

Those members of the Cabinet who are ethnic aliens themselves might perhaps not be expected necessarily to have the best interests of the English at heart. But what of those members of the Cabinet who are English? What excuse can they offer for their betrayal of their countrymen?

Thursday, 20 September 2012

Put out more flags (that'll show 'em)!

Mr Griffin and the Province of Northern Ireland have a love-hate relationship. He loves it, for all the wrong reasons (for its residual sectarianism and thuggery) while it hates him (or rather what he represents) partly for the same reason all decent patriots do. Another reason being, that it has experienced and largely overcome its own home-grown, faith-based versions of the race-based political sectarianism which he has unsuccessfully peddled there in the past.

The classic sectarian pitch is to claim to offer protection to one community against the perceived encroachments of another, alien community. In order for this to succeed, however, so the sectarians argue, organization and discipline is necessary. And who better to provide it than, you guessed it, the sectarians themselves!

Soon, however, these self-proclaimed saviours of their own people show their true colours. And they're not the red, white and blue of the Union Jack, but the black and white of the Jolly Roger. For what else can one call preying on one's own people, operating a thinly veiled protection racket, under the pretence of defending them from the aggression of an alien community, than piracy?

The freedom-loving English will never submit to the tyranny of tin-pot wannabe dictators like Mr Griffin and his mercenary imitators, no matter how serious the threat from ethnically alien intromission and no matter how unpleasant may be the consequences of the latter.

A political party that goes to our people with the offer to cleanse the Augean stables of the corrupt Establishment must have clean hands itself, if it hopes to be taken seriously by them. Mr Griffin's BNP does not and neither does any of its rivals so far on the scene.

Like the sectarians of Ulster, in its smaller way, the BNP's leadership leeched off (ie, abused and exploited) its own members. What kind of advertisement for nationalism was (and is) this? Little wonder that nine-tenths of the party's activists and members have left it. And less wonder that the electorate does not trust its few remaining candidates with public office. If the BNP is no better than the rotten parties of the Establishment, then 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't', reason the electorate. And who can blame them?

'Out of the frying pan, into the fire', is an unappealing slogan. The legal, electoral road to nationalism is the highway to national salvation, but it must be followed in a suitable vehicle, namely, a new and respectable, broad church ethno-nationalist party. A party, moreover, which does more than merely pay lip-service to the principles of democracy and free speech, but has these core values at its heart.

Decency and democracy will be the twin watchwords of the new party. This will attract the support of decent nationalists as well as the wider electorate. The electorate will recognize the real thing when they see it and will not be turned off, as they were in the case of the BNP, by a leader with embarrassing baggage and an inability convincingly to make the case for nationalism, because he no longer believes in it himself.

Thursday, 13 September 2012



OUT of the night that covers me,

Black as the Pit from pole to pole,

I thank whatever gods may be

For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance 

I have not winced nor cried aloud.

Under the bludgeonings of chance

My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears

Looms but the Horror of the shade,

And yet the menace of the years

Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,

How charged with punishments the scroll,

I am the master of my fate: 

I am the captain of my soul.

William Ernest Henley 1849–1903

Walker must walk!

Apology noted, now resign

Mr Walker is right to apologize for his disgraceful and criminal behaviour. It's a pity he does not also apologize for bringing the BNP into disrepute as he quite clearly has.

Mr Walker was lucky to have escaped a custodial sentence for his crimes. Dangerous driving is a very serious offence, for which offenders are very often imprisoned.

The alleged delinquent tendencies of the children (children, not "youths" as Mr Walker dishonestly refers to them) concerned are irrelevant. What kind of example did Walker set these alleged delinquents by his criminal and antisocial behaviour? He behaved much worse than they and with much less excuse, being a middle-aged adult.

The judge in Walker's trial, one Mr Nolan, very oddly bent over backwards to extenuate his guilt and to laud his character to the skies. When has a judge ever before had a good word to say about a known BNP activist that appeared before him in court on any charge whatsoever, let alone charges as serious as those to which Walker pleaded guilty? Ironically, it is the very fact that Walker is such a rotten apple and yet continues to hold such a senior position within the party that, in this instance, actually saved him from a gaol sentence.

The Judiciary is one of the three branches of government. There are many connections, personal, professional and political, between the members of the three branches, members of the Establishment all. In addition, the legal profession itself, of which judges do not cease to be members when they sit on the Bench, is very closely related to the profession (or should that be 'trade'?) of politics and there are a myriad of links between them.

Quite clearly, the judge in Walker's case recognized the value to the Establishment of which he is a member, of Mr Walker continuing to hold high office within the BNP and thereby continuing to perform an invaluable function as a high profile exemplar of all that is wrong with the BNP and with nationalism generally.

Any decent member of the public, any decent and sensible voter, looking at Adam Walker and noting both his criminal tendencies and his senior position with the BNP, would conclude that they wanted nothing to do with such a party and nothing to do with the ideology which it supposedly espouses. This is exactly the opinion that the Establishment would wish them to form, hence the judge's expressed hope that Walker does not lose his employment with the BNP's two MEPs, Messrs Griffin and Brons.

Griffin and Brons, if they continue to employ Walker, effectively condone his criminality and thuggery. By doing so, they insult every decent remaining member of the BNP, as well as all those activists who sacrificed so much in order to build the party to the point at which it became possible for it to have MEPs elected.

Instead of unjustly victimizing BNP members for asking questions about the party's money and where it has gone and expelling them for exercising their right of free speech, in order to voice perfectly legitimate criticisms of its leadership, that leadership should take action against those who have genuinely brought the party into disrepute and are its real enemies.

Only they won't, of course, because, unlike the decent activists, whom they regard as expendable mugs, they are all cut from the same cloth.

Monday, 10 September 2012

Dulce et decorum est...

They held a council standing
   Before the River-Gate;
Short time was there, ye well may guess,
   For musing or debate.
Out spake the Consul roundly;
   'The bridge must straight go down;
For, since Janiculum is lost,
    Nought else can save the town.'

And nearer fast and nearer
    Doth the red whirlwind come;
And louder still and still more loud,
From underneath that rolling cloud
Is heard the trumpet's war-note proud,
    The trampling, and the hum.
And plainly and more plainly
    Now through the gloom appears,
Far to left and far to right,
In broken gleams of dark-blue light,
The long array of helmets bright,
     The long array of spears.

But the Consul's brow was sad,
    And the Consul's speech was low,
And darkly looked he at the wall,
    And darkly at the foe.
'Their van will be upon us
    Before the bridge goes down;
And if they once may win the bridge,
    What hope to save the town?'

Then out spake brave Horatius,
   The Captain of the gate:
'To every man upon this earth
    Death cometh soon or late:
And how can man die better
    Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers
    And the temples of his gods?

Hew down the bridge, Sir Consul,
   With all the speed ye may;
I, with two more to help me,
   Will hold the foe in play.
In yon strait path a thousand
    May well be stopped by three.
Now who will stand on either hand,
    And keep the bridge with me?'

Extract from 'Horatius' by Lord Macaulay

Sunday, 9 September 2012

Simon says...

With reference to my post yesterday, which mentioned that Searchlight appeared to be ignoring the sentence of Adam Walker at Durham Crown Court on Friday, I note that the Northern Echo article has now, belatedly, been republished on their web site.

Evidently, Searchlight monitors my blog and reacts to what I write.

Saturday, 8 September 2012

"Keep up the good work!" says Judge

When has a judge ever before had a good word to say for a known BNP activist who appears before them in court, on any charge whatsoever?

The judiciary is, of course, one of the three branches of government and many are the links between the individuals who collectively make up the three branches.

Evidently, the Establishment believes that it is in its best interests that the moribund BNP be kept on life-support for as long as possible.

Strangely, the report below does not appear on Searchlight's web site.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

BNP activist Adam Walker avoids prison

8 September 2012

By Gavin Engelbrecht

A BNP 'activist' [its National Organizer, no less!] and former teacher who drove after three boys on bikes whom he believed had been cheeky to him avoided a gaol sentence yesterday.

Adam Walker pursued the terrified boys in a Land Rover 4X4, coming within yards of a collision.

And when they fled on foot he slashed all the tyres of their abandoned bicycles with a craft knife, Durham Crown Court heard.

He was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, after he admitted dangerous driving and possessing a bladed instrument.

Walker, described as a BNP staff manager, whose duties included chauffeuring a BNP Member of the European Parliament [viz, Nick Griffin MEP] was also banned from driving for 12 months.

But, in passing sentence, Recorder Ben Nolan said he hoped Walker would not lose his job with the party.

Recorder Nolan said: “This was a crazy thing to do.

“You obviously had a rush of blood to the head and I accept that to some extent you were provoked by these boys, but they were only boys, children.

“And what you did was extremely dangerous.”

Amanda Rippon, prosecuting, said the incident followed a St George’s Day march in Spennymoor, County Durham, in April, last year.

The boys, aged from ten to 12, had been “ticked off” earlier over their use of a bouncy castle outside the Green Tree pub, in nearby Tudhoe.

When they saw Walker, 43, removing bunting from his car with a Stanley knife they verbally abused him, wrongly thinking he was coming to chase them away again.

Walker set off after them and at one point drove his Land Rover over the length of the village green, behind one of the boys.

Lloyd Morgan, mitigating, said apart from an eight-year-old conviction for drink-driving, Walker was of good character, “having shown commitment not just to the community, but to the country”.

He added: “He is someone who has thoroughly learnt his lesson.”

The court heard that he faces a hearing before a BNP investigative committee later this month and could be suspended from his post.

Recorder Nolan said: “I clearly hope that your employers continue to value your good work as they have in the past and that they regard this episode as an utter aberration.”

Mr Walker, of Spennymoor, County Durham, also admitted a public order offence and three counts of criminal damage. He was ordered to pay compensation of £142 to the boys.

The Northern Echo

Friday, 7 September 2012

The acceptable face of nationalism

A few thoughts prompted by the recent arrest of the Corsham Crusader, alias Mark Kennedy.

The anti-free speech legislation, though entirely unjustifiable and repressive, does not make it impossible to speak out safely against the destruction of our country through the mass immigration of ethnic aliens. Nor does it make criticism, whether in speech or writing, of the abominable behaviour of many of those ethnic aliens legally impermissible. What it does, however, is to oblige critics of the Establishment's traitorous policies to be intelligent rather than emotive when voicing their opposition and to choose their words with some care. This is not difficult and is a good discipline to adopt.

Being more reasoned and analytical in one's critique of the colonization of our land by interlopers from the Third World and the state-sponsored dispossession of our people from their birthright and heritage, will tend to win over and attract to our cause, the very type of people we most need if our cause is ultimately to triumph, namely, the more intelligent, educated and articulate sections of our people, including, crucially, the Youth.

Now this is not to say that a more emotive and colourful approach (such as that of GA and his BR site) is worthless and without merit. Far from it. Nationalism needs and will have a range of approaches. Our task as nationalists should be (and this has been touched upon by CC in a recent article) successfully to co-ordinate the various different approaches in such a way that, instead of working in competition with each other, as at present, they work in co-operation with one another and so complement (and perhaps even compliment) each other.

There is, in the absence of a decent, respectable nationalist party which is generally acknowledged to be pre-eminent, such as the BNP used to be, an intensification of competition and conflict between nationalists. A large part of this centres on winning publicity and being seen to be active. One way of winning publicity is through brushes with the law. But is it the best way? Contrary to Mr Griffin's ill-considered dictum that "There's no such thing as bad publicity", we know that there is. Question Time proved that for any doubters in 2009.

It would be far better for a nationalist party, surely, patiently to build a reputation for decency and respectability with the public and the electorate. In order to do this leaders without baggage are necessary and activists and organizers who fully understand the importance of helping to build and to safeguard an acceptable public image and reputation for civilized behaviour, rather than its opposite.

Thursday, 6 September 2012

Justice delayed is justice denied

Emma West trial adjourned for third time

September 4, 2012

THE trial of alleged tram 'racist' Emma West has been adjourned for the third time.

West, 28, of New Addington, Croydon, is charged with two racially aggravated public order offences after a video, which apparently shows her abusing black, Asian and Polish tram passengers while holding her four-year-old son, was posted on YouTube.

​Emma West denies two racially aggravated public order offences.

The mother of two pleaded not guilty and had been due to face trial at Croydon Crown Court tomorrow (Wednesday).

However, the case has been adjourned for the third time after the Crown Prosecution Service asked for further reports to be compiled.

A new date for the trial has yet to be fixed.

West had been due to stand trial in June but the case was adjourned for further psychiatric reports. The case was moved to July but delayed again for the same reason.

The YouTube video, called My Tram Experience and filmed on a tram travelling between Croydon and Wimbledon, was watched by more than 11 million people after it was uploaded on November 27 last year.

Croydon Crown Court has previously heard that West, a former dental receptionist, had taken a double dose of her medication at the time of the incident, which is believed to have occurred on October 18 last year.

This is Croydon today

Saturday, 25 August 2012

Griffin talks Shiite

Having read the official BNP (Bankrupt Nationalist Printers) publication, What Lies Behind the English Defence League? one's major impression is that there is a profound flaw in its thesis. By the use of multiple footnotes on every page, this meretricious work seeks to convey the false impression to the unwary, of academic rigour and sound reasoning.

To be fair, it does appear to show that there are friendly links and contacts between the leadership of both the EDL and British Freedom Party and wealthy Jewish and pro-Israel businessmen and leaders of opinion, in both North America and Europe. So far so good. None of this is original, however. The links have been previously observed and documented by Hope Not Hate [sic] and Searchlight magazine, to name but two.

What are we to make of such links? That is the sixty-four dollar question. No doubt political guidance has been provided to Mr Lennon and no doubt friendly media exposure (though to a much smaller extent in Britain where it is most needed) has been vouchsafed to Mr Weston. Money (or its equivalent: free use of facilities, etc) has no doubt helped the EDL, if not also British Freedom. The money will be helpful in contesting elections and in buying publicity.

But what of the supposedly sinister control that is postulated? Is it real, or only imagined? Let us ask another question? How would helping to create and direct an anti-Islamist 'street army' of Gentiles in Britain assist Jews in this country, or in North America, or Europe, or Israel? Well, in the case of Britain, it is argued that such a body could be used to intimidate anti-war protesters. I think that this is highly unlikely. Were it to be attempted it would be very likely to backfire badly.

The other point to bear in mind is the bitter division within Islam, between Sunni and Shia. Iran is Shia (or Shiite) whereas the countries from which most Muslims in Britain originate are mainly Sunni. Most Muslims in Britain, being Sunni, would be likely to be much less concerned about an attack on a Shia-led country like Iran, than they were about an attack on a Sunni-led country like Iraq, or Afghanistan.

The EDL might be viewed as a useful insurance policy, however, in case of civil disturbance and in particular if Jewish communities were to be targeted by Muslim mobs. The political demand for an end to only Muslim immigration coupled with support for Israel, might be regarded as a way of blunting the 'racist' accusation, while at the same time serving the interests of both the Jewish and Christian communities in Britain and in Israel.

BNP is Donatist not Nationalist

The only type of leadership challenge Mr Griffin tolerates is one that he himself subverts behind the scenes.

Depending on the seriousness of the challenge which, as Chairman, Griffin is in a good position to assess in advance, the rules of the party constitution are changed in order to make it impossible for the challenge to succeed. As far as Griffin is concerned 'winning' is the most important thing, 'winning' at any cost and he works back from this pre-ordained outcome to change the rules of any contest in order to make assurance doubly sure. He abuses his position of trust in order to cheat the members out of a free and fair election, while at the same time hypocritically attacking 'the powers that be' for failing to allow free speech and genuine democracy.

Politics itself, though, is only a means to an end for Griffin. But the end, for him, is not good government. There is not an idealistic bone in Mr Griffin's body. He is not really interested in politics and is said to find it boring. The end for Griffin is being 'the leader' and an elective dictator indefinitely, not for the thrill of exercising 'power', or the 'status' of such a position, though.

The real reason is far more prosaic. Griffin has never had a proper job in his life that lasted for more than a few weeks. He has been the spoilt darling of wealthy parents and has spent his adult life playing at politics, first in the National Front, which he destroyed and then in the BNP, which he also destroyed.

He has always been given money by others, never had to earn it for himself and this pattern continues to this day. This is why the BNP is so often, however large its income, in financial difficulties: because Griffin doesn't understand the value of money. I once heard him say, to a crowded hall of activists, "What is money? It comes, it goes".

Is it any wonder that the BNP is always asking its few remaining members to donate?

Wednesday, 15 August 2012

Contra Brons' mantra

Some are born leaders, some achieve leadership and some have leadership thrust upon them. Mr Brons, I fear, falls into the third of these categories.

Mr Brons refers often to 'breakaway parties' and to a suppositious and supposititious 'iron law' which governs the fate of such parties.

The first point to note is that the BNP itself falsifies such an assumed 'law', since it overtook and replaced its parent party, the National Front, within a few years of its formation. There is also the point to consider, that since something like nine-tenths (it may be 85%) of the members the BNP had a mere two years ago, are no longer members and the vast majority, while still sympathetic to nationalism, have not joined any other party, there is really nothing to break away from any longer. A new ethno-nationalist party would be mainly fishing for recruits in this vast lake of demoralized former BNP members. In what sense then could the new party be said to be a break away?

Virtually the only thing the new party would be actually breaking off from the 'parent body' would be one of the latter's two MEPs. Almost everyone else who is likely to go has already gone. But they have, in the main, not gone to the four points of the nationalist compass. And this very fact illustrates the need for a new and respectable, broad church ethno-nationalist party, with all that was good about the BNP, particularly its policies, but without its fatal defects - a lack of democratic accountability of the leader(s) to the membership, a culture of financial laxity and an absence of free speech. It is because there is currently nothing out there which fits this bill, that the bulk of the members who have left the BNP over the last two years have not yet joined anything else.

Mr Brons may say that they could have joined the Democratic Nationalists. The fact is that they have not done so. Does this fact refute my argument? Certainly not. Many of them have probably never even heard of the Democratic Nationalists. Those who have looked at the party's web site (its shop window) will not have been impressed. Shrinking violets are of no use in politics. It is at all times necessary to let one's potential supporters see and hear what one has to offer. The message, while good and true, has still to be sold to the electorate.

Mr Brons' arguments do not withstand close scrutiny. For example, what does it mean for the BNP to be operationally dead? How dead would it have to be before Mr Brons felt safe to challenge it?
No one need admit they were wrong, nor eat humble pie. Many activists, though, are not happy with their current political home and many more are politically homeless. Many of them would eagerly join a new party - the right kind of party.
Mr Griffin will keep the BNP going, as a web site, a street gang and most importantly of all, of course, a repository for legacies, but it should be evident that as an effective political party it is finished.
I do not expect to convince Mr Brons with these arguments. No doubt he has heard them and others like them from colleagues more eloquent than myself.
Perhaps the most that those, like myself, who wish to form a new party, should hope for from Mr Brons is a strict neutrality. If he would declare himself neutral, like Switzerland, it would make things much easier.
Dr Andrew Emerson

Tuesday, 14 August 2012

Anglo-Saxons still the majority in USA

What will a white-minority US look like?

By Daniel Nasaw

BBC News Magazine, Washington

18 May, 2012

Future generations of Americans could look increasingly like mixed race baseball player Derek Jeter. The US has reached a demographic tipping point, with most babies born now belonging to minority groups.

According to the US Census Bureau, black, Hispanic, Asian and mixed race births made up 50.4% of new arrivals in the year ending in July 2011.

Much of the change is driven by high birth rates among the Hispanic population.

The official notice foreshadows the day, expected in the 2040s, when non-Hispanic whites - like the group that founded America - will be in the minority. [Emphasis added].

[End of extract]

It should be noted that, true to form, the BBC cannot bring itself to mention the English. It has to perform a peculiar feat of circumlocution in order to airbrush the greatest nation the world has ever known out of American history, by referring to us as "non-Hispanic whites", thereby avoiding acknowledging the reality of our distinct ethnic identity by including us in a general category of "whites", which itself they define only in contradistinction to their favoured ethnic groups, blacks and Hispanics.

Why is New England called New England? Why isn't it called New non-Hispania? You see how absurd the BBC's hateful, anti-English racism is? How vile and odious are the hate-mongers who show their hatred for the English through their hate-filled propaganda? And your money, which you pay for a TV licence, finances this hate speech. A good reason to stop watching television, to turn off the set, unplug it at the wall and to stop paying to finance racist anti-English propaganda.

With an estimated thirteen million illegal immigrants living in the country, almost all of whom are not of English ancestry, the first step towards halting and then reversing the demographic trend towards a non-white majority is to deport the lot, without exception. The second step is to strengthen border controls, particularly along the Mexican border. The third step will be to ban any further non-white immigration. The fourth step will be to institute a publicly funded scheme of voluntary, financially assisted repatriation of non-whites to their countries of ethnic origin, or any others willing to accept them.

Saturday, 11 August 2012

"Decisions, decisions..."

Bite the bullet time for Brons

If Mr Brons agrees with his PA and Constituency Office Manager, Mr Beverley's condemnation of the BNP then, as a BNP MEP, it is his duty to resign from the party, thereby setting a good example for the remaining decent members of the party to follow.

If, on the other hand, Mr Brons wishes to remain a member of the BNP (and get his money's worth from his Life membership), then presumably he disagrees with Mr Beverley's defamation of the party. If he disagrees with Mr Beverley then he should say so publicly and give his reasons.

Regardless of whether Mr Brons agrees or disagrees with the substance of Mr Beverley's censure of the BNP, if he takes no action against Mr Beverley, then he lays himself open to the suspicion of conniving at his public attack on the party. He puts himself in a false position and appears to be a hypocrite.

Turning to Mr Beverley, one would put the following questions to him. If the BNP is as bad as you say, then what are you doing working full time supporting Mr Brons, the BNP's senior MEP? Does your right hand know what your left hand is doing? Does the money you receive for supposedly helping Mr Brons to perform his duties as an MEP outweigh your antipathy to the BNP? Should you not consider your own position and resign, before you compel Mr Brons to dismiss you?

Friday, 10 August 2012

'Infanta' by Ken Slaarg

There are some books one just cannot put down. Not because one does not want to, mind. But because to do so might be regarded as mocking the afflicted.

Fortunately, Infanta, by the noted anti-fascist performance artist Ken Slaarg, is not such a book. It is very easy to put down, in all sorts of highly entertaining ways - for those who enjoy pleasantly sauntering through the narrow lanes of literary self-indulgence, as who does not?

To say that this is a book that appears once in a generation might sound like the hyperbole of a literary agent, but it's worth saying nevertheless, since there are are always a few punters who will be taken in by a blurb like this.

Infanta documents, in a highly emotional yet dispassionate way, the life-long personal struggle of one woman to come to terms with the fact that she is really a man, inside a woman, inside a man, while at the same time objectifying and reifying the inner struggle in the broader fight against all forms of societal oppression.

The book is full of pathos, of amusing vignettes and anecdotes of well-known and some less well-known people and places. A flavour of the book can be acquired by looking at its title, Infanta. Ken Slaarg, a dyslexic, originally meant to entitle the book 'Antifa', but wrote 'Infanta' instead, serendipitously.

For all those who take seriously the international struggle against fascism and what it represents, especially the latter, this book is the perfect antidote. It should make a wonderful stocking-filler.

Infanta by K Slaarg, published by Harridan Press, 220pp, £14.99

Wednesday, 8 August 2012

English Democrats not the answer

Chris Beverley, the BNP MEP Andrew Brons' Constituency Office Manager (for Yorkshire and the Humber) and his Personal Assistant, as well as a prominent member of the quasi-nationalist English Democrats, has this to say about the party of which Mr Brons remains a Life Member:-

"For years I was a member of the BNP. I held a variety of positions and stood in many elections for them at all levels. I also served a full four-year term as a BNP councillor on Leeds City Council.

"Over time I came to realize that the BNP, whilst undoubtedly succeeding in recruiting some decent and well-meaning members over the years, is a thoroughly rotten organization which can best be thought of as a cross between a criminal gang and a religious cult.

"The English Democrats offer a complete contrast in that they are a moderate and democratic party which stands up for England and opposes all forms of political correctness without ever betraying their membership by engaging in the kind of careless extremism, thuggery, sexual scandal and outright criminality which the public rightly associates with the BNP."

England Awake! [Magazine of the English Democrats] # 2, p 6

While entirely agreeing with Mr Beverley's appraisal of the BNP, at least as it has been for the last few years, his assertion that the English Democrats oppose political 'correctness' is self-evidently false. One has only to visit their web site in order to satisfy oneself that, far from opposing political 'correctness', the English Democrats are, in fact, all claims to the contrary notwithstanding, one of the most abject exponents of that particularly repellent ideology.

Indeed, it is no accident that Mr Beverley, in the third paragraph of the extract quoted above, states that the "English Democrats...are a...party which stands up for England..." The English Democrats may stand up for England. They do not, however, dare to stand up for the English.

Furthermore, one questions whether they are really as democratic as their name and the enthusiastic Mr Beverley, would have us believe. The party is in hock to its founding leader, Mr Tilbrook, to the tune of approximately one-quarter of a million pounds. Doubtless, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

The English Democrats' ten-man National Council determines all of its policies. The party's National Conference is merely a rubber stamp and must either take or leave the manifesto presented to it by the National Council. It can make no amendment to it whatsoever. How democratic is that?

Mr Tilbrook claims a membership of nearly 3,000. Well, if 1,500 may be regarded as nearly 3,000, then I suppose he might be said to be right.

Trusted sources indicate that membership is actually in a steep decline, rather than growing, as Mr Tilbrook claims.

Accompanying the magazine referred to above, in a mailshot to potential donors and members, is a four page 'begging letter', written in the Dowson style, with which former BNP members will be only too familiar. Is this a sign of desperation? It certainly looks as if the English Democrats may be drowning, rather than waving.

In view of Mr Beverley's, entirely justified, remarks about the political party of which his Principal, Mr Brons, remains a prominent member and elected representative, one wonders what Mr Beverley feels about having as a colleague Mr Adam Walker, currently awaiting sentence for serious crimes. Is it a good working relationship?

If Mr Walker is gaoled later this month, as he richly deserves, will he continue to do the jobs of National Organizer (for the BNP) and Constituency Caseworker (for both Griffin and Brons), from his prison cell? The BNP really has become nothing more than a bad joke, under the corrupt and incompetent 'leadership' of Mr Griffin.

Perhaps all of Mr Beverley's criticism of BNP thuggery and criminality is really just for show. Could it be that, behind the scenes, prominent BNP and prominent (former BNP) English Democrat members, find that they have much more in common with one another than they have with the decent grass roots of either party?

A dish best served cold?

"The DCLG and Barrow Cadbury currently fund HNH or more accurately its charitable arm Searchlight Educational Trust (as part of the separation of Searchlight magazine and HNH, they have promised to rename Searchlight Educational Trust by 31 December 2012, though a similar promise to rename Searchlight Information Services Ltd, the company behind HNH, by 30 June 2012 has been broken). We wonder how HNH will account to DCLG and Barrow Cadbury for the use of their grants."

This is an extract from a very interesting article by Mrs Gable, on the Searchlight magazine web site, entitled 'A meagre dish served lukewarm'. In the course of exposing the lamentable (or laughable, depending on one's point of view) shortcomings of the 'anti-fascist' competition, Hope Not Hate, Mrs Gable reveals that the Department for Communities and Local Government, a government department and hence a publicly funded body, provides grant aid to HNH.

Now, HNH is a 'third party' organization that publishes hostile propaganda aimed both at the ethnic majority, English and other indigenous peoples of Britain and more specifically at the political parties that claim to represent the legitimate interests of these ethnic groups, including most notably the BNP.

HNH was responsible for mobilizing hundreds of volunteers in Barking, during the 2010 General Election campaign, who delivered tens of thousands of anti-BNP propaganda leaflets. HNH subsequently claimed much of the 'credit' for twelve BNP councillors losing their seats on the Borough Council and for Mr Griffin's disappointing result in the constituency.

How can a government department, like the DCLG, possibly justify misusing public money by providing a grant to this parti pris organization, whose main purpose is to campaign against political parties of a particular persuasion? It is an insidious subversion of the democratic process, when the apparatus of the state is used by the parties in government, for the purpose of diverting public monies into the pockets of the enemies of those parties' political opponents. It is also a waste of taxpayers' money, which would be scandalous at any time, but is doubly so at a time of financial stringency and enforced cuts in vital public services.

The British electorate deserve better than this. But should they really be surprised at the self-seeking corruption of governing parties that are largely led by ethnically alien millionaires, who are not only completely out of touch with the needs and concerns of ordinary people, but also lack any feeling of  solidarity with the ethnic majority population of the country they misgovern?

Looking at the published list of recipients of the taxpayers' largesse, courtesy of the DCLG: amongst the dozens of grants to Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and Jewish groups, to help to assuage their "grievances", I noticed one of £30,000 to the Searchlight Educational Trust - for the purpose of making a DVD! Was this DVD made of solid platinum?

What about grants to members of the downtrodden English community, to help to assuage their genuine grievances? The only one I could find was to a project designed to dissuade young Englishmen from turning to "parties of the extreme Right" [sic].

Now why on earth should they want to do that?

Monday, 6 August 2012

I came not to send peace, but a sword

Christian Pacifism

Early Christian Views of War

Post Enlightenment Christianity often emphasizes the peaceful nature of Jesus, as opposed to the very numerous accounts of divinely sanctioned violence or warfare in the Hebrew Scriptures [Old Testament]. Proponents of the Christian pacifist position sometimes point to the early Church, the first three centuries of Christianity, and cite it as "pacifist" in arguing against Christian participation in warfare, under any circumstances. Such claims are often cited as a means of illuminating the supposedly un-Christian character of the crusades.This point was once brought up during an interview by Christianity Today with the highly respected crusades scholar Jonathan Riley-Smith. A partial transcript follows and the response by Dr. Riley-Smith is well worth reading.

Christian History Magazine: In the first three centuries, Christians were pacifists. By 1096, they had embarked on a holy war. What caused such a huge change?

Jonathan Riley-Smith: First, the early church was not entirely pacifist. In Romans 13, for example, Paul justifies the violence of the pagan emperor, for the emperor is yet a minister of God. And Christians served in the Roman army from the second century on. Following the conversion of the emperors, in the fourth century, the church became more open to using violence. Church leaders, after an initial shock, began supporting the use of force against heretics. Then Augustine formulated his theory of “just war,” but his terms effectively mean “holy war.” Augustine and the medieval world concluded that violence is not evil. Instead, violence is morally neutral. That makes a crusade possible. How did medieval Christians support their idea that violence was morally neutral? Augustine gave this example: Suppose a man has gangrene in the leg and is going to die. The surgeon believes the only way to save him is by amputating the leg. Against the man’s will, the surgeon straps him to a table and saws off the leg. That is an act of extreme violence.*

*Taken from "Holy Violence Then and Now : A historian looks at the causes and lingering effects of Christian warfare. an interview with Jonathan Riley-Smith ." Christianity Today, [Online] October 1, 1993 http://www.ctlibrary.com/3995 [Last viewed 12/22/2006].

Crusades - Encyclopedia

Sunday, 5 August 2012

Da pacem, Domine

Da pacem, Domine, in diebus nostris

Quia non est alius

Qui pugnet pro nobis

Nisi tu Deus noster.

 Grant peace, Lord, in our time

For there is none other

Who will fight for us

If not thou, our God.

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

It's all a giant conspiracy!

Mr Griffin's BNP (Bankrupt Nationalist Printers) has made a new video nasty, in which the scoundrel himself delivers a halting ("Can someone help me out here?") disquisition on the alleged financial backing of the English Defence League and its political add-on, the British Freedom Party.

According to Griffin, it would appear that a huge conspiracy has been uncovered.

Not only are 'Zionists' from across the pond allegedly involved, but perhaps even more shocking, these 'Zionists' are extraordinarily wealthy individuals and are very well connected to the United States' military-industrial complex. To the extent of owning much of it.

One can see Mr Griffin almost drooling as he describes the wealth of these plutocrats, not all of whom are Jews, to be fair, he hastens to add. Their wealth buys them access to politicians and well, politicians. And therein lies the problem. Because many of these multi-millionaire puppet-masters are in fact Jews, who promote a bellicose foreign policy which, while supposedly in the interests of Israel (whose government doesn't always see it that way), is certainly not in the interests of the waning Anglo-Saxon ethnic majority of both the US and the UK.

It would seem that the grass roots of the EDL have been conned into serving a 'Zionist' neo-con agenda on the streets of Britain, in much the same way that the grass roots of the BNP were conned into serving a Griffin family agenda, by helping to get him elected to the European pig-trough, or 'parliament'.

Conveniently forgetting about his support of Britain's military intervention in Aghanistan in 2001, Griffin now implies that Iran should be left alone to develop a nuclear strike capability, on the grounds that "they need it in order to deter would-be aggressors" and "it's none of our business, anyway". Griffin is to International Affairs what Clive Jefferson is to Book-keeping.

Throughout Griffin's performance at the lectern ("Next slide, please; no, no, go back a bit") one's olfactory sense detects two strong aromas. The first: fear. "Might this 'Zionist'-controlled nationalist operation just possibly knock me off my perch?" is one unvoiced question Griffin seems to be asking himself. The second: sour grapes. "Why didn't the 'Zionists' succumb to my earlier charm offensive?" is the other unvoiced question running through Griffin's mind.

No doubt Griffin would have taken the Counter-Jihadist shekel  in an instant, had it ever been offered him. Just ask Colonel Gaddafi.

The Torch of Life

Vitai Lampada

There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night --

Ten to make and the match to win --

A bumping pitch and a blinding light,

An hour to play and the last man in.

And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat,

Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,

But his Captain's hand on his shoulder smote --

'Play up! play up! and play the game!'

The sand of the desert is sodden red, --

Red with the wreck of a square that broke; --

The Gatling's jammed and the Colonel dead,

And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.

The river of death has brimmed his banks,

And England's far, and Honour a name,

But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks:

'Play up! play up! and play the game!'

This is the word that year by year,

While in her place the School is set,

Every one of her sons must hear,

And none that hears it dare forget.

This they all with a joyful mind

Bear through life like a torch in flame,

And falling fling to the host behind --

'Play up! play up! and play the game!'

Sir Henry Newbolt (1862-1938)

Friday, 27 July 2012

Two vote or not to vote, that is the question

Stoke-on-Trent City Council by-election, Thursday, 26 July 2012

Springfields and Trent Vale Ward

City Ind 370
Lab 245
Lib Dem 152
C 109
UKIP 105  9.9% (2011 15.4%)
Ind 36
BNP 27  2.6%
Trade Unionists and Socialists against Cuts 14
Democratic Nationalists 2  0.2%

May 2011 - Lab 537, Lib Dem 321, Community Voice 277, UKIP 206

City Ind gain from Lab

Swing 3.6% Lab to Lib Dem

Time marches on

Restoring the Credibility of Nationalism 

by Ronald Rickcord

Although at present British Nationalism is in a state of turmoil, it cannot be denied that large numbers of people who agree with the political philosophy and aims of the variegated forms of Nationalism are on the increase. This is obvious from the multiplicity of small nationalist parties that have emerged in recent years. It is a great tragedy that these parties, though largely in agreement on most issues, are unable to unite to create a single party able to provide the credibility and sense of direction to win the support of the confused and politically apathetic indigenous voters. As it is, there are within Nationalism far too many factions, often led by those whose sole motive is self-aggrandisement and the wish to be big fish in small ponds. If I may mix my metaphors, there are too many prima donnas, causing confusion and resulting in too much duplication of effort.

Before I proceed further, I should make it clear that for many, the term ‘Nationalist’ has become synonymous with the derogatory epithet ‘Racist’ that is usually applied to those of us who oppose the never-ending influx of immigrants arriving here. It has to be borne in mind that ‘Nationalist’ is something of a misnomer in this context, since a nation is a purely artificial construct. If our opponents wish to refer to us as racists, so be it. It is one’s race that matters, not one’s nation. For example, to me white South Africans and Americans, Canadians, Scandinavians and Germans belong to the same racial group as I do, no matter where they may happen to live or the nationality ascribed to them. Nevertheless, we must admit that Britain, being an island, has a greater claim to nationhood than most other so-called nations.

A few years ago, the BNP, of which I was for many years a member, had a great opportunity of breaking through the credibility barrier. Unfortunately, its founder, the highly respected John Tyndall, was superseded by the Machiavellian machinations of one person totally lacking the qualities of leadership, motivated entirely by personal ambition, who in the past was involved with various questionable organizations, and who, in recent years, has exhibited the classical symptoms of advanced megalomania. Furthermore, this patently dishonest ‘leader’ cannot be entrusted with the financial control of any organization, has a criminal record, and surrounds himself with toadies of inferior ability who are only too eager to do his bidding.

Despite these problems, it is essential that the present disarray among the various nationalist parties must not be allowed to deter us from renewing our efforts to capture the hearts and minds of our racial kith and kin; this is urgent if we are to avoid racial extinction.

Because Nationalism is in the doldrums, it is not surprising that many of our compatriots, and even some Nationalists, are unaware of the peril that confronts us, and, more importantly, our posterity. It is no use arguing that getting our message across to the British public is a long-term process. We cannot afford to do things in a leisurely fashion. Time is a factor that is not on our side.

Each day that passes without our being in control of our own affairs, is another nail in the coffin of our race. Time is therefore of the essence, so we must make every effort to impress upon our racial compatriots the dire urgency for action now if we are to survive as an independent and distinctive racial entity. Never again must we allow our aims to be impeded by a power-hungry adventurer and his acolytes who brought such shame and ruination on the BNP.

In this article, I shall examine some of the methods we have traditionally used in our efforts to win public support for our policies, and I shall propose some alternative strategies that I think may enable us to make a far greater impact on public opinion than hitherto. I do not claim that the ideas I shall outline are my own or that they are necessarily the only options available to us; nor does the expression of these ideas imply any criticism of the many stalwart patriots who have laboured so valiantly on behalf of the various nationalist parties for so many years.

My sole intention is to provoke discussion among genuine Nationalists in an effort to induce others with more fertile minds than mine into thinking about the steps we should now take to improve our ability to influence public opinion. By applying our thoughts to these matters and discussing them between ourselves should help us to evolve a strategy for success, one that will guarantee the survival of the British Race.

The success of any political organisation or pressure group depends primarily on five elements: Leadership, Planning, Administration, Enthusiasm and Action. It is not my purpose to discuss the first three items here. It is undeniable that where the BNP is concerned, these attributes have been lamentably absent in recent years. There was never any shortage of enthusiasm among the countless dedicated activists and supporters of the BNP, who have now been so disgracefully betrayed. So I shall confine myself to discussing the last-named item on the list - Action.

Activities organised by any radical party have three principal aims. First, to transform society into something that accords with the ideals and views of its members; second to generate the publicity to persuade citizens that the party’s policies are best for their welfare and future of their children; and third, to bolster up and sustain the morale of its members.

There are several ways that these aims can be achieved. The methods most commonly used by Nationalists in the past were mainly in the form of demonstrations, propaganda and electioneering. However, it became increasingly apparent in recent times that these were not having the desired effect, and indeed, caused many of us much disappointment. The antics of some nationalist leaders and the behaviour of unruly elements and scruffiness of the foul-mouthed undesirables and hooligans who so often attached themselves to our events contributed to our lack of success.

In past years, our demonstrations consisted mainly of marches and outdoor public meetings. Long before marches were banned, it became obvious that they had outlived their usefulness and become counterproductive. There were a number of reasons for this, the main one being that they were almost entirely ignored by our alien-controlled media unless they could be used to concoct news in ways that portrayed Nationalists in a bad light. In this, the media were aided by the deplorable hooligan elements I mentioned above, who latched onto these events solely for the prospect of having a punch-up. Unfortunately, many people witnessing these incidents wrongly blamed Nationalists for the ensuing mayhem that occurred.

Another disadvantage of marches was that they provided our opponents with the opportunity of obtaining free publicity at our expense. Often, Nationalists who attended marches had to run the gauntlet of bricks, bottles and other fearsome missiles hurled at us by our enemies; but by clever editing, trick photography and manipulation of the facts, subsequent TV and news reports implied we were the culprits and our opponents the victims!

For these reasons, marches did little to earn any public sympathy for Nationalists; indeed, quite the reverse. In addition, the inconvenience that marches caused to the inhabitants, shoppers, traders, and motorists in areas where marches were held did nothing to endear us with the public, however much they may have agreed with our policies. Even before marches were banned, we had to face the fact that they were considered a nuisance and were generally unpopular. In an article I wrote in 1983, I suggested, to the annoyance of some colleagues, that I felt that marches were having the opposite effect to that which we desired and that we ought to consider other less aggressive ways of gaining public support.

I suggested that instead of marches, serious consideration should have been given to alternative ways of obtaining publicity. It was my opinion that by adopting the tactics previously used by the old League of Empire Loyalists would have been more fruitful. Older readers will remember how the LEL had the uncanny knack of suddenly appearing and having their say at highly publicized functions such as theatres, public meetings, conferences, etc., in full view of the public and media. In this way, they were often remarkably successful in getting their message across before being thrown out. Music lovers and TV viewers may remember how Palestinian protesters twice disrupted the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra during a Promenade Concert last year. This was achieved by positioning the protesters in different parts of the auditorium, making it difficult to silence them. This action undoubtedly upset the audience, but it certainly enabled the Palestinians to obtain widespread support for their cause.

Methods of this sort are ideal for waking people up to the reality of what is going on in our country. Several institutions are ripe for such treatment. In particular I am thinking of the churches, which, during recent years have become little more than agencies for propagating the vile creeds of multiracialism and homosexuality. A few intrepid and articulate Nationalists scattered among the congregations of cathedrals and churches in which sermons were being given by race-mixing pastors and unrepentant ‘gay’ clergy would work wonders. And imagine the publicity that could be gained if such demonstrations were staged in cinemas during the showing of salacious and anti-British films, usually imported and made by foreign directors who, in all probability, have a hidden agenda. The opportunities of these and similar activities are endless.

Stunts like those mentioned above, if well thought out and executed could have a number of advantages. First, they would not require many activists to conduct and would therefore be easy to organize and control. Second, they would stand a very good chance of being noticed and commented on by the media, and, even if ignored, the Nationalist viewpoint would at least come to the attention of members of the public attending those functions and events selected for such treatment. Third, activists would be able to organize similar demonstrations in their own areas at little cost. The Establishment would consequently find itself under frequent attack throughout the country.

As events have proved over many years, elections, and particularly general elections, have not been very successful. Elections are too infrequent and the nationalist message tends to become lost beneath the welter of verbiage on a variety of unimportant subjects dear to the hearts of the other parties, whose policies, in any case, seldom differ very much. In addition, many of the arguments revolve around frivolous and irrelevant matters. In such conditions, Nationalists are scarcely heard above the tumult.

I therefore think that for the time being Nationalists should avoid general elections and contest only local and Euro-elections, and then, only if the various Nationalist parties, having similar policies, join forces under one name, say, ‘Nationalist’. Nothing is more absurd than Nationalists fighting for the same seats under different flags. Apart from confusing voters, it fragments the Nationalist vote that may otherwise be obtained. Unanimity is essential. The above suggestions would provide several advantages. First, they would greatly reduce costs compared with fighting enormously expensive general elections. Second, combining the efforts of the many minuscule nationalist parties would inevitably lead towards greater unanimity. Third, the relative frequency of local elections and by-elections would provide a means of keeping the Nationalist Cause fresh in the voters’ minds at local level and, to a lesser extent, at national level.

It is a well-known fact that the Establishment denies Nationalists access to the mass media by every means within its power. Go into any of the larger newsagents and one will find the shelves therein bulging with leftist and Marxist publications such as Tribune, New Statesman, The New Worker, The Socialist Worker and Fabian Review, etc. For this reason, it is essential that we must create an alternative media of our own. In a very small way, we made a start in this direction many years ago by means of newspapers, magazines, journals and other publications. Nevertheless, these publications were, and where still extant, are, too small, too infrequent and, let us face it, often, except for quality journals like Heritage and Destiny and Spearhead (now, alas, defunct), of poor quality, regarding both presentation and content. To make matters worse, our opponents often make threats of violence against printers, suppliers and newsagents who would otherwise be prepared to distribute our publications. Also, we must realize that printed matter of this sort, however well produced, has only a fraction of the impact on people’s minds and perceptions as that achieved by the internet, TV and radio. We must also realize that we are not now living in an age similar to that which existed in the days of the Tractarians; few people have much inclination to read political pamphlets or dissertations these days.

Now, however, the Establishment’s monopoly of the dissemination of news and propaganda has suffered a serious diminution due to the internet revolution, which it has no effective means of controlling. As not everyone is on the internet, there will still be a need for the written word, and especially by those who wish to study such matters in greater depth. However, at present few Nationalists have sufficient training to exploit the opportunities afforded by either the internet, TV or the press to the full. I hope that we shall overcome this situation in time to come. One way we can rectify this problem is by employing young professionally trained journalists, rather than ancient amateurs (like me), as well as web masters, and computer and graphics experts. To this end nationalist sixth formers and other students should be encouraged to take up these subjects when they go to university. Those of us who have been involved in the incipient nationalist media over many years must encourage and nurture such youngsters, and be prepared to lay down our pens (or keyboards) in their favour when the time comes.

In this article I have touched upon just a few problems today confronting British Nationalism and made suggestions how, in my opinion, we could make greater impact than we now do. Doubtless, some Nationalists will disagree with my views and proposals; but what matters far more than the means we use are the objectives we have in view - and fortunately, there is no argument about what they are! So if this article helps to induce clever young people to apply their minds and abilities to finding better solutions to resolve the problems currently facing Nationalism, then I will not have written in vain.

Ronald Rickcord is a veteran Nationalist and frequent contributor to Heritage and Destiny. A sample copy of the latest issue can be obtained for £5.00 (made payable to Heritage and Destiny) from H&D, 40 Birkett Drive, Preston, PR2 6HE, UK; or by PayPal to heritageanddestiny@yahoo.com.

Thursday, 26 July 2012

Griffin and his duff 'science'

Stephen Oppenheimer's bad science

Stephen Oppenheimer is quoted in the Times Online in regard to some comments that BNP leader Nick Griffin recently made about indigenous Britons. From the article titled Nick Griffin's Bad Science.

"Watching Nick Griffin's performance on Question Time last night, I was struck by more than his objectionable views and evasive answers. He also seems to have a distinctly sketchy grasp of science, which he misrepresents to support his idea that Britain belongs to its 'indigenous people'.

"He described white English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish people as 'Britain's aborigines', suggesting these groups are descended from an ancestral population that arrived 17,000 years ago. Scientists, he said, would happily confirm this.

"His comments seem, so far as I can tell, to be based on the hypothesis advanced by Stephen Oppenheimer, of Oxford University, in his book The Origins of the British. This uses genetic data to suggest that about 75 per cent of British ancestry can be traced back to very ancient times, before the Anglo-Saxons, Romans and Celts -- the argument is summarised nicely in this Prospect piece."

Part of Oppenheimer's response:

"About three quarters of the ancestors had arrived before the neolithic. Most of the rest arrived during the neolithic. There’s about 5 per cent from Anglo-Saxons, about 6 per cent from Vikings."

The idea of Paleolithic genetic continuity has been demolished recently, as I detail in Migrationism Strikes Back. Most of the mtDNA haplogroups, thought by scientists to have been in Europe since the Paleolithic, were absent when actual Paleolithic DNA was tested. Genetic continuity must be proven directly, and inferences from modern populations are suspect.

Oppenheimer bases his inferences on age calculations based on Y-chromosome STRs on modern populations, using an extreme evolutionary mutation rate that overestimates time depth by almost an order of magnitude, and leads to even more extreme time overestimates than the evolutionary rate that I criticized recently.

I had been positively inclined towards Oppenheimer's work, and I still consider it superior to other popularizing efforts, because of its data richness and clear effort to synthesize different strands of knowledge. In retrospect, however, it is flawed, as it is based on faulty mutation rates and faulty interpretation:

Oppenheimer's argument is a special case of what Francois Balloux described recently, and Guido Barbujani a long time ago. To make a long story short, it doesn't matter if a certain haplogroup found in Britons is 1,000 or 10,000 years old. Knowing this fact tells us nothing about when the patrilineage arrived in Britain: a 1,000-year old haplogroup may have developed from a British line of ancestors that were reduced to a single man 1,000 years ago, and a 10,000-year old haplogroup may have arrived in Britain only 10 years ago by a group of distantly related immigrants.

Nick Griffin is of course also wrong in inferring that Britons are descended from Paleolithic ancestors. But, he is wrong only in misquoting a date and in building a political case around a belief in Oppenheimer's inferences on Paleolithic origins of Britons.

Oppenheimer's political case is also flawed, however:

"He’s missed the point of the genetics in terms of his perspective that he can determine who is indigenous British. All British people are immigrants. As Bonnie Greer pointed out, the original Britons were Neanderthals. They were exterminated, then the Ice Age left a clean sheet. The modern population is essentially of north Iberian origin. So what’s British?"

Clearly the word indigenous cannot be taken literally and everyone living in Britain is descended from people who arrived there at some point or another. But, this is a gross oversimplification of the situation. Why do people speak of 'native' Americans or Australian 'aborigines'? They do not, certainly, mean that these people emerged from American or Australian soil. What they do mean, however, is that these people are the oldest recorded inhabitants of their homelands, the first people that can be named.

In the case of Britain, there are indeed indigenous people that were named by ancient writers, viz, the Britons and Picts. No traditions for the immigration of these people exists, although their immigration can be inferred on linguistic grounds (Britons were Indo-European speakers). There were certainly other people before them, whose names are lost to memory, but whose genetic trace may persist in the current inhabitants. There are also non-indigenous people that arrived there a long time ago, eg, the Gaels, the Angles, the Saxons, the Vikings, and the Normans, and their arrival was noted by historians. Finally, there are people that arrived in Great Britain more recently, eg, Poles and Pakistanis.

Is there any way to distinguish between all these groups?

Clearly, one possible distinction is chronological: groups that arrived earlier are more indigenous than groups that arrived later. However, this is a relative difference, which does not allow us to make a sharp distinction between indigenous and foreign. 50 generations certainly earns you more "native" points than 2, but no obvious demarcation of indigenousness exists.

However, the main distinction is between groups that developed in situ and groups that arrived from elsewhere. The English are descended from a bunch of different sets of people, but as a people they developed in the country that came to be known as England.

In that sense the English are indigenous to England, not because their genes didn't arrive from elsewhere (they did), but in the sense that they became a people in the land itself. Different people were grafted onto the English over time, but they became English in an ethnic sense by being grafted onto them, and not by simply co-existing with them while retaining their own identity.

Dieneke's Anthropology Blog

The myth of imminent global oil depletion

March 29, 2012

The Real Problem is Not Too Little Oil, But Too Much

The Myth of Peak Oil


Each time there is a short-term shortage of oil or the price begins to rise, there is talk of running out of affordable oil, an idea captured by the concept of Peak Oil. Peak Oil is the theoretical point when the maximum rate of oil production is reached and after that time enters into a terminal decline. There is a lot of debate surrounding the Peak Oil theory, with some observers predicting rapid decline in oil production with serious implications for our entire economy and society.

No name is more closely associated with the concept of Peak Oil than geologist Marion King Hubbert. Hubbert was a research geologist for Shell Oil Company and later the US Geological Service. Hubbert is credited with developing a quantitative technique (Logistic Growth Curve) now commonly referred to as the Hubbert Curve, which he suggested could be used to predict the remaining oil supplies (or any other finite resource like gas, copper, etc.) and the time of eventual depletion.

In the 1956 meeting of the American Petroleum Institute in San Antonio, Texas, Hubbert presented a paper titled Nuclear Energy and Fossil Fuels where he suggested that overall petroleum production would peak in the United States between the late 1960s and the early 1970s. Since US oil production did indeed appear to peak in 1970, many Peak Oil advocates acclaim Hubbert as a prophet. However, an apparent peak in production does not necessarily represent a peak in oil availability, especially in a global market—something that Peak Oil advocates tend to overlook. In fact, a “peak” may just be one of many “spikes”.

Another point of confusion in the debate over the ultimate availability of oil and gas supplies is the question of “unconventional” fossil fuel sources like tar sands, oil shales, heavy oils, and shale oil. Hubbert did not include these other energy types in his estimates and many of the proponents of Peak Oil today tend to ignore these hydro-carbon sources. However, since there is vastly more oil (and gas) found in these “unconventional” sources compared to “conventional” crude oil and traditional gas sources, the exclusion of them from any policy debate over oil’s demise leads to serious misrepresentation of our ultimate fossil fuel availability.

As Hubbert wrote in his paper, “if we knew the quantity (of some resource) initially present, we could draw a family of possible production curves, all of which would exhibit the common property of beginning and ending at zero, and encompassing an area equal to or less than the initial quantity.” In theory, Hubbert’s basic concept is sound. As a way of thinking about and approaching the issue of declining finite resources, Hubbert was a pioneer. But that does not mean his predictions were accurate.

The problem for anyone trying to predict future resource availability is discerning the initial starting amount of a resource such as oil when one cannot readily see or gauge accurately the resource. This lack of transparency presents huge opportunities for error, in particular, erring on the side of under estimation of the total resource. And time has consistently shown that under estimation of total resource is the most common error, and as we shall see this is exactly the error that Hubbert made with regards to his estimates of our remaining oil and gas reserves. Hubbert can be forgiven because new technology can make previously unavailable resources accessible, even less expensive to exploit. In fact, he even anticipated this to a degree in his paper, another point that Hubbert’s admirers today tend to overlook.


Few that credit Hubbert with a successful prediction have apparently actually read his paper. A reading of his presentation demonstrates that Hubbert grossly underestimated total oil supplies, and thus his predicted high point of the bell curve deviates significantly from reality. Indeed, there is good evidence we haven’t even reached the top of the bell curve, much less past it in 1970. He did not anticipate things like the discovery of oil in Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay or shale oil like the North Dakota Bakken Formation, among many other oil discovery that have significantly changed total oil supplies.

And because US oil production did peak in 1970, the same time period which Hubbert suggested oil reserves would reach their half-way point and start an inevitable decline, few bothered to ask whether the observed decline in US production might have any other explanation other than declining geological petroleum stocks as Peak Oil advocates suggest.

Predicting future oil and gas supplies is fraught with dangers. Many factors influence oil extraction other than geological limits. A rapid shift to renewable energy, a decline in global economies, new technological innovation, energy conservation, a high oil price that dampens consumer demand, political instability and wars all significantly affects energy production, thus when and how “peak” is achieved. Many believe a more realistic model rather than a bell curve is a rapid run up in production to a spike or series of spikes followed by a long drawn out plateau and production decline with ultimately more oil production occurring after the apparent peak, but less rapidly than prior to the “peak” which of course wouldn’t really be a peak in the traditional sense of the word.


The first problem with Hubbert’s prediction is that his estimates of total oil and gas reserves are far too low. If the starting amount of reserves are low, than the top of the bell curve is reached much sooner than if there are greater amounts of oil–assuming that a bell curve actually represents what is occurring–which many people dispute. Some suggest Hubbert just drew the curve to fit his assumptions.

In his paper, Hubbert estimated that the “ultimate potential reserve of 150 billion barrels of crude oil for both the land and offshore areas of the United States.” Hubbert’s estimate was based on the crude oil “initially present which are producible by methods now in use.” Using the 150 billion barrel estimate he predicted US Peak Oil occurring in 1965. But to be cautious, he also used a slightly higher figure of 200 billion barrels which produced a peak in oil production around 1970—the figure that Hubbert advocates like to use to demonstrate that Hubbert was prophetic in his predictions. However, by 2006 the Department of Energy estimated that domestic oil resources still in the ground (in-place) total 1,124 billion barrels. Of this large in-place resource, 400 billon barrels is estimated to be technically recoverable with current technology.

This estimate was produced before horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing or fracking techniques were widely adopted which most authorities believe will yield considerably more oil than was thought to be recoverable in 2006.

Going back to Hubbert’s paper we find that he predicted that by 1970 the US should have consumed half or about 100 million barrels of oil of the original endowment of 150-200 billion barrels of recoverable oil. And by his own chart on page 32 of his paper if we use the assumption of 200 billion barrels as the total potential oil reserves of the US we should be completely out of oil by now. According to his curve and graph, by year 2000 we should have had only around 27 billion or so barrels of oil left in the US and fallen to zero sometime in the mid-2000s.

Yet the US government estimates as of 2007 that our remaining technically recoverable reserves are 198 billion barrels, and this excludes oil that may be found in area that are off limits to drilling (i.e. like most of the Continental Shelf).

And there are another 400 billion barrels that some suggest could be recovered with new methods (which itself is a subset of total in place oil which future technology may make available at an affordable price).

Obviously if Hubbert were correct, and we had reached Peak Oil in 1970 (point where we had consumed half of our oil) and we started out with only 200 billion, we could not have nearly 200-400 billion still left to extract—and total resources are likely even higher than this figure.

It’s also important to keep in mind that “technologically recoverable” resources are not the “total” amount of oil thought to exist in the US, so the total in-place reserves are much, much larger. It does not take a lot of imagination to predict that many of these oil resources will eventually be unlocked with new technological innovation thus added to the total “proven reserves.”

Another example of his under-estimation of oil is US off-shore oil. In his 1956 paper, Hubbert suggests we had 15 billion total barrels, but the US government now estimates there is closer to 90 billion barrels of oil left off-shore–and we have already extracted quite a bit. (I’m not sure if that figure is just for off -shore currently open to exploration or all off shore–since oil exploration is banned on 83% of the US coastline. If this figure refers only to those areas currently available to drill–then the number may be quite a bit higher if all off shore areas were opened to oil extraction).

Hubbert was even farther off in his estimate for global oil reserves, which is not surprising since in 1956 very few parts of the world had been adequately studied. In his 1956 paper Hubbert wrote that there was “about 1250 billion barrels for the ultimate potential reserves of crude oil of the whole world.” In his paper he estimated that the entire Middle East including Egypt had no more than 375 billion barrels of oil. Yet by 2010, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) estimated that just the “proven reserves” in Saudi Arabia alone totaled 262.6 billion barrels. Similarly in his paper Hubbert uses an estimate of 80 billion barrels for all of South America, yet Venezuela has 296 billion barrels of proven reserves.

By 2000, the point when Hubbert estimated that we would reach global Peak Oil we would have only around 625 billion barrels of oil left. Just the 558 billion barrels of proven reserves known to exist in Saudi Arabia and Venezuela alone (and a lot more in-place resources) is nearly equal the total global oil supplies that Hubbert estimated would remain in global reserves. Obviously once again Hubbert’s global estimates were way too low.

The world has already burned through more than a trillion barrels of oil, clearly demonstrating how far off his prediction of oil supplies were. The estimated “proven reserves” left globally are today more than 1.3 trillion for the top 17 oil producing countries alone.


Part of the confusion in the Peak Oil debate is that people, agencies and organizations use different definitions and accounting methods that are often not explicitly acknowledged. For instance, most Peak Oil advocates rely upon “proven reserve” numbers to argue we have limited oil supplies remaining. However, it is important to note the term “proven reserves” has a very precise meaning that only includes oil that has a 90% certainty that the oil can be extracted using current technology at current price. It does not represent total oil that may over time be produced. The total estimated amount of oil in an oil reservoir, including both producible and non-producible oil, is called various terms including oil in place. Due to technological, political and other limitations, only a small percentage of the total “in place” oil can be extracted at the present time. However, proven reserves are the bare minimum amount of oil that reasonably can be expected to be extracted over time.

One of the wild cards in predicting oil reserves is the recovery factor. Recovery factors vary greatly among oil fields. Most oil fields to this point have only given up a fraction of their potential oil holdings—between 20-40%. By 2009 the average Texas oil field had only about a third of its oil extracted, leaving two-thirds still in the ground. Using Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) techniques, many of them not even available when Hubbert wrote his paper, recovery can often be boosted to 40-60%. In essence if EOR were applied to many of the larger US oil fields, we could effectively double the oil extracted, hence “proven reserves.”

Even Hubbert recognized that we may eventually extract more oil from existing fields, though he still underestimated the effect of new discoveries and new technology. Hubbert wrote ”… only about a third of the oil underground is being recovered. The reserve figures cited are for oil capable of being extracted by present techniques. However, secondary recovery techniques are gradually being improved so that ultimately a somewhat larger but still unknown fraction of the oil underground should be extracted than is now the case. Because of the slowness of the secondary recovery process, however, it appears unlikely that any improvement that can be made within the next 10 or 15 years can have any significant effect upon the date of culmination. Amore probable effect of improved recovery will be to reduce the rate of decline after culmination…..”

While no one realistically believes it’s possible to get every last drop of oil from an oil reservoir, new technologies are often able to get significantly more oil from existing fields than was possible in the past. The important fact is that the recovery factor often changes over time due to changes in technology and economics. Since the bulk of global oil still remains in the ground, and any shift upward in price and improvement in technology suddenly makes it profitable to exploit reserves that were previously not included in the “proven reserves” estimate. Thus proven reserve estimates are a minimum, not the maximum amount of oil available.

To demonstrate how technology and price can affect “proven reserves” estimates, just a few years ago Canada’s “proven reserves” of oil were only 5 billion barrels. Today, due to higher prices and improved technology that makes tar sands production economically feasible; Canada now has “proven” reserves of 175 billion barrels of oil. Nothing changed other than the price of oil and the technology used to extract it. Oil companies knew there was a lot of oil in the tar sands, but it took a change in technology and price to move it into the “proven reserves” category. Even more telling is that the total minimum estimate of in place oil for the tar sands exceeds 1.3 trillion barrels of oil. Keep in mind that 1.3 trillion barrels is more oil than Hubbert thought existed in the entire world when he presented his 1956 paper.

People knew all along there were tremendous amounts of oil locked in Alberta’s tar sands. But it took a change in price, along with some technological innovation to make it profitable for extraction. So proven reserves are not a static figure based on geology, rather it reflects economics and technology. Unfortunately too many writing about the presumed Peak of oil in the United States appear to ignore the distinction, and regularly use the “proven reserves” figure as if it were the ultimate geological limit on oil and/or gas supplies.

Although the major point of his paper was the potential depletion of traditional oil and gas reservoirs, he did mention “unconventional oil.” Unconventional oil reserves are oil or hydrocarbons found in geological formations other than a traditional oil reservoir. Examples of unconventional oil include Alberta’s tar sands, oil shales of the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, the heavy oils of Venezuela, and other non-traditional hydrocarbons. There are far more of hydro-carbons in these formations than traditional oil reservoirs—a fact that many Peak Oil advocates frequently ignore. Or if they acknowledge their existence, they dismiss them as uneconomical or technologically impossible to exploit and therefore will never make a significant contribution to global energy supplies.

Hubbert failed to appreciate the potential contribution of these unconventional sources of synthetic oil. For instance, he put the total for US oil shales at around a trillion barrels of oil equivalent. Recently the USGS estimated that the Green River drainage area of Colorado, Wyoming and Utah may contain as much as 4.2 trillion barrels of in place oil equivalent in oil shale deposits. To put this into context, the US currently consumes around 24 billion barrels of oil in 2010, so even if a fraction of these oil shales are exploited it will significantly increase available energy to the US.

With unconventional oils like tar sands, oil shales, heavy oils, etc. included, it seems we have huge amounts of potential energy–even acknowledging that much of that oil may not be extracted until some future date due to cost and/or lack of technology.


As he did with his estimates of oil, Hubbert also appears to have underestimated natural gas supplies as well. He put total natural gas supplies to be around 850 trillion cubic feet (TCF) and maximum US production would be 14 TCF annually. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates that shale gas reserve alone total 750 TCF and shale gas is only one source of natural gas.Total natural gas reserves are increasing. Estimates vary about total gas reserves, but they run between 1400 to 2000 TFC. I see no reason to doubt these estimates.

If correct, then his estimate of natural gas was also a vast underestimate. This link shows that gas supplies are increasing well into the future. And new estimates for gas hydrates (methane locked in frozen ice) suggests there may be twice as much energy locked in these resources than all the coal, oil, and traditional natural gas supplies combined. One estimate suggests there may be a 3000 plus year supply of natural gas in gas hydrates. Whatever the ultimate number may be, the important point is that we are not in any danger of running out of fossil fuels in the near future.


Was it just coincidence and luck that Hubbert picked 1970 as one of the possible peaks in US oil production even though his starting numbers were way too low?

This raises the question whether declining US production since 1970 is due to depletion of oil fields as asserted by Peak Oil advocates or whether economics explains it better. (This is not to deny that at some point we will see declining production due to real limits–the question of importance however is when that will occur).

Another explanation requires looking beyond the US. Keep in mind that oil is a commodity. Just because we may see a decline in production of some commodity does not mean we are running out of that substance or resource. The Northeast US was once the major producer of timber in the US. Today if you buy lumber in New England, there’s a good chance it was cut and shipped from the Pacific Northwest, not because there are no trees to cut in New England. Rather due to climate, vegetation, and infrastructure factors, it’s less expensive to cut trees in Oregon or British Columbia than to log New England forests. It would be wrong to conclude that because New England imports most of its lumber that there are not enough trees left to provide wood locally.

Similarly attributing declining US oil production to geological depletion ignores the effect of global oil production. Immediately after WWii the US was easily the global leader in oil production. This dominance of global oil markets by US production and companies continued throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Then in the late 1960s and early 1970s oil production in other parts of the world began to increase substantially. In particular, Middle East oil production improved dramatically due to foreign investment and technology. For a variety of factors, once the oil infrastructure (pipelines, tanker ports, oil fields,) was built in these places, it became less expensive to import oil from Saudi Arabia, for example, than to build a new oil field in Wyoming or Texas. Indeed in some cases producing oil wells in the US were capped and retired even though they were perfectly capable of producing more oil. Not only was oil production increasing in Saudi Arabia, but all over the world at this time including Venezuela, Mexico, and the Soviet Union. All of these new fields were producing lower cost oil than one could get from most US oil fields at the time. So could it be that US producers just decided it was a better business plan to invest in and/or buy oil from other oil producing countries? Did this low cost oil cause oil companies to import oil rather than invest in US oil production?

Worse for US producers, except for a few manufactured shortages like the 1973 oil crisis created by OPEC in response to US support for Israel or the War in Iraq, the abundance of relatively inexpensive oil kept oil prices depressed throughout the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and into the early 2000s, discouraging new investment in US oil production.

It takes up to a decade or more to bring a new oil field on line, especially if the field is not located near other infrastructure. For instance, Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay Oil field was discovered in 1968 and it wasn’t until 1978 before the first oil was sent to market. Oil companies will only invest in major new production if they are certain that the prices are stable and will remain at a specific break-even point into the future. This lag time between changes in price or technology and significant production is why the oil industry cannot rapidly respond to short term price increases or politically created shortages.

Peak Oil advocates continuously point to the rise in oil prices during the latter part of the 2000s and suggest that an apparent lack of significant new oil production is due to depletion. However, there is a time lag before higher prices result in a noteworthy increase in oil production. Given the huge investments needed to bring on line new oil production, companies have to first wait for quite a number of years after an oil price hike before they start any new development to make sure that higher prices are going to stabilize, not rise and then fall suddenly as happened in 2008 when oil reached $145 a barrel then crashed to $30 a barrel. Such volatility does not lead to greater oil production.

Nevertheless, higher oil prices in the past few years have started to spur new development in the US and around the globe. The US, for instance, has reduced its import of foreign oil from 60% to 45% due to higher production at home as well as greater efficiency spurred by higher fuel prices. These trends point to continued reduction in imports. However, because of the long delay between start up and full production, there is no quick relief. This is one reason why “Drill, Baby, Drill” is a foolish response to any oil price increase.

From the oil producer’s perspective, there is no advantage in increasing spare production capacity. All this will do is flood the market (global market) with cheap energy. What company wants to reduce its profits by over production? So far global oil production has largely been able to meet all demand, except for short term shortages as a result of political change, wars, and/or price speculation. But none of these reflect a true geological short-fall or serious effect of depletion.

Despite Hubbert’s prediction that we would be just about out of oil by now, the US oil production (and gas) have both gone up in recent years. This is in response to higher prices and new technologies. But according to Hubbert this could not be occurring because we are long past our Peak and indeed, very near our bottom line for oil.

There is no doubt that a finite resource such as oil will continue to decline, and demand will likely grow at least into the foreseeable future, both of which should lead to higher fuel costs. But whether this leads to a long term chronic shortages that cause major economic disruption or even the collapse of civilization as some predict is subject to more uncertainty than perhaps some like to admit. For one thing there is far more oil on the planet than most people recognize, and new technologies combined with rising price for fuels is spurring development of new oil supplies. Rising prices also spurs shifts to other energy sources, as well as greater efficiency and conservation of energy.

Rather than running out of oil and/or gas any time soon, I think the bigger danger is that we have more than enough oil and other fossil fuel energy resources to sustain us for quite a few decades if not centuries. Any efficiency and/or conservation of energy, combined with some replacement of fossil fuel energy with renewables than these finite resources, will extend hydrocarbon resources quite a few additional decades.

The real problem for the planet and human society is not the imminent danger of running out of hydrocarbon fuels, but that an abundance of these energy sources will permit population and economic growth that will gradually diminish the planet’s biodiversity, degrade ecosystems, and disrupt global climate and other systems.

George Wuerthner is an ecologist. He is currently working on a book about energy.