Vae victis!

The Anglo-Saxon Invasion

Britain is more Germanic than it thinks

By Matthias Schulz

From Spiegel Online International, 16 June 2011

The genetic evidence of our Teutonic ethnicity

How Germanic is Great Britain really? Archeologists and geneticists have unveiled surprising [sic] revelations about the historical origins of people in the modern United Kingdom -- many [sic, most] of whom have ancestors who once crossed the North Sea.

The fear of a violent conquest of their country is deeply engrained in the English psyche. One of the likely reasons for this fear is that their ancestors committed this misdeed [sic] themselves.

According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, two Germanic tribesmen, Hengist and Horsa, came ashore on the coast of Kent in southeast England in the year 449. They had sailed 600 kilometers (372 miles) down the coast from their native North Frisia, and had then made the crossing to a green and pleasant Britain.

The country they encountered was a cultivated place. Emperor Claudius had declared the island a Roman province in 43 A.D., and had introduced theaters and paved streets. There were 30,000 people living in Londinium in late antiquity.

All of this was destroyed, however, when the adventurers -- who became more and more numerous as families were reunited -- arrived from across the sea.

But how many people came to Britain across the North Sea in total? A thousand? Ten thousand? Or was it an even higher number?

Small Caste of Noble Warriors [?]

Until now, the so-called Minimalists have set the tone in British archeology. They believe in what they call an "elite transfer", in which a small caste of Germanic noble warriors, perhaps a few thousand, placed themselves at the top of society in a coup of sorts, and eventually even displaced the Celtic language with their own. Many contemporary Britons, not overly keen on having such a close kinship with the Continent, like this scenario.

Thomas Sheppard, a museum curator, discovered this sentiment almost a century ago. In 1919, officers asked for his assistance after they accidentally discovered the roughly 1,500-year-old grave of an Anglo-Saxon woman while digging trenches in eastern England.

Sheppard concluded that the woman's bleached bones came from "conquerors from Germany" and announced: "These are our ancestors!" But the soldiers were thunderstruck. At first they cursed and refused to believe that they were related to the "Huns." But then the mood darkened. The trip back to the barracks "was like a funeral procession," Sheppard wrote.

Flood of People Crossed the North Sea

But there is no use in denying it. It is now clear that the nation which most dislikes [sic] the Germans were once Krauts themselves. A number of studies reinforce the intimacy of the German-English relationship.

Biologists at University College in London studied a segment of the Y chromosome that appears in almost all Danish and northern German men -- and is also surprisingly common in Great Britain. This suggests that a veritable flood of people must have once crossed the North Sea.

New isotope studies conducted in Anglo-Saxon cemeteries produced similar results. When chemists analyzed the tooth enamel and bones of skeletons, they found that about 20 percent of the dead were newcomers who had originated on mainland Europe.

Dirty Tricks R Us, props NJ Griffin and Daughter

The Conduct of the General Members’ Meeting

By Andrew Brons MEP

Posted by admin on Jun 19th, 2011 to Andrew Brons BNP Ideas web site

 To say that our Chairman is not obsessively scrupulous about adhering to decisions and procedures that he finds inconvenient, would be an understatement. A person who is prepared blatantly to substitute a proposal that was not even discussed at the Annual Conference for the resolution that was passed, will stop at nothing.

Our Chairman and his cronies have chosen to hold the GMM in one of the least accessible parts of the country and they have chosen to keep the re-direction point open only until 10.00 a.m.

This will make it extremely difficult for members from the South, the East Midlands, the North East and Scotland to arrive at the re-direction point on time. The venue has been selected because Liverpool is one of the few active units of the Party in which he enjoys local support.

We do not yet know whether the quality of the instructions (of how to get to the meeting place) provided to members he suspects of being his opponents will be quite the same as the quality of the instructions provided to members he believes to be his supporters.

We do not know yet how many suspensions will be made during the next seven days to prevent opponents from attending the meeting and we do not yet know how many people will be arbitrarily prevented from entering the meeting.

We do not yet know how many members will be ejected from the meeting on the slightest pretext.

It is important of course for all members to behave impeccably so that they do not give any pretext for their ejection.

We do know that the Chairman’s personal security squad ‘expect trouble’ from the members, because one of their number has said so! Members of that squad will be looking for trouble.

We do not yet know who is to preside over the meeting but we can make a shrewd guess about how that person will conduct the meeting.

Will opponents of our Chairman’s fraudulent proposal be allowed the same time as supporters of his proposals?

Will they be allowed to speak at all? Will opponents be allowed to tell the truth about the proposals?

It is possible that he will try to hurry the meeting, without thorough debate, to an early conclusion and vote.

However, what would he do if he were to be defeated? Would he pretend that it had not happened and report that his proposals had been passed?

To do so would not be qualitatively different from pretending that one motion had been passed when a quite different one had been passed.

We must watch closely how the organisers of this meeting conduct themselves and we must be prepared to take legal advice if there should be any cause for concern.

Send the griffin away with its tail between its legs

Agenda for General Members Meeting of the British National Party on Sunday, 26 June 2011

Three motions of constitutional 'reform' are proposed by NJ Griffin Esq, National Chairman.

Motion # 1                              Recommendation: REJECT

Motion # 2                              Recommendation: REJECT

Motion # 3                              Recommendation: REJECT

Any other motion/
amendment, with            Recommendation: REJECT
the sole exception
of a motion of

NO CONFIDENCE
IN THE NATIONAL
CHAIRMAN                          Recommendation: ACCEPT

The only thing Griffin really wants and I do mean REALLY wants, out of the meeting next Sunday is a four year term of office for HIMSELF as national chairman of the BNP.

All else, his disingenuous protestations and no doubt a few crocodile tears notwithstanding, is mere window-dressing.

Griffin NEEDS a four year term in order to insure himself against the impending Apocalypse which is due to strike both himself and the party later in the year. That way when things turn belly up he can say to the BNP's dwindling membership "You have to take the rough with the smooth. Don't forget you voted me in for four years".

Don't be taken in by the argument put forward by last year's challenger, who sadly seems to have lost the plot, to the effect that voting up Motion # 1 would at least ensure that a leadership election takes place, because of the removal of the excessively high nominations hurdle from the process.

It would ensure no such thing. If one thing has been learnt over the last twelve months it is that Griffin's word means nothing. His word means nothing to him and should mean less than nothing to anyone who knows the nature of the beast.

A constitution cannot restrain a malignant tyrant (which is what Griffin is, on a modest enough scale as tyrants go, certainly, but a tyrant nonetheless) when that tyrant is solely responsible for implementing that constitution and believes he may choose to flout any of its provisions with impunity.

No, the Griffin-bait of a putatively free and fair election, without the requirement to collect hundreds of nominations, supposedly without being allowed to canvass for them, is a delusion and a snare for the unwary. Does anyone really believe that once Griffin had got what he wanted, a vote in favour of a four year term, he would honour his side of the deal and allow his challenger(s) a fair contest? Why should he do so? Because honour demands that he should? Don't be absurd. This creature, this malignant freak, Griffin, has demonstrated over and over again, time after time, that he, along with his inner circle of perverted 'friends' and advisers, is utterly without honour: a cheat, a liar, a coward, a scoundrel of the deepest dye.

There is only one way to treat such dross as Griffin is and that is with the contempt that he so richly deserves. Vote down any and all motions and amendments to which he gives his endorsement as a honey-trap and vote up an emergency motion of No Confidence in the National Chairman.

The Prince - of Lies

Our Chairman, the Truth and Democratic Decisions

Posted by admin on Jun 19th, 2011 to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site

Andrew Brons MEP has called upon all members of the British National Party to decisively reject all the proposed “constitutional amendments” to be put to the party’s upcoming General Members Meeting on 26 June.

Mr Brons made the call in a formal statement on the matter issued today, and reproduced in full as follows:

Statement by Andrew Brons MEP, leadership challenger for the British National Party 2011

The Annual Conference in December considered three different constitutional proposals and voted for one devised by Arthur Kemp.

This proposal was for a new constitution with an (indirectly) elected National Executive and its own Chairman with the responsibility for running the Party with the separately elected Leader.

Its two salient features were that it would be elected and that it would be the governing body i.e. have power.

An amendment proposed by Clive Jefferson that it should be appointed was expressly rejected.

Arthur Kemp’s proposal was supported by an overwhelming majority of the Annual Conference, which decided that it should be considered for adoption by an Extraordinary General Meeting.

A mostly appointed body without power is not the same as an elected body with power.

All of this is provable fact – the truth.

Our current Chairman has called a General Members’ Meeting for 26th June at which a completely different proposal is on the agenda for consideration.

This proposal is for an amendment to the existing constitution with an Executive without significant powers and the majority of the members of which will be appointed.

Our Chairman or his agents have described this, in the bulletin announcing the GMM, as a proposal that was overwhelmingly supported by the Annual Conference in December.

This is clearly and indisputably false.

Our Chairman has:

1. Interfered with one of the few democratic decisions taken by the Party by substituting a proposal of his own for that which was supported overwhelmingly by the Annual Conference.

The seriousness of this cannot be ignored.

Substituting a proposal that has not been passed for one that has been passed is the equivalent of emptying a ballot box and filling it with your own ballot papers!

2. Described his own proposal as the one that was overwhelmingly passed by the Conference.

This is simply untrue or to use one of our Chairman’s favourite words, it is a lie!

There might be some who like the idea of a Machiavellian Chairman who is not afraid to tell lies to get his own way.

However, this is not even a clever lie. It is not clever to tell an untruth that is demonstrably false.

To tell such an untruth is the act of a desperate fool.

This demonstrable untruth will haunt him throughout what remains of his political career.

Our Chairman really thinks that he can instruct the membership to believe what he wants them to believe.

It reminds us of the Party slogan in Orwell’s 1984: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

Whilst our Chairman might control the content of a party bulletin, the Voice of Freedom and the official party website, he does not yet have complete control of the present.

It is of the utmost importance that we reject our Chairman’s phoney constitutional proposal.

Only a decisive rejection of all of his proposals will stop his irrational thirst for complete and irreversible control of our Party and the minds of its members.

The British National Party is not Nick Griffin’s personal fiefdom; the Party belongs to its members. He must not treat the membership with contempt by telling them a provably false account of the decisions of the Annual Conference.

VOTE NO TO ALL OF OUR CHAIRMAN’S PROPOSALS!

1 Response to " Our Chairman, the Truth and Democratic Decisions "

Mo Wilkins says:

June 19, 2011 at 12:30 pm

Good for you Mr.Brons. I hope that there are still enough members with independent minds to be able to do this, & defeat the forces of evil, personnified now by NG & his stooges. Best of luck to you.

One burnt-out Griffin - free if taken away

Five Reasons Why Nick Griffin Should Step Down

By P Andrews

Posted by admin on Jun 18th, 2011 to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site.

Nick Griffin should step down as leader of the British National Party for five important reasons: financial mismanagement; the disastrous Question Time appearance; appalling staff appointments; electoral reversals and the deliberate lies over the party conference’s constitutional mandate.

Had the leader of any other political party committed just one of these “mistakes,” he or she would have stood down with immediate effect.

To take responsibility for one’s mistakes is the sign of maturity and honesty.

What are the details of these five major mistakes?

1. Nick Griffin has presided over years of appalling financial mismanagement which has blackened the party’s name with suppliers across the country, misspent vast sums on avoidable court cases and legal expenses, and has resulted in official censures from auditors and the Electoral Commission (EC).

In December 2010, the Electoral Commission ruled that the party had broken funding laws. The only reason why Nick Griffin was not prosecuted personally was because the EC said it “lacked sufficient powers.” This has since been changed and new rules will allow prosecutions.

The EC’ s ruling was, by the way, in relation to the 2008 accounts, which were submitted in 2010 (!), an omission for which the party’s members had to pay a fine of £1,000.

The debt situation which occurred on Nick Griffin’s watch would by itself be cause for resignation, if not prosecution under laws governing fiduciary duty to an unincorporated association’s members.

Any political party leader who let his party’s affairs develop into such a crisis would have accepted responsibility for this mess and would have stepped down by now.

This situation is intolerable and denotes gross incompetence. The true position of the party’s finances are still unknown, despite the arrival of two large legacies which have been entirely and unjustly swallowed up into a yawning black hole.

Members are entitled to call to account the leader as the sole custodian of the party’s assets. That is essential if confidence is to be restored.

The national leader should also explain what expertise he holds to oversee the party’s finances and business affairs.

2. The disastrous Question Time appearance, which saw the party’s best chance to present itself positively to the public was a shameful performance which allowed the party to be portrayed as of low-grade political acumen.

The party’s electoral decline is directly linked to the Question Time appearance, as since then election results have plummeted.

It is no excuse to say that Question Time was a “set-up.” Of course it was.

But Nick Griffin should have been prepared for that, and answered criticisms directly and with aggression, instead of meekly laughing at himself and humiliating the party with a truly shockingly poor performance.

Some 9 million viewers tuned into Question Time, intrigued by the party’s election of two MEPs. They tuned in expecting to see a lion, instead they saw a mouse.

The electoral results since then have told the tale.

Any political party leader who “dropped the ball” so badly would have taken responsibility for his actions and would have stood down by now.

3. Appalling staffing choices which have seen non-members and even hostile elements placed in charge of critical financial and party management roles, with clear evidence of nepotism to boot.

These individuals who, for the most part, are without any outside experience, have cut a swathe of destruction through party ranks and morale.

It is no good blaming the individuals in question: all of them, bar none, were given their authority by Nick Griffin. The buck stops with the party leader, and no-one else.

Good, hardworking and loyal nationalists were pushed aside for Nick Griffin’s personal friends, even though these people were not even members of the party or, in some cases, were even members of opposition parties.

In addition to this, Nick Griffin expelled other hardworking nationalists and chased them into other parties by simply offering them no choice.

At the same time, he retained his own non-party advisors and employees, and then hypocritically attacked those whom he had thrown out of the party, suspended or alienated for joining alternative groups.

There is plenty of good talent within the ranks of the party. Yet these people have been shunted aside while Nick Griffin has appointed his unqualified friends.

Any political party leader who had caused such chaos with poor staffing appointments, mismanagement and hypocrisy, would have stood down by now.

4. Poor election results. Although the party leadership pretends to claim otherwise (and invents excuses such as the increase in parish councillors), the reality is that the party has not won a single new seat since Question Time.

On the contrary, the party’s vote has dropped dramatically in every contested seat and has been humiliated twice in a row by UKIP in former party heartlands such as Oldham and Barnsley.

This compares vividly with the situation just a few years ago, where the BNP would easily beat UKIP even in the former’s “home territory” of Henley.

There has never been a party in British political history which has suffered such severe electoral reverses where the leader has not taken personal responsibility and stood down.

5. The twisting and distortion of the constitutional mandate given by the December 2010 conference. The “amendments” proposed by Nick Griffin bear no relation whatsoever to the mandate given to him by the December conference, even though he has shamelessly claimed the contrary.

Any party leader caught out in such blatant dishonesty to the membership would have stood down with immediate effect.

This is not a personal issue. It relates to the salvation of the party and, therefore, the future of the nation. Twelve years as leader of the British National Party is long enough, too long in fact, and the results in recent years are evident all around.

The appalling deterioration in the state of the party’s propaganda organs (the website, the party newspaper and magazine) are testament to the fact that the party is not employing its best talent and brains.

The impossible micro-management of the party’s detailed affairs, the collapse in activist numbers, ever-increasing numbers of dissenters, a falling membership base and a downward slide in electoral results, all tell the tale which is obvious for all except the willingly blind, to see.

It is worth repeating: Any one of the five major mistakes would have been reason enough for a “normal” party leader to have resigned.

The British National Party should be no different.

The Life of Nick

Acknowledgements to Eddy Butler's blog in respect of this recent article.

"He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy"

DEMOCRACY – THE GRIFFIN WAY

A GUEST ARTICLE BY LAURA DE S’ORDA

You don’t have to read Griffin’s proposals for constitutional change to already know that there’ll be some catch, something seemingly decent and agreeable which will actually turn out to be easily twisted to his agenda and used to stifle real democracy within the party.

But Griffin’s devious tricks start before you even get into the meat of his constitutional reforms. The document he has drafted is titled ‘Democracy – The British Way’. This seemingly innocuous title is the first of many barbed phrases and sneaky tricks hidden within.

To title a set of proposals that should be read with a fair and impartial mind, ‘Democracy – The British Way’, is to suggest to the reader that disagreeing with the message within would be somehow ‘anti-British’. This essentially sets the document up as a loaded argument.

To the armchair patriot the tone is set; here is the ‘British’ way to do things. To disagree would be ‘anti-British’, which would then put anyone reading the document inherently at odds with the very organisation of which they are a member. Displaying ‘anti-British’ traits would mean you weren’t a very good BNP member! Griffin’s message from the outset is clear: a good member will agree with his proposals.

This is classic Griffin. A man who usually suggests that anyone disagreeing with him is either a ‘fool or a knave’ and is subtlety doing the same again. If you don’t agree with his idea on ‘democracy’ you are ‘anti-British’ and thus not a ‘good’ member of the BNP.

Griffin then does one of the things he does best – re-write history. Last December Voting Members voted on constitutional reforms. These reforms, put forward by Arthur Kemp, were very different to these found in Griffin’s document. Yet Griffin blatantly lies and states:

‘As such the proposals follow what was discussed and agreed by an overwhelming majority at the British National Party conference, December 2010.’

By ‘follow’ Griffin must mean ‘follow; to come or go after’.

He certainly can’t mean ‘follow; to go in the direction of’ or ‘follow; to adhere to’.

To be very blunt, these proposals do not go in the direction of or adhere to anything voted on at that conference. His proposals do come after (in terms of timescales) the proposals voted on at the conference, so full marks to Griffin for clever use of ambiguous language!

Now here’s where the real fun and games begin. Griffin tries to paint himself as a leader that welcomes a challenger and wants to embrace democracy. In fact, Griffin is so democratic he wants a system modelled on the existing parliamentary system and also one that allows everyone that takes part in a challenge an equal say. What a guy!

Well the proposals may sound good – to a ‘fool or a knave’! Make no mistake, Griffin has crafted a document intended to stitch up any contender and most shockingly hand himself a mandate for a FIVE YEAR rule over the BNP.

Firstly, let’s deal with his rules on campaigning. Griffin is going to allow any challenger 500 words on the website, 150 words with the ballot paper, access to regional hustings meetings (which we will address later) and a short video clip on the website. He also states that anyone doing anything else outside of those narrow means to promote themselves will be committing a disciplinary offence. So much for free speech!

Griffin’s rules will mean that something as small as asking another person to vote for a candidate could lead to disciplinary action. Not only is speaking to other people banned but so is sending letters, writing e-mails, using social networking sites etc. This could be used very conveniently by the Griffin camp to suspend or expel anyone doing so – including potential challengers.

The ‘fool or the knave’ will be quick to claim that those rules are only fair as Griffin won’t be using Facebook or private blogs to promote himself. Indeed he won’t, he has far more powerful ways to promote himself. They include Voice of Freedom, British Nationalist (the members’ bulletin), articles on the official website and of course the party’s official Facebook account which will all be busy telling members he’s the best thing since sliced bread!

So whilst any contender will be carefully watched by Griffin’s stooges to ensure he or she doesn’t break the rules, Griffin will act within his remit as incumbent leader to use all party publications and media as his own personal promotional tools.

Then we move onto the hustings meetings. What a wonderful idea these are – or so the ‘fool or the knave’ will tell you. Eleven meetings in fourteen days is great for someone who hasn’t got a job or can conveniently spend that amount of time on the road because they’re Nick Griffin. Not to mention the expense of travel and board over these events could mean spending around £2,000 – £3,000 on petrol, food and hotels. Not much inconvenience for a man who likes to ‘stick it on the party credit card’. It is considerably more expensive for challenger who funds it himself and isn’t allowed to raise funds because of the ban on campaigning outside of Griffin’s narrow rules.

When this very skewed contest comes to a conclusion it grants the winner FOUR OR FIVE YEARS as leader. That’s a long time. Every other party in Britain allows for a challenge whenever one is needed – and for good reason. What if a leader goes mad? What if a leader is charged with an awful criminal act? What if a leader’s performance causes ever diminishing electoral results?

In Griffin’s BNP none of the above matters. If he gets his way he’ll be leader until at least a year after the next general election in 2016! He will have almost complete power and be unchallengeable. Even if Griffin and the BNP saw total annihilation at the next European Election and then the General Election, the party would still be saddled with him – or should I say the party will still be milked by him.

But that’s ‘Democracy – The Griffin Way’.

Slightly more worrying though, for his internal opponent, he recently ‘Tweeted’ about his wish to hang David Cameron. How the public will receive this is clear – but I suspect that no one in their right mind will vote for a party that states if they get to power they are going to start hanging their opponents.

But more importantly it allows a small window into Griffin’s warped psyche and gives an indication of what life will be like under a FIVE YEAR Griffin rule in the BNP. Good luck to the challenger, but don’t expect him to live on much after the result if it doesn’t go the way they hoped! Griffin might not be able to literally hang a challenger, but he is very able to smear and destroy them in the world of nationalist politics. What’s more, via his constitution, he’s setting up a charter with which he will be able to justify the abuse and vitriol he will inevitably dish out.

COMMENTS

Anonymous said...

Quite simply, Laura de S'orda is suffering from extreme paranoia. I suggest she gets in touch with Dr "The Nurse" Andrew Emerson. I am sure they will get on very well together.

18 June 2011 13:40

Vote down the Four Year Rule!

Dear Fellow BNP Member

A General Members' Meeting has been called for Sunday, 26th June next, to vote on changing our party constitution: the motion that the members will be asked to vote on, is that the Chairman of the Party should have a FOUR YEAR or even a FIVE YEAR RULE.

This motion should be VOTED DOWN. And for the very same reasons that it was rightly voted down when it was proposed at the Members' Meeting in 2008: at some possibly future Leadership election some real dud, or worse, could be voted in as Party chairman, whom the party would then be stuck with for years and years. A nightmarish prospect. It is imperative that the members retain the right to hold the serving Chairman, whoever he is, to account for the decisions and actions of his leadership team. And ONLY the possibility of an ANNUAL challenge to the incumbent, serving chairman, can give the party members the assurance that a dud or failing party leader can be removed from office.

So, it is of ABSOLUTE importance that the motions to allow the party chairman to remain in office for YEARS be voted down.

Every member, invited to the General Members' Meeting, to be held on Sunday, 26th June, should ATTEND.

The RV is at: McDonald's car park, 31/33 Church Street, St Helens WA10 1AX.

Time: between 9 am and 10 am.

Bring your current membership card and a form of photo ID (passport preferred) plus your written, personal invitation from Party HQ.

See you all at the Members' Meeting, Sunday, 26th June 2011.

Be early and Be there.

Richard Edmonds
BNP member

Vote "No" to the Four Year Rule!

PLEASE MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO ATTEND

VOTE "NO" TO A 4/5 YEAR TERM

A short statement by Andrew Brons' Campaign Manager, Chris Roberts

Following a productive meeting between Andrew Brons and his campaign team yesterday evening, it was decided that we should encourage all members eligible to attend and vote at the forthcoming General Members' Meeting (GMM) to make every efffort to travel to Liverpool on the 26th and vote down the 4/5 year term being proposed for the post of Party Chairman.

Andrew and his team felt this is an important point of principle: it is completely unacceptable for the Chairman, whoever that may be, to hold the office unchallenged for 4/5 years. Furthermore, in the light of this principled approach the enticement of an easier nomination process was deemed inconsequential.

Andrew also expressed his consistent view that it is unacceptable to ignore the democratic will of last December's Party Conference by failing to put Arthur Kemp's draft constitution before the members at this GMM, while instead substituting a novel set of proposals which reflect nothing previously discussed.

Andrew and his team very much hope you will take the time and effort to attend this GMM and take a principled stand together with us. To ensure admittance to the meeting please remember to bring photo ID (driving licence with picture/passport) your GMM invite pack and your membership card.

We look forward to seeing you on the 26th.

In Flanders Fields