Tuesday 29 April 2008

Viva Italia !

Congratulations to the Eternal City’s new mayor Gianni Alemanno, the new mayor of Rome who has promised to clean up the streets of Rome from the immigrant scum and criminals that have invaded it.

The Revolution of the Right has now conquered Italy , the next step is the return of power to the people all across Europe.


Monday 28 April 2008


Yet again it appears that either the idiot Nazis, Reds or Islamists have daubed buildings in Birmingham with Swastikas and nazi slogans.

This has happened in the build up to the local elections.

Yet again publicity will be given to the extremist Puppet Nazi scum in order to damage the chances of the BNP and at the same time drive Jewish voters into voting against the BNP.

Here again we have a direct example of the symbiotic and parasitic relationship between Puppet Neo-Nazis and Zionists.

Both the Puppet Nazis and the Zionists despise the BNP.

The Nazis decide to indulge in infantile graffiti in the few days before an election in the hope that media publicity will damage the BNP vote.

The Zionist groups benefit from the publicity as yet again the British Jewish community will be feeling threatened by the mythical monster of the BNP threat that is propagandised by the Zionist leadership as being linked to the Nazi puppets.

The ONLY people that benefit from such mindless attacks are the Zionist extremists and the establishment political parties.

Yet again it appears that just at the most damaging moment the Puppet Nazis have undertaken their criminal actions in order to ensure the British people do not get elected the people they need to save our community.

Yet again it is clear the Nazi-Zionist Alliance is still in action.

The Nazi-Zionist Alliance

One of the great ironies of history is the farsical pseudo-antipathy between the Kosher Nazis of the Jewish community and the Neo-Nazis of the White community.

Once upon a time the Zionist Nazis actually worked alongside the Nazis to create the state of Israel and to force Jews to leave Europe and live in the Zionist Reich.

The history of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis is well documented and established, even if modern Day Zionists like the Board of Deputies of British Jews seeks to ban books that state the real history and alliance between them ;




Zionism convicts itself. On June 21, 1933, the German Zionist Federation sent a secret memorandum to the Nazis:

"Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one's own tradition. Zionism recognized decades ago that as a result of the assimilationist trend, symptoms of deterioration were bound to appear, which it seeks to overcome by carrying out its challenge to transform Jewish life completely.

"It is our opinion that an answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural and moral renewal of Jewry--indeed, that such a national renewal must first create the decisive social and spiritual premises for all solutions.

"Zionism believes that a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values, must also take place in the Jewish national group. For the Jew, too, origin, religion, community of fate and group consciousness must be of decisive significance in the shaping of his life. This means that the egotistic individualism which arose in the liberal era must be overcome by public spiritedness and by willingness to accept responsibility."

By 1936, the Post ran a news flash, "German Zionists Seek Recognition":

"A bold demand that the German Zionist Federation be given recognition by the Government as the only instrument for the exclusive control of German Jewish life was made by the Executive of that body in a proclamation today. All German Jewish organizations, it was declared, should be dominated by the Zionist spirit."

Zionist factions competed for the honor of allying to Hitler. By 1940-41, the "Stern Gang," among them Yitzhak Shamir, later Prime Minister of Israel, presented the Nazis with the "Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the War on the Side of Germany."



After the war a copy of the Stern proposal for an alliance between his movement and the Third Reich was discovered in the files of the German Embassy in Turkey. The Ankara document called itself a 'Proposal of the National Military Organisation (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the War on the side of Germany.' (The Ankara document is dated 11 January 1941. At that point the Sternists still thought of themselves as the 'real' Irgun, and it was only later that they adopted the Fighters for the Freedom of Israel --Lohamei Herut Yisrael-- appellation.)

In it the Stern group told the Nazis:

The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question; but this can only be made possible and complete through the settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine, and through the establishment of a Jewish state in its historical boundaries...

The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:

1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a New Order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.

2. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed volkish-national Hebrium would be possible and

3. The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany's side.

This offer by the NMO... would be connected to the military training and organizing of Jewish manpower in Europe, under the leadership and command of the NMO. These military units would take part in the fight to conquer Palestine, should such a front be decided upon.

The indirect participation of the Israeli freedom movement in the New Order in Europe, already in the preparatory stage, would be linked with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem in conformity with the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Jewish people. This would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.
The Sternists again emphasised: 'The NMO is closely related to the totalitarian movements of Europe in its ideology and structure.'

In fact it is correct to say that without the Neo-Nazis that lurk in their bedsits and mummy and daddys spare room posting on Stormfront and attacking 'Ze Jews' then the power of the Zionist lobby groups would be substantially reduced. Without the morons, cranks and unbalanced anti-semitic idiots of the Neo-Nazi Right, Islam and the Far Left the power of the Zionist lobby groups would be substantially reduced.

It is only by constantly promoting the 'threat' of the extremists that the Zionist lobby groups, organisations and front groups can use moral blackmail against democracies to demand ever more subservience to them and their demands.

In fact when one digs deeper into the identities of the most insane anti-semites that articulate their hatred, one usually finds a Jewish-Zionist connection. The most extreme of the Nazis are either self hating Jews, those who have been married to Jews and who are now divorced and are suffering from some form of emotional disturbance or they are in the pay of the extremist Zionist groups who need such idiots to constantly perpetuate the myth that a threat to the Zionist cabals exists.

I find it hysterically funny that whilst the Board of Deputies of British Jews funds campaigns with the CST and the Jewish Chroncile to stop the BNP getting into power because they allege ' the BNP is a threat to free speech ', that the Board of Deputies actively tried to stop the publication of a book that revealed the collaboration between the Nazis and the Zionists before and during the Second World War by putting pressure on the publishers and Amazon bookseller.


It appears that the enemies of free speech like to pretend to be the defenders of free speech when it suits them, from Rapist to Cop in one step.

It is never said, though it is true, that the true architect and founder of Israel was Adolf Hitler. Without the direct assistance of the Nazi Party and the SS, before and during the war, then the state of Israel would not exist. This fact of history is never debated in the media or acknowledged as a reality by historians, but it is a fact nevertheless. The politics, communalism and political ethos of the Zionist state of Israel was the model for the philosophy of National Socialism whih Adolf Hitler would create.

Each was a reflection of the other. Hitler merely took the creedo of Zionism such as the Chosen race concept of the Zionists ( The aryan super race concept ), Greater Israel ( Greater Germannia), the Blood and Soil mythos of Zionism and the 'need' for Jews to live in the Holy Land ( Blood and Soil of the Nazis and the Holy Land of the Aryans ), the mysticism of the Jewish folk soul ( The Nazi Folk Soul) and applied all these to the Germans / Aryans.



Hitler was in fact merely a plagarist of the Zionists.

The connections go even deeper than this though.

Without the SS funding, arming and training the Zionist terror groups in Israel who later fought against the Palestinians then the Jews would never have been able to push the Palestinians out of their lands.

It was the SS in the proto-Kibbutz in Germany who trained Jewish farmers and engineers and who created what is today the economic basis of the state of Israel.

einhard Heydrich, in co-operation with the Zionists, actually set up farms in Czechoslovakia for Jews wishing to emigrate to Palestine, to learn basic agricultural skills: several hundred of these Nazi-trained Jewish farmers were then settled in Palestine during the war, entering that land through Turkey.



Nazi support for Zionist and non-Zionist occupational retraining programs for young Jews between 1933 and 1941 reflected a desire to facilitate the rapid emigration of Jews from Germany. But this policy encountered considerable opposition from several government and party agencies because the retraining process involved activities they deemed violations of Nazi racial teaching. The policy debates and disagreements among the various offices of the Nazi party and the state reflected the tension between ideology and pragmatism in Nazi Jewish policy, and its relative lack of central planning and direction during the early years of the Third Reich. Eventually, as it so often did, the regime opted for the pragmatic approach by supporting Jewish retraining programs as the most effective way to promote the total emigration of Jews from Germany.

It can be said that today the Nazi-Zionist Alliance is stronger than ever.

Without the Hollywood Nazi scum of stormfront and other internet sites constantly doing what the media and the Zionists want then the power of the Zionist lobby groups in our political systems would be the same as the power of the Bantu pygmy lobby groups. It is only the fact that the Hollywood Nazis still spew out their ridiculous anti-semitic garbage that allows the Zionists to demand ever more laws that repress free speech and 'clamp down on hate speech'.

It is only the insane anti-semitism of the neo-nazis that allows the Zionist lobby groups to perpetuate the false belief that a threat to the Jewish community exists from the BNP.

It is only because the neo-nazi stooges of the Zionists are still in existence that facilitates the Zionists who constantly emotionally and morally manipulate the political system for their benefit.

Even the Community Security Trust, the Combat 18 of British Zionism, admits that the majority of attacks on Jews in Britain coms not from the Far Right or the BNP - but solely from Muslim extremists and the Far Left.

Yet the CST and Jewish Chroncile were not involved in any campaigns against theRespect organisation in the London elections, even though Respect is a Sharia Socialist group run by anti-semites and who members are Islamists and Stalinists.

It appears that the Neo-Nazis have become the puppets of the Zionists, dancing to the tune of their Zionists masters so as to become the 'fake monsters and boogeymen' with which they can terrify the Jewish community into supporting them.

The Zionists depend on the Nazis not just to morally blackmail and usurp our democracy, but so that the Jewish community can be made to feel afraid of a fake monster that forces them to huddle in fear and seek the help of their Zionist masters.

Just as MI5/ MI6 ran both the IRA and the Loyalists during the era of the Troubles, it is true that the Zionists run the nazis for their own benefit.

Today the Nazi-Zionist Alliance still goes strong, for without the Neo-Nazis scum then the Zionist scum would be a miniscule rump of nutcases on the margins of British politics instead of supping with politicians and media bosses and the law being changed for their benefit.

Sunday 27 April 2008

The New Art

The Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse wrote in his book One Dimensional Man that in modern consumer societies Man is no longer either free or fully human. The individual is somatised by the comforts of technology , seduced by consumerism and individual personality has been replaced by social conformity enforced via media conditioning.

Society seeks to repress the individual simply to the role and status of a consumer and for that end inculcates them with ideas, desires, false needs and wants that are of use simply to the Producers, the elite that controls society primarily through the media and government. The goal of the individual is simply to become either a producer or a great consumer. Success is defined as being an exploiter of the exploited. No longer is the individual taught that true liberty is discovering who you are, but they are in fact taught that individualism is both a threat and something shameful.

Our children are taught and believe that if they are not football stars, rap stars, pop stars, celebrities and public figures then their existence is meaningless. Man is measured as per his worth by society only by his utility as regards the means of production and his ability as a consumer. This is why the ugliest people in our society seek success, as this allows them to beautify themselves with bling and commodities. Ugliness is in reality an absence of individual personality, and it is demonstrated by those that replace their individuality with commodities. When I see a young woman walking down the street in the latest designer fashions I do not see an individual who is beautiful. I see a slave. I see someone who thinks how others have told her to think, who dresses how others have told her she should dress, who thinks beauty is what she looks like rather than what she is.

The modern world is the triumph of ugliness over beauty. Ugliness is the rape of nature, the inner slavery of Man, the rule of false Idols, the worship of lies and delusions and the surrender of the sprit to the reason of the machines.

There are simple codes for us all to follow ;

Man must live in harmony with Nature.

Each human must be taught how to achieve union with his higher self.

Each human must learn how to think for themselves.

Each human must seek the beauty of truth in all things.

Each human must become the best that he can be.

Each human must be free in conscience, spirit, mind and body.

These are simple things, but revolutionary in nature.

Neither do I see any beauty in the conformist cults of manufactured rebellion of the counter culture. The so called 'free thinkers' and rebels of our society each embrace their own personal delusional version of style fascism, their own consumer aesthetic, their own conformist cages. Goths and Hippies, Punks and Skinheads, Skaters and Ravers - each are simply slaves to the same commodity fetishism that they profess to reject. Each identifies the other by the same clothes, the same badges, the same identity that each embraces. Go to Glastonbury Festival and every stall sells the same hippie tat as the last stall. All the hippies buy the same clothes, all the skinheads parrot the same slogans, all the punks worship the same false idols and all the goths listen to the same music. Like sheets of metal on a factory conveyor belt each generation is impressed with the fashions and ideas they must worship, and the media and machines made ready to sell them their new uniforms made from old flags.

Each conforms, not rebels. Each is part of the problem, not the solution.

Even art, that once sacred and unsullied space where truth and beauty could escape the rusted chains of ugly utility and allow the individual to transcend this debased and mundane reality and enter into the eternal realm of truth and vision, has been harnessed to the dark engines of economics. Art galleries exhibit pictures whose value is measured in millions of pounds, yet whose meaning is lost. The art has been replaced by utility and cash value. The artist is now a Producer, a machine to generate profit whose art is instantly absorbed by the system and transformed into new wealth. Their art is therefore also anodyne and ugly in order to attract the attention of ugly and anodyne people.

Ugliness craves the mirror that reflects their own ugliness, for the ugly fear the reflection of beauty.

Contemporary art reflects the baser desires of man and his infantile obsessions with sex, aging, wealth and status. It is diamond covered skulls and pickled fish in tanks of preservative, it is life size female plastic sex dolls with vagina mouths and an unmade bed surrounded by empty condom packets and beer bottles. It is simply snapshots of despair, the whimper of a dying civilisation and the death rattle of a culture choking to death on its own vomit.

The landfills ae full of our discarbed garbage ands our art galleries reflect that ugliness and are filled with art that is ugly.

This art of ugliness is hoarded by ugly people in their ugly homes as trolls once hoarded treasure in caves. Those whose art reflects ideals that the system finds appealing, are the enemies of art, truth and beauty. They are collaborators in the ecocide of the planet and our cultural annihilation.

The New Art must not be palatable to the present system, it must be regarded as toxic and corrosive to the cabals of criminals that currently collect modern art and it must stick in the craw of the establishment elites so that it may poison the machines and sicken the system which gives them their power. The New Artist must stand firm against all ugliness and lies. They and their works must be hated and despised as a profaner and regarded as a sick heretic whose work will be hidden and criminalised. True beauty is always hated by the ugly. The New Art must set itself one goal, which is the annihilation of all lies and ugliness. It must reflect Nature in that it is savage and wild, as uncontrolled as the river in flood but it also must reflect Truth in that it offers redemption for Man and a way out of the graveyard by the acts of Creative Self Evolution. The act of its creation will be as important as the creation of the art itself. It will be the path to higher evolution, the art of Creative Self Evolution. First must come the vision of beauty beyond this cesspit of contemporary culture, then the work and then the art will be born.

The work of the New Artist is a new civilisation and a new way of living.

The New Art is itself the act of Mans self transformation.

It is an extinction and a rebirth. The New Art is to live with Nature, and not to destroy Nature, and to use genetic engineering to remove all the inherited physical defects and genetic flaws that God, or Nature, bequeathed to Man. Only when no child is ever born with a genetic defect that can be perfected by science, no child starves or sickens from famine or disease can we evolve as a species. At the same time the endless rut of the human species that threatens to drown the world in starving children must be ended.

Reproduction must be limited and not regarded as a right. There are too many people on this panet with too few resources and therefore Man must exert control over his own reproductive insanity.

Seeing as the White Race is the only race on the planet with falling numbers and that has less births and deaths then we must demand from all other races a similar reduction in numbers. Food aid and economic aid to the the Developing world must be predicated on public health schemes that reduce population numbers. Economics and trade must be linked to nations like India and China reducing their populations.

If they refuse then Europe must form an Fortress Europe and protect itself and let the rest of the planet suffer its own reduction in numbers, either through wars, famines or disease.

If Man will not exert control over his own reproduction, then Nature must be allowed to do it by itself.

Man can only to perfect himself when begins to live in harmony with Nature.

Only once Man has transcended the present level of the human species, and gone beyond into a new higher humanity, can Man achieve the great destiny that is his to claim.

Man will either begin the Great Work of the New Art of self transformation and create this higher civilisation from which will come the New Art of Living or man will finish the process of his own destruction and achieve what he secretly years, which is extinction.

Man will either transcend Man or Man will destroy Man.

Everywhere the wild abates before the greed of Man. The wild places of the world where Man may retreat from the streets, the cars and the crowds in order to find that sacred silence within himself wherein he discovers who he truly is are shrinking every day. They grow smaller as we as a species grow ever larger. The ice caps shrink, the forests are felled, the rivers drained and the sky polluted. Death follows wherever we tread. With his metal machines and mental delusions Man cuts, kills, poisons and profanes the environment upon which his entire existence depends without realising that he building a prison for himself, a prison of ugliness, cruelty, greed and lies in which existence can only be meaningless and base and devoid of all beauty or inner illumination. True Progress is not defined as growth in the GDP, more cars being sold or more babies being born - it can only be defined in terms of living sustainability with Nature and in the creation of enlightened individuals who show reverence for nature instead of contempt for life.

A progressive philosophy of being would primarily demand upon Man obedience to the first law of Nature, which is that of living within natural limits.

This thing we call material wealth is based on exploitation,of man and nature, and it is a shameful thing. It is stolen from future generations yet to come and is a betrayal of all the sacrifices of those that came before us. The faster we pile up around us the petty plastic commodities of social status, the higher we build up our own funeral pyres. One day someone will finally strike the match, and the whole thing will burst into flames. That which we take for ourselves today without thought for its true cost is stolen from the hands of future generations. We are surrounded by false Idols that promise happiness but deliver only despair. We are rich but bereft of values.

Personality is denuded the more the natural world is denuded. The more we ravage the planet the less human we become. The more we allow the machines to define for us all the aspects of our lives, the more machine like we become. We eat microwave meals before the TV, get up when our watches tell us too and visit the places we are told to visit for two weeks year in order to relax. This simple level of Generation combined with the gross materialism of Ulro, is what William Blake would have defined as the worst of all possible worlds. Man exists simply in order to reproduce and consume. Like cattle queuing up to enter the slaughterhouse, the modern Mass Animal celebrates this process of slow extinction as freedom.

Freedom is simply the ability to become the best that we can each possibly be. When we are constrained by the thoughts, words, lies, delusion, laws or demands of others that prevent us from bettering ourselves then we are not free.

The media tell us what we want, what we should buy, what we should wear, what car we should drive and by so doing define of us who are and what we should believe. It is the basis of the Urizenic net of false religions, idols and ideologies, the black web of ‘Thou Shalts,’ which seeks to ensnare Man in the delusion worlds of his self appointed masters.

Schools seek to indoctrinate us, they do not liberate us. The things they teach are the barriers to true being, for true being is not learnt it is experienced. True education would be teaching children that freedom is and allowing them to liberate themselves.

There is no salvation in religions and economics.

Man must become his own salvation and achieve redemption through his own works and struggles.

Friday 25 April 2008

Community Security Trust and Red Ken Expose

The CST, Gerald Ronson and Red Ken.

Readers to this site will be aware of the Jewish Chronicle, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Community Security Trust campaign against the BNP in the forthcoming London elections.

It now appears that the Jewish Chronicles attempt to portray this anti-BNP campaign by the various Jewish groups as being done in ' the name of the Jewish Community' and not as some part of an attempt to bolster the Labour Party candidate Ken Livingstone was a blatant lie.

The head of the Community Security Trust is Gerald Ronson, is the disgraced former director of the Guinness company ;


Ronson became known in the UK as one of the "Guinness Four" for his part in the Guinness share-trading fraud of the 1980s, along with Ernest Saunders and occasional business associates Jack Lyons and Anthony Parnes. He was convicted in August 1990 of one charge of conspiracy, two of false accounting, and one of theft, and was fined £5 million and given a one-year jail sentence, of which he served six months.

It now appears that the CST involvement in the anti-BNP campaign is based on the Chairman of the CST's support for Ken Livingstone.

As the Jewish Chronicle states in todays edition in an article with Ken Livingstone ;


" Despite his often trenchant views on the Middle East, he had appeared to enjoy a fair amount of goodwill among the capital’s Jews on his return to office in 2004, his campaign even having secured a donation from Gerald Ronson’s Heron group. "

Therefore how can the CST assert that it is representing the interests of ordinary British Jews when the millionaire and convicted fraudster Gerald Ronson, its chairman, has previously funded the campaign of Ken Livingstone in the 2004 London Mayoral Elections.

Isnt this an example of the sort of duplicitous double dealing and hypocrisy that gives the Jewish community in Britain a bad name, especially as it appears from the article below that Ronson sought to hide his previous support for Ken Livingstone by writing a cheque just ten pounds below the declaration amount as specified by law.

Also questions still remain unanswered as to how much has Ronson donated to Livingstone campaign this time around and most importantly will this money be declared and the expenses of the CST campaign be declared as part of Red Kens election expenses as required by law.


Ken Livingstone received a donation from a property developer with a fraud conviction after the London mayor championed the businessman's plan for a controversial skyscraper.

Gerald Ronson, the tycoon who was jailed for his role in the Guinness share-dealing scandal, wrote a cheque for £4,990 - £10 below the threshold for the public registration of donations with the Electoral Commission.

Mr Ronson made the payment just before Mr Livingstone won re-election in 2004 and two years after receiving planning permission for the 46-storey Heron Tower skyscraper development.

The 202m structure was opposed by English Heritage and the dean of St Paul's Cathedral because it would damage the city's historic skyline, but Mr Livingstone argued that it would "support London's economic future".

Payments to a political party above £5,000 must be publicly declared, but the threshold for individual politicians is only £1,000.

Mr Livingstone's campaign yesterday issued a statement confirming that the donation was received by the Labour Party, which funded the 2004 mayoral campaign, in compliance with Electoral Commission rules. It said the charges were "completely ridiculous".

The Way Of Nationalism

I have been doing some thinking and these below are the essentials that I consier to a rebirth of nationalism and a rebith of Britain and British culture ;

A contemporary British art that is native to our traditions and heritage and that seeks to inspire and educate our people instead of debasing and exploiting them. An art that is based on beauty and life instead of degeneracy and profit.

A British national culture that is based on our ancestral heritage and way of life and that celebrates the values of our national community instead of sickening our society with the infections of consumerism and political correctness.

The empowerment of the British Constitution as an active body of legal rights able to be claimed in legal proceedings and all children, judges, politicians and police educated about the British Constitution and the ancestral rights we possess enshrined within it.

An education system that seeks to enlighten British youth, that gives them an national, cultural and ethnic identity they can be proud of and that encourages them to aspire to individual greatness instead of indoctrinating them with the sicknesses of apathy, ignorance and consumer conformity.

The Nation and the State required to act at all times solely in the interests and profit of the British people and not ever in favour of the corporations, globalist institutions, politicians and banks.

The law to be applied in favour of the true Britons and not against us and in favour of aliens, enemies, lobby groups and criminals as it is at present in the hands of the politicians, the judges and the police.

The British media to be owned and operated solely by British corporations and editors instead of foreign conglomerates and alien press barons, and also the media be required to print the truth instead of lies and propaganda.

The electoral and political systems to be protected against undue influence and corruption either from trade unions, the media, political donors and judicial bias.

The British army returned from defending the poppy fields of Afghanistan for the KLA, ISI and the CIA and guarding the US and Saudi Arabia backed Al Qaeda Sunni militias in Iraq acting as a proxy army against Iranian backed Shiite militias and ordered to return to Britain and defend our national borders from invaders and terrorists for a change.

The British armed forces fighting the war against Islamist terror on British streets instead of in the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Royal Navy returned from patrolling the sea lanes of Iraq and ordered to be re-deployed patrolling the territorial waters of the UK and policing our international interests instead of the international interests of the US, the EU and the UN.

The Royal Air Force to be returned home and to be re-configured primarily as a strategic national defence force with a new air wing based on asymmetric warfare threats capable of rapid deployment with a global reach in relation to dealing with evolving threats in the global environment such as Islamist terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass deception.

The bankers personally made liable for the debts of the banks, and not the British people having to subsidise their greed and incompetence through their taxes.

The British economic systems to function in order to assist the social development of the British people as a nation and community and not simply in the interests of specific classes, financers, corporations, foreign nations and politicians.

The British national environment to be protected and our agriculture and farming systems to be based on the principles of sustainability and national self sufficiency.

The British nation must become energy self sufficient and invest in the creation of a Green Energy Economy, where all our national energy requirements are met by nationally generated renewable energy systems in order to ensure our national energy security.

A Bank of Britain created that will act in the interests of the British people and invest in a new Renewable Energy Industrial Revolution and build the infra-structure necessary for the creation of a 100 % energy independent national energy production system.

The Bank of Britain to also assist in the development a national industrial and manufacturing base for Durable Goods instead of Consumer Goods and also invest in the development of both a national and International market for those durable goods. Durable Goods are products such as ovens, cars, computers and trains which are designed to be energy efficient, durable and robust, easy to repair, made to last as long as possible and instead of being throw away consumer commodities and which will form the basis of the post-Peak Oil manufacturing and demand systems as both energy shortages and resource scarcity impact upon both manufacturers and consumers. The future manufacturing industries of the 21st century will be those that replace consumerism with durables.

The police required to uphold our ancestral rights and liberties and to respect our British constitutional rights and freedoms instead of protecting terrorists and criminals and acting as the para-military wing of the Labour Party and political correctness.

The Judges required to uphold the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and British constitutional rights before international treaties and EU laws and also to put the interests of both victims and the British people before terrorists and criminals.

The Trades Unions to act in the interests of British workers and the British economy instead of campaigning for Cuba and migrant workers.

The Church of England to reflect the wisdom of the New Testament instead of Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto and that vicars and bishops simply serve either the Church or their flocks instead of empathising with the wolves that threaten them and us all.

Work and homes for British workers and British families instead of cheap immigrant votes and cheap immigrant labour for the politicians and fat cats of global capitalism.

Higher wages for British workers instead of cheap wages for immigrant illegal workers, low wage bills for employers, massive profits for stockholders and directors and high union membership numbers and fees to subsidise the vast salaries of the trades union mafia bosses.

British land, farms and industries owned by British citizens and families and not international corporations, banks and foreign investors.

British industries employing British workers and supplying the British markets instead of child slaves in India and prisoners in China.

The country run for the benefit of the silent majority of the British people instead of the ethnic minority lobby groups.

The small independent British business and family farm to be helped by government instead of politicians of all parties being bought off by the big corporations, supermarket chains and agri-businesses.

British national sovereignty to be restored by the repatriation of all legislative powers devolved to international institutions and autonomy over the British economy restored by the removal of power over our political system by foreign corporations.

A land where animal welfare and the sustainability of the environment are more important than barbaric alien religious rituals and profits for the big supermarket chains.

A country where free speech and the right of protest take precedence over political correctness and the police state.

Thursday 10 April 2008

Nanotechnology, GM Crops, Genetic Engineering and Peak Oil

Along with research into renewable and green energy systems to deal with Peak Oil
the Bank of Britain that is required as part of the economic transition process also needs to invest in research programmes on Nanotechonology and genetic engineering.

Nanotechnology may allow us to escape the Peak Oil nightmare, though itself may open up an even greater nightmare if the technology is created by a nation that would seek to use it for military means.

Along with Peak Oil we also face endless Eco-Conflicts based on the competition for ever diminshing natural resources such as metals and other resorces essential to industry and social stability.

If we have created in the UK an 100 % independent renewable energy system and also cracked the nanotechnology problems, we can create all the resources we require using nanotechnology.

We would then be capable of being a 100 % independent nation with no need to seek any incoming resources in any way as we would be able to use molecular engieering to create those resources we need or to exploit them in such a way as to maximise their efficiency to such a level that we require much less levels of those resources for our use.

Engineering at the molecular level would allow us to create whole new industries and engineering systems that would allow us to exploit the oceans around our shores and turn these into factories for food, energy and resources. We could unlock the resources in the ocean depths and transform our society.

At the same time the science of genetic engineering will allow us to embrace the ideal of Creative Self Evolution, and allow us to cure humanity of all inherited genetic defects, most diseases and extend our lifespans.

The present level of human evolution would be superseded by a new level of Higher Humanity.

We stand at the brink of a new technologicl era, a time where Man can evolve himself upwards towards a higher form - or we face a future where we will plunge into an abyss of wars, eco-conflicts and chaos where we will revert back to the level of the animals and live in a world where war and violence rules.

I am against the use of GM crops being used and controlled by private corporations simply because the aim of these corporations is simply to make profit at the expense of Nature, the Folk and the Nation.

What we require is for research and development of GM foods, genetic engineering and nanotechnology to be taken out of the hands of the corporations and placed in the hands of a government controlled body whose interests are Nationalist, Folkish and Environmentalist.

This of course also requires a government to be in power that regards the interests of the Nation, Folk and National Environment as of the paramount importance.

An Academy of Life Sciences should be established that is responsible for research and development of these technologies in a way that makes them accountable to government and that protects the interests of our people and national environment.

These three new technologies of Genetic Engineering, GM crops and nanotechnology could transform Britain and our peoples lives.

We could grow enough of our own food with GM crops to ensure we need never rely on foreign imports again, we could create new pharmacutical industries and cure diseases and expand human life spans and we could ensure we never have to be dependent upon other nations agains for our internal resource demands.

If we survive the Peak Oil nightmare and put in place the structures neccasery to allow us to survive the Peak Oil crash, then in conjunction with these new technologies we could stand at the brink of a New Britain, a nation where the possibilities of progress are wide open.

If we fail then the world will descend into chaos and our descendants left to fend for themselves in a world where war will be the currency of all human interactions forever.

Published on 19 May 2003 by Nano News. Archived on 19 May 2003.

Nanotech Key To Future Energy Solutions, Nobelist Says
by Richard Mullen

Deep thought - Mar 31...

ODAC Newsletter...

ODAC Newsletter...

Peak Oil Review -- April 7th, 2008...

Peak Oil Review -- March 31st, 2008...

A global-scale energy crisis looms ahead, according to Nobel laureate Richard E. Smalley, who said that nanotechnology will figure centrally in providing technological solutions.

"Energy is the single most important problem facing humanity today—not just the U.S., but worldwide," Smalley said at a nanotechnology conference in Washington April 3. "The magnitude of this problem is incredible."

Presently the world consumes 14 terawatts of power per day, the equivalent of 210 million barrels of oil, said Smalley, a professor at Rice University in Houston.

"By the middle of this century, assuming there is no apocalyptic event" that drastically curtails energy usage, he said, global demand by an estimated 8 billion people will at least double today's total and possibly will reach 60 terawatts per day.

And "it can't be fossil energy," Smalley said, noting that oil production "will peak worldwide" sometime in this decade and then settle into a steady decline—taking our economy with it if we remain dependent on oil for energy, he said.
Unhappy century?

"Energy is hands-down the biggest enterprise on the planet," Smalley said, by way of placing its importance in perspective: at $3 trillion a year globally, energy constitutes "the largest industry in the world," versus only $1.3 trillion for agriculture and $700 billion for all defense spending, he said.

The economic consequences will be "extremely severe" and we will have "an extremely unhappy century" if we do not address the huge looming energy shortfall, Smalley said. "We must revolutionize energy [production] in the next couple of generations."

Yet the known energy alternatives to oil come with various limitations or drawbacks, said Smalley, who won the 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry.

Some alternatives are good but simply insufficient, he said. Conservation would help, for example, but "there's just not enough energy to be had" through conservation to meet the need, he said. Hydropower has reached its limits, Smalley said: even if we were to harness the Amazon River, among the last great untapped sources of hydropower, its energy "would only be a drop in the bucket." Wind power could make a "significant" contribution, "but not enough in itself" to meet the need, he said.

Other energy sources come laden with one problem or another, Smalley said. Coal might serve as a "bridge" to other energy solutions, he said, but its usage means putting more "gigatons" of carbon into the atmosphere, which the world can no longer endure. Nuclear fission and fusion are very expensive and they come saddled with problems such as waste disposal and high security requirements, he said.

The most promising solution is solar power, said Smalley, noting "the Earth is bathed" in 165,000 terawatts of energy every moment. The trick, he said, is to collect that energy (or the tiny portion people need) efficiently.
Nanotech's solar role

Nanotechnology figures mightily in the practical harnessing of solar power—and, for that matter, in any long-term energy solution, according to Smalley.

"Nanotechnology is right at the core [of] the answer to the energy problem," he said.

In the case of solar power, for example, nanotechnology holds the promise of cutting the cost of photovoltaics by 10 to 100 times, he said. It may bring about a similar-scale reduction in the cost of fuel cells, Smalley said, in enumerating two of "14 enabling nanotech revolutions" that could transform world energy production and usage.

These potential energy breakthroughs, which, he said, "could only come from nanotechnology," also include a "revolution" in hydrogen storage; direct conversion of light and water into hydrogen supplies; "photocatalytic" reduction of carbon dioxide; and nanomaterials, or coatings enabling the possibility of very deep drilling into Earth to obtain geothermal heat.

The best way to tap the sun's enormous energy stream may be to put solar power plants in space or on the moon, said Smalley, noting that solar cells in space could operate at about nine times the efficiency of similar cells on Earth.

"There [are] massive amounts of [solar] energy that miss the Earth every day," shooting right past it, he said.

Here again, nanotechnology would figure critically: providing "super-strong, light-weight materials" that would make it possible to build efficient solar power-collecting space stations, and perhaps leading to nanoelectronics-based robots that could handle tasks such as maintaining space-based solar energy systems.

With each type of energy he enumerated, Smalley came back to nanotechnology as the path to a solution. "I guarantee you" that nanotechnology will make fuel cells cheap enough to be practical, he said. Using coal requires sequestering the carbon: "Is there an answer? If there is, nanotechnology will provide it."

To make solar power work, "We need to find ways to make photovoltaics as cheap as paint"—and, again, nanotechnology can make the difference, he said.

Solving this gigantic energy problem, which Smalley termed "the largest enterprise of humanity" on the horizon, would go far toward solving many of humanity's other most pressing problems—such as food and water supplies, environmental degradation, and poverty—because they are so directly affected by the availability of energy, he said.

Smalley called for a $10 billion program to "kick-start" scientific work toward a long-term energy solution. "This generation needs to do this," he said. "We can't afford to wait."

Wednesday 9 April 2008

Peak Oil and the Bank Of Britain

The Bank of Britain and Peak Oil Transition.

Peak Oil as well all know , unless you are a member of the establishment political parties who have pulled the duvet over their heads put their fingers in their ears and are going ’La la la la la la’ in the hope that the problem will disappear, will not be solved by the present economic models.

During the transition to the Renewable Energy Economy then the existing economic system, based on credit and the petro-dollar recycling system, will not suffice.

A Bank Of Britain is required in order to create an alternative transitional economic system that will allow us to fund and create the projects we require in order to save our nation from the threat of Peak Oil and our present dependence on the globalist system.

The Bank of England can continue to exist as the main British bank in relation to the private banking system, but the Bank of Britain will be a National Bank dedicated to solving the issue of Peak Oil and allowing the nation to survive its coming threat.

For details on the issues of Peak Oil read here ;





I propose the following ;

1) We establish a Bank Of Britain based on the Gold Standard whose deposits and loans would be based on the gold stocks it holds. The BOB would be able to issue government backed special bonds and funds, and also be awarded special tax status so as to attract private investment, that would be used specifically to deal with the economic threats of Peak Oil that the present economic system cannot ever solve. Private business requires energy, for without energy to power the factories and employ workers then the economy dies. It is in the best interests of business that Britain create an 100 % Energy Independent renewable energy system so as to allow British industries and business to escape the threat of energy death that Peak Oil will bring.

2) The Bank Of Britain would be responsible for establishing a nationwide network of Credit Unions across the country and assisting in the formation of local currencies by loaning Credit Unions money based on the gold stocks the BOB holds. These credit unions would be owned by their members and the money made by the unions be used to assist local communities to re-localise and environmentalise their communities and create new renewable energy networks that provide locally generated food and energy to local people.

3) That the Credit Unions create localised currencies to be traded in local areas and that all profits from the Credit Unions go back into the Credit Unions and be used to fund and subsidise local environmental projects to assist local people such as Community Farms, Local Farmers Markets, local energy projects, local recycling projects, local energy production systems such as wind, solar, wave, water mills etc etc.

4) That the Bank of Britain also be used to fund the vast public works schemes we require in order to create the national environmental and renewable energy infrastructure we require in order us to escape oil dependency and to create the Energy Production Economic Model ( EDP - Energy Domestically Produced) that will be the basis of the global economic energy exchange economy of the future.

5) That the BOB funds the public works schemes such as the rejuvenated canal networks, funds the British manufacturing industries to equip and refit the re-opened British coal mines with the heavy equipment they will need to operate and to assist in making these new coal plants as clean as possible , to supply the local energy production plants with the technical equipment they will require and the heavy engineering projects required to create the Renewable Energy Economy.

6) That funds from the BOB be used to establish a network of scientific establishments around the country that are dedicated to creating clean, green new energy systems that can be used to save the planet. This technology would be patented and licensed to other nations and be given to them to use to assist them to solve their energy needs due to the Peak Oil crisis.

The Bank of Britain is the basis of the transitional economic model that we will require in order for us to escape the Peak Oil nightmare. It will allow our nation to become a world leader in renewable energy production and the heart of the global energy exchange system that will replace the present credit and oil based economic system that will be destroyed by Peak Oil.

Peak Oil need not be a nightmare if we prepare for its coming RIGHT NOW.

The Bank Of Britain will allow us to establish Britain as the centre of a whole new Industrial Revolution based on green energy production that will make Britain one of the most stable, prosperous and powerful nations in the 21st Century and beyond.

Tuesday 8 April 2008

The Theft of Freedom

A very interesting article in The Guardian today.

His one problem with his thesis is the issue of historical persepective. In order to measure the loss of liberty we must measure the freedoms we have today against the freedoms we once had in the past.

From the point of view of the liberties that we as Britons once possessed and that have been removed by various governments, then we are in a police state already.

All the Race Relations Acts that restrict our right to employ who we wish and how we use our possessions, the Public Order Acts that restrict our ancestral right of free speech and the endless laws that restrict protest and free movement are all the theft of our liberties by govnment.

From the historical perspective this is not a free nation as it once was.

The fact is we do live in a surveillance society and the spying on our privay by the government via phones, e mail and othr means is more extreme and widespread than in East Germany under Communism - so we do live in a Police State.


In the current debate about the need for a bill of rights in Britain, it is overlooked that no civil society can rest upon the possession of rights alone. And in the hysteria over the supposed need to protect our freedoms from "attack" it is now even stated that Britain is proceeding towards the condition of a "police state".

Some familiarity with real recent police states - East Germany or Romania - would teach those who bemoan the "rolling back of individual liberty" to temper their paranoid arguments.

Instead, modern free societies, the freest history has known, are gradually disintegrating from abuse of their freedoms. The harms being done to them by exploitation of their liberties are real; the harms being caused to them by the erosion of those liberties are largely imaginary.

It is here too that most of the left, whose socialist ideals have largely been displaced by an open-ended libertarianism, should take care. For the vacuous notion of liberty they now espouse is really a claim to the right to do as one pleases. This is the same idea about liberty as the "free marketeer" who brooks no interference with "choice", even if it wrecks society and the planet.

Hence, the screeching about "intrusions" upon personal liberty now come equally from left and right. The libertarian left has become one large human rights lobby. To them, any interference with freedom of action is prima facie wrong. The libertarian right objects to the "nanny state" in the name of opportunity, aspiration and entrepreneurialism.

In the convergence of these positions, elementary truths have been forgotten. The largest one is that without the fulfilment of the citizen's duties the free society cannot endure. Take away the sense of duty to community, environment, polity and nation, and collapse awaits.

Yet the notion that there should be some reciprocal relation between rights and duties is held by many to be wrong, an imposition, even described as an "impertinence" in a recent submission to the parliamentary committee on human rights.

To expect the fulfilment by the citizen of his or her duties is no impertinence. It is essential to liberal democracy. Indeed, government ministers today speak hesitantly of a need for "constitutional renewal" or for a more "contractual" relationship between citizen and state. Under it, the performance of civic duties would be made a condition for the gaining of rights, many of the latter now routinely and shamelessly exploited by rich and poor alike.

But the general discredit in which parliament is now held by many is depriving parliamentarians of the moral authority to lay down the law. Moreover, the prevention of abuses requires sanctions; and sanctions cannot be made to stick where they are easily evaded by the powerful, and are unjust to the already-deprived.

So it is more difficult, as free society implodes, to halt the disintegration. Libertarians in general should watch out. No distinction is now made between the tawdry freedoms of the "consumer" and the political freedoms for which previous generations gave their lives.

Indeed, the boundaries of freedom have never been so widely nor so loosely drawn, yet the bogeys of the "surveillance society" and the "police state" are being constantly raised before us. Those who do so ought to know better.

Their hallucinations bring a large danger, which would be better recognised if they knew 20th-century history better. It is the danger that a new fascism brings a true police state as the price of our unknowing, rather than the imaginary one the libertarian fancies is being created today.

· David Selbourne is the author of The Principle of Duty: An Essay on the Foundations of the Civic Order

Monday 7 April 2008

The Jewish Chronicle and Death Threats

I have once again been the subject of death threats from Zionist extremists.

I have posted the follwoing e mail to the Jewish Chronicle and asked them to condemn the death threats.

I will post the resonse to my e mail by the Jewish Chronicle, if or when I get it

UPDATE - note also the two latest threats one mentioning the CST.

The question is this - is the CST the Zionist version of C18 and as such why are the Met Police working with the CST ?


Hi Dana,

I just thought you might be interested to see the two death threats I have recieved since your article was published in the Jewish Chronicle.

Both the comments were posted by people as comments on my blog here, just take a look at the comments section on the article for the death threats ;


Perhaps you would like to condemn those death threats from members of the Jewish Community and print a statement in the Jewish Chronicle condemning those extremists in the Jewish community that issue such death threats to people.

Seeing as the death threats are a direct result of your article then it is incumbent on you to repudiate those that issue such death threats, for if you fail to do that then it is obvious that you support the sentiments of such people.

So do you condem these death threats and will you condemn them in the JC or do you support them and refuse to condemn them ?


L. J. Barnes

The New Fascism - Torch of Shame

The images of the Metropolitan Police forming a fascistic black uniformed guard around the Olympic torch as it was paraded through the streets of London yesterday were eerily reminiscent of the marches of the Nazi stormtroopers in pre-war Germany. We have all seen the footage of the old German Nazi marches before the Second World War on TV shows on the History Channel and the images yesterday of the Metropolitan Police smashing pro-Tibet protestors off the streets to make way for the ethnic minority torchbearers was eerily reminiscent of that era.

As the thousands of police officers on duty marched alongside the laughable symbol of liberty that is the Olympic torch, just like Nazi stormtroopers once marched alongside the Swastika flag in Germany, the comparison became clear. In order to ensure that no-one dared protest about the ongoing Chinese state genocide of the indigenous Tibetan people, the mask of the British Multi-cultural state slipped and revealed its true fascist nature.

Multi-Cultural is the new fascism, a racist and oppressive ideology. At the same time as it removes the rights of the indigenous people to protest against mass immigration and the cultural destruction of our national heritage, it uses members of ethnic minority groups to seek to obscure its fascism. But strip away the patronising tokenism of using ethnic minority torchbearers to carry the torch and the true nature of the multi-cultural state can be discerned. It is a police state, one where the right to protest and dissent is seen an act of aggression against the criminals in government and where acts of peaceful protest are met with extreme violence by the organs of the British State.

The brutal violence inflicted upon the protestors by the police was similar to the beatings given out to the pro-hunting demonstrators a few years back and also reminiscent of the ejection of protestors from the Labour conference in 2006 by hired thugs. The protestors in London were not just prevented from obstructing the Olympic torch and moved out of the way, they were thrown to the ground, beaten and then wrestled away by dozens of police officers acting with extreme violence under the direct orders of their bully boy senior officers. This was pure fascism, and the use of the Met Police to smash those that sought to object to one the most criminal regimes on the planet was an act of appeasement towards totalitarianism not seen since the days of Neville Chamberlain in 1937.

Yesterday the Labour government became complict in the crimes of the Chinese government against their own people and the indigenous people of Tibet. At the same time as it revealed just how brutal and violent it truly is against all those it regards as dissidents. It also showed to us all just how far the Police as an institution have become corrupted by the Labour government. The role of the Police is not to blindly obey the criminal orders that the criminals in the Labour government order them to obey, for the primary role of the Police in a democracy is to serve and protect the community and that means protecting us even from the government itself if required. The Metropolitan Police, under the control of the convicted racist and New Labour lickspittle Sir Ian Blair, have become the para-military wing Political Correctness and the uniformed thugs of the Labour Party, always willing to crack a few heads of protestors in order to demonstrate their servility to their political paymasters.

Many of those demonstrators who were attacked by the Police yesterday under the orders of Gordon Brown and his cabal of brutes in suits would have been long term supporters of the Labour Party and political correctness. As is usual in history it is only when those who support criminal regimes end up crushed under the jackboots of that regime that they finally wake up.

Friday 4 April 2008

Hi to the readers of the Jewish Chronicle

Hi Dana, that is a fair and quite a good article you have written - a pity though that you couldnt (or wouldnt) ask the list of questions I sent you.

A real shame your readers are not aware of the stance of the JC on the important issues I listed in my blog post here ;


One slight mistake in your article though is the assertion Dana makes that I said that both the Zionists and nazis thought the Jews were the Chosen Race - what I actually wrote is here ;


I wrote that the Nazis concept of the Nordic Aryan Super race was akin to the Zionist concept of the Jewish Chosen Race, in that both are predicated on the basis and assumption that each of them, both Jewish and Nordic Aryan, are superior races - both of which are racist positions to hold for they both assert that all other races are inferior. As somene who is of Celtic heritage, and not just Nordic heritage, I find both the Zionist concept of the Chosen race and the Nazi concept of the Nordic Aryan super race as both racist nonsense.

The Jewish Chronicle is a racist organisation. It demands that the only people in Britain who be prohibited from organising to protect and represent their community interests in the political, cultural, social and economic sphere of our multi-cultural society are the indigenous British people.

It appears that for organisations like the Jewish Chronicle the principle of universality that should apply to equal rights, and also the right to organise as a community in the Multi-Cultural system, applies only to ethnic minority groups like themselves and that the rights and interests of the ethnic majority must never be allowed to exist within the system of multi-culturalism.

This is clearly a racist position, for in effect it demands the exclusion of only one community, that of the indigenous British, from organising as a community to protect their interests within British society.

It appears that for groups like the Jewish Chroncile the indigenous British people must be like the indigenous Native American people and we must live on our reservations and keep quiet as we fade away quietly into extinction.

And so it has been. There is not one single charity in the country for the Indigenous British people, not one community centre for our people whilst their are thousands of ethno-specific community centres for every other ethnic minority groups, not one organisation to represent us legally as an ethnic community, we have no community leaders feted by the police and asked to sit on government task forces to assist our community and no public funds awarded to groups that represent the interests of our people.

Instead we have had our communities torn apart whilst every ethnic minority community group has been funded by our taxes. Whilst the government plans to shut down local village schools, local posts offices, sell of our kids playing fields, shut down youth clubs in our towns and villages and in effect destroy all those community structures that knit our community together - all other ethnic groups in the country have been funded by the state to create ethno-centric communal structures in the name of multi-culturalism.

The Jewish Chronicle is a perfect example of this. A newsaper that seeks to give a voice to the Jewish people in Britain, but at the same time campaigns to silence the voice of the indigenous British people.

A recent Newsnight poll stated that 58 % of the white working class felt no-one spoke for them and their interests in todays Britain.

In the same poll 77 % of white British people felt that they could not criticise immigration without being called racist.

The climate of fear engendered by multi-culturalism, and those that have exploited it in order to benefit themselves (even at the expense of their own ethnic community like the Jewish Chronicle), has resulted in our community becoming voiceless and impotent.

This was not an 'accident' of the process of multi-culturalism, instead the whole process of multi-culturalism demanded that the indigenous British people be terrified into silence by the word 'racist' as their country was stolen way from them. Those that dared speak out against the process, unless they are dressed in the robes and ermine of the House Of Lords, were villified, abused, hounded and sacked from their jobs in racist pogroms directed only against those in the indigenous British community that spoke up for their people.

And as we have also seen, the moment that the indigenous British people have begun to wake up, demand their voice in our own country and started to vote en mass for a party that represents their interests - then all those who have exploited multi-culturalism for themseves and their own communities have opened fire on the BNP for giving our people a voice.

The Jewish Chronicle is a newspaper that should articulate the interests and issues affecting the Jewish community, instead it has become just another propaganda rag for the Zionist wing of the Labour Party.

Whilst the British Jewish community is facing the most terrible threat to its survival in its long history in our Isles, th JC is campagning against the ONLY political party that is prepared to work with the Jewish community and fight and resist the growing threat from the Islamists that have entered and are growing in our nation.

Whilst the Labour Party has seduced the Jewish community into a state of tranquil surrender, it has been working to transform our nation into Brittanistan - the central organisng hub of the global Islamic Jihad.

The BNP has become the last haven for the Jewish Community, the only place where the real threat to the long term survival of the Jewish community, which is Radical Islamism, is being addressed and plans being made to fight back against it.

Whilst the Jewish community is suffering from the largest rise in racial attacks in its history, the JC is not campaigning against the people who are committing these racist crimes - who are solely Islamist Muslims and Far Left Militants - instead it is campaigning against the BNP on behalf of an organisation that even the UAF (Unite Against Fascism) regard as a Zionist front group, that being Searchlight run by the convicted liar and thief Gerry Gable.

The JC does not campaign against the Respect orgnisation run by Islamists and Stalinists united only in their hatred to Israel and Jews, instead they are targeting the only party that is standing up to the Islamists and Stalinists - which is the BNP.

The editor of the Jewish Chronicle David Rowan has attacked as 'anti-semites' anyone that is not part of the Zionist clique of the Labour Friends of Israel cabal, and he has abused his power as editor of the JC to use the paper as a mouthpiece for Zionists extremists in the Labour Party - the same people that supported the Labour government and its illegal War In Iraq.

I believe the Jewish community in Britain have been betrayed by their so
called community leaders.

Those leaders have been complicit in supporting the political parties that
have allowed the most dangerous ideology in human history, that of radical
Islamism, to enter and infect our nation.

By about 2040 when the demographic growth of the Islamists in the UK has
reached the point where the appeasers in the government cannot contain via
the police those Islamists who are determined to support the creation of
Sharia Zones through military force in our cities then the nightmare will
begin ;

First they will come for the Jews, their oldest enemy

Then they will come for the British Nationalists, for they are the only ones
who could organise the final resistance to their takeover

Then they will come for the Liberals, who wrung their hands but did nothing
as the threat grew

Then finally they will impose their will under the shadow of the sword
across the whole of this nation,

And on that day any Jews and British Nationalists that still remain in the
country and who have not fled to Israel (if it still exists and has not
become an irradiated crater courtesy of Iran) or Australia, will find
themselves forced to share each others company forever by the Islamists -
either hanging from the lamposts of our cities or paying the Jizya.

It is an historical inveitability that at some point the Jewish community
will reject those fools and charlatans that have so misled them for decades
and they will become the most active supporters of the BNP. This is because
we both share the burden of the undying hatred of the same mortal enemy.

Only fools cast stones at sheep when the wolf is at their door.


BNP man quits after JC exposes views on rape

By Dana Gloger

A senior British National Party candidate in next month’s elections has resigned following a row over his views on rape, first revealed by the JC, in which he claimed that it could not be “such a terrible physical ordeal”.

Two weeks ago, we linked Nick Eriksen, the party’s London regional organiser, who was second on its candidate list for the London Assembly elections, to the Sir John Bull weblog.

We reported him writing in an August 2005 entry: “To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting that force-feeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence. A woman would be more inconvenienced by having her handbag snatched.”

This week, the London Evening Standard followed our story by republishing the blog extracts.

The publicity apparently caused dismay among the BNP leadership. Simon Darby, the party’s deputy leader, confirmed that Mr Eriksen had quit. He said: “It was not what he wrote but the way it was taken out of context and distorted.”

Robert Bailey, deputy group leader on Barking and Dagenham council, will now move up the party’s candidate list to replace Mr Eriksen.

In a further development, the BNP’s legal adviser, Lee Barnes, has attacked the JC as “a racist organisation” and claims some of its employees are funding terrorism.

In an article on his blog (leejohn barnes.blogspot.com), following our support of a community-wide campaign to stop the BNP making gains in the local and mayoral elections on May 1, he wrote: “The Jewish Chronicle is the mouthpiece of the same clique of Zionist parasites and crooks that have abused and exploited the British

Jewish community for decades.”

He claimed that “the Zionists in…the Jewish Chronicle have always supported Israel above Britain and their relatives have worn the uniform of the IDF not the British Army – they are the Zionist version of Hizbut Tahrir [Islamic group, banned in several countries], and are a front group for the Zionist Nazis of the extremist Nazi wing of Israeli politics.”

He added that both the JC and the Nazis believed the Jews were the Chosen Race and that both believed it was legitimate to use terrorism to hold onto land.

In other posts on his blog, Mr Barnes also strongly criticised Gerry Gable, publisher of anti-fascist magazine Searchlight, as well as the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BOD).

“We all know that Searchlight is…a nest of perverts, rats, reds and crooks,” he wrote.

The BOD was referred to as “a clique of self serving Zionist racists”, and a “Zionist-Nazi organization”.

This week, Mr Barnes defended his comments, reiterating that he thought the JC had become a racist organisation.

He asked why the JC was campaigning against the BNP when “the vast majority of attacks on Jews are perpetrated by Islamist Muslims and Leftists”.

“It appears for the JC that it is acceptable that the Jewish community, and all other ethnic communities in the country, are encouraged to organise politically, culturally, economically and socially…but for the indigenous people of the country when they do the same we are slandered as ‘racists’ and ‘extremists’,” he said.

Deputy leader Simon Darby also criticised the JC. “We have a growing Muslim community who probably despise you more than us. The looming problem of an Islamic republic might be of more interest to your readers than us.”

Harriet Harman MP, Labour’s deputy leader and party chair this week appealed to Jewish people to vote in the mayoral elections. “I am urging everyone in London across the Jewish community and beyond to get out to vote on 1st May to make sure the BNP with their nasty politics of divisions and hatred don’t win a seat on the Greater London Assembly,” she said.

Two Articles for The Jewish Chronicle To Read

Following on from the blog article below about the article in the Jewish Chronicle, that I provided for any visitors to this blog from the Jewish Chronicle, I hereby also provide the facts about the BNP that David Rowan, the editor of the JC and self appointed spokesman for the Zionist extremist wing of The Labour Party, has failed to inform members of the British Jewish Community about.


By their fruits (or lack of them) shall you know them

By News Team ⋅ November 10, 2007 ⋅ Email this post ⋅ Print this post ⋅ Post a comment

Originally published on 21st March 2006 (removed by previous web editor).

If the neo-cons didn’t have the “world-Jewish conspiracy” theorists to hamstring patriotic opposition to their war, they’d have to invent them. Nick Griffin warns against a monumental blunder.

“Don’t let yourself be played like a fiddle” was the warning I received the other day from an American nationalist whose dedication to the cause of white survival is without doubt very sincere. The warning relates to the way in which the British National Party is positioned very firmly to benefit politically from ever-growing popular concern about the rise of Islam. The concern behind it is the belief that the growth of such sentiment is all part of a plot by powerful neo-conservatives to get America, Britain and the nations of Europe to invade the Middle East and make the world safe for the Zionist state of Israel. By extension, anyone who criticises Islam is liable to be accused by hardcore adherents of this theory of “working for the Jews.”

As a matter of fact, I have no doubt at all that the neo-con clique around George Bush are indeed influenced by such considerations; the power of the Zionist lobby in American politics is a straightforward political fact of life. The purpose of this article is neither to rehash nor to deny the material that proves this to be the case.

Nor am I launching a personal attack on Michael Hoffmann, author of the excellent book ‘They Were White and They Were Slaves’, who has recently criticised me for describing Islam as an evil religion (actually I said it was a “vicious, wicked faith”, but I’ll go with “evil” too). But it is to sound in return my own warning to people whose one-track concern about “the Jews” is blinding them to the clear and present danger of resurgent Islam.

Mike is one such person. “What is it about the Koran or Muhammad that makes Islam evil?” he asks, alleging as he does so that such claims are “racist neo-con propaganda”. Oh dear, the words “lost” and “plot” spring to mind, although there’s nothing here that a day or two living with a white (or, for that matter, Hindu or Pakistani Christian) family in Muslim-dominated parts of Bradford wouldn’t cure.

Bloody history

So for those who haven’t had the benefit of such intensive diversity training, where should we start? How about the Koran’s advocacy of world conquest and the subjugation or murder of non-Muslims? How about the fact that Allah told his followers that the whole world is their Promised Land (tough on the previous occupants), which is surely a bit more drastic than the most extreme Zionists’ claim on the bit of desert between the Nile and the Euphrates?

Or how about the mass beheadings of POWs, the rape of their wives and the enslavement of their children, as practised with gusto by Muhammad, thereby providing religious justification for such horrors and an example of Islamic ‘best practice’ for all time? What’s evil about Islam? Go ask the Serbs, go ask the Sikhs, go ask the remnants of once vibrant Christian communities in Pakistan or Egypt, come ask the mothers of Keighley.

I cannot for the life of me see how the fact that there are also some thoroughly unpleasant ‘racist’ sections in the Talmud can in some way make it wrong for genuine European patriots to warn of the danger posed by mass Muslim immigration. Not least because the Talmud is only a collection of ancient and often contradictory commentaries and debates, which individual Jews are not obliged to study or believe. This is very different from the position with the Koran, which all Muslims are obliged - on pain of death for apostasy - to follow as the literal word of Allah.

Furthermore, in real politics in the real world, one’s proper choice of enemy is a group who you gain a worthwhile level of extra support by identifying, who you have a realistic chance of beating, and whose defeat will take you the furthest towards your goal. With millions of our people desperately and very reasonably worried by the spread of Islam and its adherents, and with the mass media - for a variety of reasons, to which we will come later in this essay - playing ‘Islamophobic’ messages like a scratched CD, the proper choice of enemy needn’t be left to rocket scientists.

British future

Mr. Hoffmann’s polemic may look good on paper, but here in Britain, we are not, contrary to his analysis, fighting Islamification on behalf either of the US Federal government or the ‘right’ of Elton John to ‘marry’ his boyfriend. We fight it because it is incompatible with the fundamental values of our civilisation, and because its followers would, if victorious, reduce our grandchildren to tax cows and sexual playthings.

Yes, I know, you can say such things have already come to pass under our present masters, and if we had a record of silence on such things we could indeed fairly be criticised as hypocrites. But we do not. The BNP has always taken a strong position on such issues, and continues to do so. We do not need lectures from anyone about the dangers and injustices of free market capitalism, and not only would we not allow Elton John to marry his boyfriend but our proposals for a strengthened Clause 28 would prevent such a sick parody of real marriage being shown on TV in any case.

Nor can we accept Mr. Hoffmann’s ridiculous suggestion that “If King Alfred the Great or Edward I could see Britain today they would join the Muslims in their protests and demonstrations rather than support so foul and degenerate a system.” For a start, Alfred was not that far from being a contemporary of Charles Martel, and would no doubt have reacted the same way to that great Frankish king had a Moorish invasion fleet landed on the coast of Dorset. And Edward I came from the era of the Crusades, when huge Western armies battled not only to secure access for Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land, but also in a vital defensive backlash against centuries of Muslim aggression on the shrinking frontiers of Christendom itself.

Failure of American nationalists

Now, Mr. Hoffmann is a well-read man with a genuinely wide knowledge of European history, and he for one is certainly not in it for the money. The underlying problem here is not ignorance, nor even, in reality, a soft spot for Muslim immigration. It is the utter failure of people like him in the USA to build a political power-winning machine for genuine nationalism. This is what leads to the absurd idea that the only choice is between supporting Muslim demonstrators or favouring the degenerate, atomised and crassly materialistic society that they want to tear down.

If people like Mr. Hoffmann had spent more time working out how to build a serious grassroots political movement, and less time worrying about whether the Moon Landings actually happened or not, then they would perhaps realise that it is possible to oppose both the Islamification of the Western world and the neo-cons’ drive to annexe the Middle East.

They might also work out that to give such opposition the slightest chance of success one has to make hardball political decisions about engaging with the public in terms that they can understand, instead of treating them with thinly veiled contempt or even hatred and damning them for failing to grasp at once the brilliance of one’s own esoteric insights.

So allow me to return the favour of the well-intended caution at the start of this essay by issuing a sincere warning of my own to the same people who are worrying - or in some cases seeking to make political mischief with the allegation - that the BNP is “dancing to the neocon tune.”

First of all, let’s recap on just how many positions we take which are diametrically opposed to the neo-con agenda:

We are against the war in Iraq;
We are against overseas military adventures generally (though sending an SAS platoon to arrest and hang Robert Mugabe, and halt the persecution and extermination of the last white Rhodesians would be the exception to prove the rule);
We don’t want to export our political system to the Third World;
We don’t believe in imposing our economic system by force;
We don’t believe in multi-culturalism;
We don’t believe in laissez-faire economics domestically;
We oppose international free trade;
We don’t believe in ‘propositional nations’;
We don’t seek to impose Western culture on the whole world.
This final point leads us, in passing, to note the fundamental similarity between Islam and neo-conservatism, whereby both favour one all-encompassing global system, against which resistance is regarded as immoral heresy, and whose triumph will usher in the ‘end of history’.

In statistical terms, the individuals who - despite all the evidence to the contrary - confuse us with, or accuse us of supporting, the neo-cons, are utterly irrelevant. But in the white nationalist movement in its broadest sense they are, while clearly in the minority, still a significant element. Particularly in the United States, in Germany, and among small theoretical groups in most European countries (Britain included), there are a fair few sincere people who are quite convinced that we shouldn’t be nasty to Islam and that “the real enemy is the Jew.”


So here’s my warning to these people: The enemy of your old enemy may turn out not to be your friend, but something much worse. And, on top of that piece of facts-of-life commonsense, there is a piece of plain realpolitik that those who attack the BNP stance on Islam should also take into account:

They are perilously close to entrenching themselves in political dead ground from which there can be no escape. Instead of working to take advantage of the biggest crisis that the genocidal multi-culti ‘experiment’ has ever faced, they are in danger of turning themselves into a despised, powerless and doomed cartoon caricature - a composite of Tokyo Rose, Lord Haw Haw and Jane Fonda. Truly, they are living examples of the old adage that history repeats itself, first as tragedy, and then as farce.

When the overwhelming majority of the instinctively patriotic people of our nations feel threatened by an alien force which is self-evidently evil by Christian and democratic secular values alike, to place oneself in the position whereby our political opponents can portray you as an enemy sympathiser, a collaborator, a traitor, is political suicide.


That a significant number of US-based white nationalists look set to make precisely this catastrophic blunder is, as a matter of fact, no surprise: The USA is, after all, the country whose ‘far-right’ leadership has consistently failed even to establish a viable national organisation. They have freedoms, opportunities and resources that we European nationalists can only dream of, yet the USA shares with Ireland alone in the white world the dishonour of not having a proper nationalist political party.

By what monumental arrogance do such pathetic failures claim the right to criticise others, while their own people are doomed to perish not just for want of a realistic vision, but even of an organisation that will even try to save them?

The Irish have a valid excuse - the IRA threaten, beat and are willing to shoot anyone who opposes their ethnocidal neo-Marxist multi-culti version of ‘nationalism’ - but the American leaders have none. “The country’s too big”? Nonsense; distance and sparse population didn’t stop Pauline Hanson frightening the life out of the Australian Establishment, before her inexperience, naivety and a clique of liberal civic nationalist advisors killed off her grassroots rebellion. “Americans are too individualistic on account of their Anglo-Celtic roots?” That won’t do either. Again, Australians are even more so, and, in any case, Americans of German, Italian, Slavic, etc descent almost certainly outnumber those whose ancestors hailed from the British Isles, so this old excuse is precisely that.

No! If you seek the reason for the organisational void in American nationalism, blame several generations of self-appointed leaders and self-publicists who have consistently let down their dedicated, loyal, generous, good-hearted followers by one shatteringly bad judgement call after another.

Now they are doing it again, by abandoning the proper nationalist stance of complete neutrality and isolationism in connection with the endless quarrel between two rival bands of Middle Easterners. Siding with Islam against the neocons is no more a viable tactic than volunteering to infect yourself with the Ebola virus instead of AIDS.

Most ironic of all, in doing so, by defending and excusing Islam, they are cutting themselves off so thoroughly from any possibility of winning public support, and thus they are playing into the hands of the very neo-cons they are so desperate to oppose.


The neocon push for an endless war in Iraq, Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia, for the ‘democratisation’ of the entire Muslim world is a reality. And it is wrong - wrong strategically, tactically, practically and morally. But precisely because the people pushing for it are so influential and so ruthless, the only thing that can stop their war (and it can be stopped, because they are ordinary mortals, not demigods or the Devil incarnate) is the effective mobilisation of mass support for the withdrawal of Western troops from the Middle East, and non-involvement over the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

To do that, those who oppose the neocons’ schemes in the Middle East have to be able to connect with huge numbers of ordinary people in order to mobilise that mass support. Our message must therefore be within the reach of the mass mind.

That doesn’t mean that we have to repeat slavishly what is said in the mainstream media, but it does mean that our message must be couched in terms close enough to popular opinion, as shaped by that media, to be listened to with interest and sympathy, rather than being instantly dismissed as the ravings of lunatics.

The aims must be principled and inflexible; the means as flexible as required to be achievable; and when it comes to the ways in which those means are ’sold’ to the public, ‘will they buy this?’ is the only question worth asking. I’m sorry if that makes me sound like a Leninist, but the ability and willingness to grasp these hard political realities is the thing that marks out the serious would-be revolutionaries from the tough-talking do-nothings, the cranks and the Snake Oil salesmen.

Closed shop

Only a vanishingly small proportion of the general population of the West even know about, let alone give any credence to, the plethora of ‘right-wing’ websites that maintain that “9/11 was carried out by the Mossad” or that Iran is a great place because it hosts the occasional conference on Holocaust revisionism. But such is human nature - especially as amplified by the World Wide Web’s hyper-democracy in ideas - that those who believe such things unwittingly set up a closed feedback loop among themselves.

This makes them ever more certain that they are right and - what is far more dangerous among people who need to win popular support to achieve anything - more and more certain that the public only have to be told “the truth” for them to jump to their side, and that anyone who proposes a different strategy is a fool, an enemy agent or a traitor (if that sounds just like the neo-cons, their Marxist predecessors, or their Muslim alter-egos that’s no surprise, for all these mindsets are quintessentially non-European in origin and totalitarian by nature).

So, without a second thought as to the effectiveness of their ‘strategy’, these Internet cockerels of the anti-Semitic new dawn stand on their virtual dung heaps and crow that “We’re in the Middle East for the Jews. This is a war for Israel, organised as part of a Jewish plot to rule the world.”

To which, and here’s the problem in practical terms: Perhaps 30% of the entire population immediately think “great, let’s hope the Jews and Our Boys win and wipe out those limb-amputating, suicide-bombing Arab Muslims,” and go back to their sitcoms and football games.

Probably another 60% of the entire population have been trained from infancy by the TV stations and teachers of the most efficient brainwashing machine in human history to regard any criticism of Israel, especially coming from white nationalists, as proof of a secret desire to herd Jews into gas chambers. Accordingly, they also turn their backs against anyone saying such things.

Thus the claim that “We’re in the Middle East for the Jews. This is a war for Israel organised as part of a Jewish plot to rule the world” has precisely the opposite effect on around 90% of the population to that which we must presume is intended by those who make it (though bitter experience tells us that some of those screaming such things the loudest are agent provocateurs seeking to demonise and disrupt the nationalist movement).

Tactics for losing

Such Charge of the Light Brigade tactics may, by a certain distorted light, be ‘magnificent’, but they are certainly not politics. And, unless abandoned by a defining majority of the people who should be organising the resistance to current trends and policies, they won’t just kill a few hundred unfortunate cavalrymen (in an earlier daft war that was nothing to do with us) but our entire race.

Even if every single bombing attack on Western targets, 9/11, Paris, Bali, Madrid, assorted embassies and 7/7 included, was carried out by Mossad agents, it wouldn’t advance our cause one iota to say so. In fact such an idea is so out of kilter with overwhelming popular belief that it marks out to the public those who propagate it as mad.

This is not good politics, and can only be indulged in by those who have spent so much time talking and emailing only with their fellow ‘extremists’ that they have lost touch with reality as the rest of the world sees it - or by individuals to whom those same ‘extremists’ are not potential allies with whom to work to break out of the nationalist ghetto, but a meal ticket.

It’s bad enough in the United States, but it is positively suicidal in Europe, Britain included, because the vast majority of the population which is most likely to be receptive to our nationalist message is already wary (to use what is probably a gross understatement) of Muslims. To even hint of making common cause with Islam - or put ourselves in a position when opponents can suggest to the masses that this is the case - is political insanity.

And yet this is precisely what some nationalists in Germany, for example, did in the wake of 9/11, and it is exactly what some nationalist revisionists in Britain, the USA, Italy, and so on are doing over the Danish cartoon controversy.

“Mossad plot”

Untold millions of white Europeans watched with growing anger as mobs of perfectly ordinary observant Muslims burnt embassies, butchered policemen and threatened Holy War over a few not particularly unflattering pictures of their prophet. But, meanwhile, various nationalist writers and self-appointed spokesmen were showing their growing disconnection from political reality by repeating Islamic claims (which may or may not contain some elements of truth) that the whole affair was part of a Mossad plot to poison relations between Muslims and white Europeans.

Poison relations between us and these charming people? Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the streets of London or Oldham or Keighley or Bradford. Or, for that matter, Malmo or Paris or Sydney or Brooklyn. I’ll show you poison, and it doesn’t come from our people, or even from those busy boys in the Mossad. It comes from a set of beliefs and resultant tactics that have come within a whisker of destroying our Europe altogether twice in the last fifteen hundred years, and are close to doing so again. The real Clash of Civilisations is not fated to take place in Persia or Arabia, but here in the heart of the West.

“May or may not contain some elements of truth,” I said. Is that too cynical for the purists? Then they need to wake up to the rules of real life politics rather than settling for last place every time. It’s better to be a little cynical on this issue and stand a chance of winning than to fret about which bunch of liars are lying in this particular instance and in so doing miss a great political opportunity to surf our message into the public mind on the back of a media tsunami of ‘Islamophobia’.

Media U-turn

What has caused this mainstream media U-turn whereby quite strident criticism of Islam is now commonplace? It could all be part of that same neo-con conspiracy, or it could be the fact that liberal and homosexual chatterati are beginning to feel as threatened by the growth of Islam as the white working class communities they despise so much started to several decades ago. Perhaps journalists and editors are simply reflecting the changing views and prejudices of the population of which they form a part. Or it might be a simple marketing decision - knocking asylum seekers and Muslims sells newspapers.

My best guess is that it’s a combination of many such factors, but who knows? Frankly, who cares? We don’t have the media clout ourselves to swim against the tide, but as it’s running in our favour in terms of boosting public rejection of mass immigration and the multi-cult, why should we even want to? Instead of wasting time worrying about it, we should - to mix metaphors - be organising to make hay while the sun shines.

Whatever is causing the media shift on matters multi-cultural, here in Britain it has gone as far as leading to some remarkably fair coverage of the British National Party in general, and some stunning publicity opportunities for yours truly in particular. Here the real conspiracy nuts are having a field day: “Griffin’s sold out to the Jews, that’s why he gets media coverage and such fair treatment,” they squeal hysterically. Well, I can assure you that I’ve never had a midnight visit from a group of black clad rabbis to offer to exchange my soul for ten minutes with Eamonn Holmes on Sky News.

One or two others, slightly less hysterical but still obsessed by “the Jews”, suggest that my motivation for being so critical of Islam is the hope that “the Jewish media will go easy on the BNP.” In fact, I would have thought it self-evident that the BNP is critical of Islam for the simple reason that it is an aggressive imperialistic, anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-scientific, anti-human menace, and that it is on the verge - in historical terms - of conquering the whole of Europe (America would follow later, by instalments).

If a growing number of Jewish media personnel have also come to the conclusion that allowing large numbers of Third Worlders in general and Muslims in particular wasn’t such a good idea after all, and that it’s time to start bailing out their European lifeboat before it’s too late, then any resulting lowering in their traditional (and actually, in the wake of Mr. Hitler, understandable) tendency to be hostile to European ethnic consciousness can only be a good thing.

I had an interesting conversation with one of the Judeo-obsessives a couple of weeks ago. Although at least giving me credit for not having sold my soul for a purse full of shekels from the Learned Elders, but he did opine that “the Jews will never treat you fairly, they hate us too much.” When I pointed out that, during the Leeds Free Speech Trial, huge sections of the British media did indeed treat us remarkably fairly, he did a sudden about-face from the usual claim that said media are rigidly controlled.

“They don’t have every day control. Owners and editors just set the general tone and work by nudges rather than direct orders.” As you like it, but if that’s true then it stands to reason that adopting an ‘Islamophobic’ position that appeals to huge numbers of ordinary people - including un-nudged journalists - is going to produce on average much better media coverage than siding with Iran and banging on about “Jewish power”, which is guaranteed to raise the hackles of virtually every single journalist in the Western world.

Focus on the real goal

Some people may not like this fact, but that won’t make it any less potent, and it won’t make ignoring it any less disastrous in the real world - which, the ‘hardliners’ must try to remember, is the one in which those who would save our race must operate.

Since, for whatever reason, our recent position does seem to be softening media hostility towards us, it is clearly something we should continue with, and which fellow nationalists in other countries would do well to emulate. The alternative is to adopt the approach of London’s infamous Millwall soccer hooligans - “no one likes us, we don’t care.”

In case anyone hasn’t quite got how democratic politics - and even physical force, for that matter - works, let me spell it out in simple terms: If no one likes you, you won’t have enough people on your side to win. Perhaps some people are happy to live off collections from the converted or off selling books, but I want to win, because unless we win our people face extinction.

That is not to say that I necessarily want to be liked. I am sure, for a start, that this essay is going to upset some people and lose me a few friends, especially in the USA. That’s unfortunate, but it can’t be helped, for I simply cannot bear any longer to see people who should be working effectively for the survival of all we hold dear led down a blind alley by a small number of cranks, fools, crooks, self-publicists and (the larger number) good folks whose only failing is that they have never been forced to sit down and think logically about possible paths to the power without which all ideology and principles are in vain.

I have in the past been in that last category myself, so I know that there is a way out of it, that it’s better (though not necessarily more comfortable) to be out of it, and that I have a duty to help as many as possible of the willing victims of that mentality to get out of it.

For the truth is that, far from the BNP “dancing to the neo-con tune”, it is those ‘hardliners’ who would rather attack the Jews than the Muslims who are performing an extraordinarily useful function for the neo-cons: Demonising white nationalist opposition to their war as the preserve of KKKlowns, Nutzi crazies and conspiracy cultists.

In addition to this tactical consideration, there is also the little matter of truth: The neo-cons are mainly Jewish, but they are not “the Jews”. When it comes to Middle Eastern policy, they are a particular faction, an unofficial overseas agitprop department of Israel’s ruling Likud party.

To oppose their war is not to oppose “the Jews”, but only one group of Jews and their Christian-Zionist and plutocrat allies.

Jewish opponents to neo-cons

In fact, any anti-Semite worth his salt could just as easily ‘prove’ that it is “the Jews” who are behind the efforts to stop those nice Christians George Bush and Dick Cheney from making the world safe for American capitalism by killing all those A-rabs and confiscating their oil. Just look at the key players in the ‘American’ anti-war movement: Within days of 9/11, Susan “the white race is the cancer of history” Sontag was widely quoted in the US media sympathising with the Saudi kamikazes. And the now late and unlamented Sontag was by no means unusual.

Take a look at the list of leftist ‘opinion-formers’ who signed the “Not in Our Name” denunciation of the war in Iraq. Glance at the ‘intellectuals’ who formed the so-called New Left in the 1960s - Gerda Lerner, Maurice Zeitlin, Leslie Cagan, James Weinstein et al, and you’ll find them still active, manning the high command positions of all the groups that came together for the massive Stop the War demonstrations in the run up to the second Gulf War. Just take a look at the number of Jewish radical leftists in the American Civil Liberties Union.

Most striking of all is the report in Frontpage magazine about MoveOn.org. This is perhaps the biggest of the various American Internet organisations which worked during the 2004 primaries to win the Democratic nomination for the anti-war candidate Howard Dean. MoveOn.org was helped in this quest by a $15 million gift from none other than George Soros.

Now, if George, who despite his name is most definitely not of Greek extraction, had given a donation of that size to a pro-war think tank, the world Jewish conspiracy crowd would never let us hear the last of it. But since this inconvenient fact doesn’t fit in with their pre-determined thesis, they consign it to the memory hole. Even anti-Establishment ‘historical researchers’ have their own Ministry of Truth operations, which mix real facts, repeat research errors or downright lies, and ‘lose’ items that don’t fit the pattern they want to see.

But such dishonest or blindside self-censorship cannot change the actual facts: While the neo-cons are pushing for the ‘War on Terror’ (not actually for a Clash of Civilisations, for they are fervent multi-culturalists and supporters of mass cheap labour immigration, and so constantly reiterate the fiction that it’s only Islamist extremism that’s the problem, rather than Islam itself), their radical leftist Jewish cousins are frantically pulling in the other direction.

It may not always be Politically Correct even to name them as an ethnic group, but the plain truth is that individual Jews are prominent on both sides of this quarrel. Wow! There’s a surprise, since individual Christians, individual white atheists, and no doubt individual Red Indians find themselves in exactly the same position, on the opposite side of the war fence to their parents, siblings, cousins and childhood friends: Some for, some against, some don’t know.

Defensive position

Why are a disproportionate number of Jews involved in various movements? “So they can control both sides of the argument,” is the fallback position of the doctrinaire anti-Semites, and the fact that they can shift so quickly from ignoring inconvenient facts to incorporating them in their Grand Scheme is an indicator that we are dealing here with cultist faith rather than a rational assessment of facts.

Come on, George Soros doesn’t give $15 million to a cause with which he doesn’t agree, and all those leftwing Jews running the anti-war movement aren’t really pro-war and cunningly pretending to be anti-war just to stop the tactical geniuses of the anti-Semitic American ‘right’ from building a mass support base and sweeping to power. The sad truth is that most of them have shown themselves incapable of working out how to sweep a floor, let alone how to sweep to power.

This is not to say that all Jews are angels who can do no wrong. While some Jews have made valuable contributions to our civilisation, others have not. Marxism, the Frankfurt School, feminism, the multi-cult - one only has to make the most cursory study of the origin of such socially devastating movements to find radical leftists from East European Ashkenazi stock playing a vastly disproportionate role. Why?

Partly because it was in their ethnic self-interest - a weak gentile society is less likely to identify and persecute Jews than certain kinds of strong one. Conversely, evolutionary biological theory would predict that, in the coming war between Islam and the West (which predates the founding of the Zionist state, stemming as it does from the oil wealth of Wahhabi-dominated Saudi Arabia) that same ethnic self-interest will lead to some Jews becoming champions of the survival of Western civilisation. After all, if they don’t, their kind will be the first to have their throats cut along the road to the eternal night of Islamic despotism.

High intelligence

But there’s another reason for Jewish over-representation in all sorts of intellectual movements, which has no connection with ethno-centrism at all: On average, Jews are the cleverest people on the planet. Someone had to be, after all, and a people who have been selectively bred for intelligence by internal choice and external pressure for nearly two thousand years were always more likely to be brighter than groups which valued brawn more than brains. As a result, unless a certain intellectual, political or economic trend is directly opposed to self-perceived Jewish interests, it is likely to contain at or near the top a disproportionate number of individual Jews.

As a matter of fact, even intellectual movements that are opposed to self-perceived Jewish interests often attract individual Jews. Thus a young secular American Jew like David Cole could go to Auschwitz and make revisionist videos, and because they were happy with his message the anti-Semites thought he was the best thing since sliced bread.

Now the same people are happily sending around the press statement from Iran’s state-run news agency, Mehr, about the Tehran Holocaust revisionist conference. “Several anti-Zionist rabbis are in Tehran to take part in the conference,” said the statement. What have we here? Good Jews? Mad Jews? Or Satanically devious bad Jews who want to take over Holocaust revisionism and use it in their plot to take over the world?

See what I mean about this conspiracy drivel driving people mad? It is one thing to have a proper history of political conspiracy, such as a history of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution, that accepts the standards of normal historical evidence. It is quite another to have a conspiracy theory that won’t accept such evidence because it believes that the conspiracy is so powerful that it can fake any evidence it needs, and therefore forms an intellectual ‘closed loop’ from which there is no escape. Such a theory can ‘prove’ any possible claim and ignore any possible fact. Even if some of the facts on which it relies are true, the overall effect is therefore to take the theory out of the world of real history and to place it in the realms of pseudo-religious faith.

Jews in all camps

So let’s move on from the twistings and turnings and omissions of the conspiracy cult theorists and get back to some solid facts. What are we to make of the presence of Jews in movements that, far from being anti-white, are regarded by most white nationalists - conspiracy cranks included - as being good things? This is well illustrated by the briefest of glances at two pre- and post-WW2 ‘right-wing’ phenomena: The rise of Italian fascism, in which assimilated Italian Jews played a major part, not least the fact that Mussolini’s long-term Jewish mistress financed the March on Rome to the tune of 1 million lire.

More recently, Prof. Herrnstein was part of the duo of scientists whose Bell Curve was the book that broke the logjam holding back the now almost complete normalisation of scientific studies of genetically determined average racial difference, while Prof. Levin’s Why Race Matters also helped greatly in doing away with the lethal propaganda myth that to discuss such things was to seek to reopen Auschwitz.

Of course it is possible to point to negatives such as the NKVD and the Gulag system, the Frankfurt School or Richard Perle, but to fail to set these against positives - even if the latter are outweighed - is to leave the realms of fact and to descend through selective research to the madness which blamed Jews for the Black Death, and which marks out the proponents of such fantasies as cranks whom 99% of ordinary people will avoid like the plague.

Which brings me back to current events in the Middle East. Even if the war against Iraq, and the coming attack on Iran was a “Jewish plot”, to make that the great public reason for opposing would so terrify many Jews that they will be unable to accept that mass non-white immigration and multi-culturalism are now bigger threats to Jewish survival than anything else. Thus we would throw away the clear chance of some Jews who in the past have campaigned for immigration and against those who oppose it moving towards a position of confused neutrality on this issue, or even of seeing that helping us to reverse the tide of colour and Islamification is their only hope.

[Anyone who scoffs at this, and who is unaware of the furious private debate going on behind the superficially monolithic pro-immigration facade of American Jewish organisations in particular should read Dr. Stephen Steinlight’s thoroughly Judeocentric High Noon to Midnight - why current immigration policy dooms American Jewry, produced for the Center for Immigration Studies and available here.

The right words

The neo-Nazi “global Jewish conspiracy” line also triggers a Pavlovian PC reaction among most educated gentiles as well. Most journalists are not directly ordered to write or to bury specific stories, they just know the kind of things that can and cannot safely be said, and inevitably they also reflect the opinions of the wider society of which they are a part. Let’s look at how this works in practice:

Phrase A: “British or American soldiers should not be sent off to die in a dusty desert in order to bring ‘democracy’ to people who have never bothered to secure it for themselves and who do not appear to want it.”

This is to express the fundamental nationalist policy of keeping out of foreign wars that have nothing to do with us, in a way which guarantees the instinctive agreement of a large section of the population, and which even those who favour such intervention will admit is a position with its roots in commonsense, normal opinions well within our homegrown political traditions. Try it out in a bar or works canteen or bus queue near you, and see what I mean. Hard pressed to find anyone who disagrees? I’m not surprised.

Then rephrase the same demand for troop withdrawal and neutrality in the terminology of the knee-jerk anti-Semites who say that the BNP has ‘sold out’: “British or American soldiers should not be sent off to die in a dusty desert to serve the Jewish conspiracy for world domination.”

Try this Phrase B out on your non-political friends, workmates or neighbours and see what proportion agree. Go on, I’m serious - at least as far as saying that I don’t want to hear a squeak of disagreement with this article from anyone who isn’t willing to do so.

Consequences of siding with Islam

Having settled that point, let’s take a look at the longer term consequence of abandoning the true nationalist position of non-involvement in other people’s quarrels and siding with the Muslims: Those who agree with Iran that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map are - if they are involved in real life politics as opposed to juvenile posturing - setting themselves up to be asked, ‘what would you do with the Jews, then?’

What can those who want to see Hamas win actually say? Will they reveal psychopathic fantasies about exterminating five million Israelis - including many who are at this very moment campaigning for a peace deal with the Palestinians, and quite a few ultra-Orthodox ones who believe that the Zionist state is blasphemous (strange monolithic conspiracy, this one!) - or accept a flood of additional refugees into our already overcrowded West? Is it not far more realistic to be neutral, as nationalists are supposed to be? Let’s get real, it just isn’t our job to bother about the Middle East.

We should campaign to stop the EU helping to fund the Palestinian Authority and sucking up to the Arab world, not because we are or should be pro-Israel, but because there are far better things to do with our money, because we don’t want to drift into Eurabia, and because the entire place is of no proper concern of ours.

Even the question of oil should be dealt with by a Swedish-style crash programme to wean ourselves off the stuff, not least because it’s an environmental disaster and is going to become scarce and so impossibly expensive sooner or later anyway. The only thing of any interest to us is that potential flood of refugees. Apart from that, what happens in the Middle East should be a matter of sublime indifference to a properly run Western nation.

That reminds us that no Western nations are properly run at present, which is of course what we’re here to change. The proper approach for us to take to the adventures of Bush & Blair and those behind them is therefore to look for ways in which this conflict could help us on the road to power.

Clearly the neo-cons/oil companies/vain or stupid politicians, etc hope that they can have their Clash in the Middle East without paying any price closer to home. Perhaps they can pull this off, but past historical examples and a commonsense appraisal of the situation suggest this is very unlikely. The price they could easily pay for that war propaganda and pressure for the West to do their bidding in Middle East could be to so destabilise multi-racial Western societies that nationalists will stand a real chance of winning political power.

Psychological judo

Pretty much everyone with any experience in building and sustaining any kind of nationalist organisation knows that we get publicity by playing judo with the power of the media. With so much at stake, and so little time left, however, it is time to give much more careful thought about the aim of such tactics.

If it is just to get publicity for individuals, then harping on about “the Jews” is a very effective tactic. After all, it gets publicity, as it gives every single person with a scrap of power in the media - many but not all individuals from each of the following groups: liberals, capitalists, homosexuals, ethnic minorities, Jews, Marxists - both the means and often the motive to smear us all by association with crazies. In addition, it allows pro-war lobby to characterise opposition to their schemes as insane or wicked. If the neo-cons didn’t have the baggage-laden anti-Semites, especially in America, as bogeymen, they’d have to invent them.

Yet despite the glaring obviousness of this fact, there is still competition among some self-styled nationalists to see who can say the toughest things about “Jewish wars for Israel.” No doubt it pays rather well, for the historical actions of some Jews and Jewish organisations have created a sizeable (though statistically and politically irrelevant) number of people alienated from normal politics and willing to hand over their wallets to individuals or groups willing to deal in such material.

No doubt some of those (activists of German descent in particular) who push such material do so with the very best of intentions. Probably only a minority do so because it’s the most profitable form of Snake Oil they’ve been able to find. But whatever the motivation, the actual effect of their propaganda operations is the same: To widen the gulf between nationalism and the public, to make our job harder, and to leave the neo-cons even freer to push us into their wars, safe in the knowledge that nationalism will not be able to take advantage of the stresses their schemes place on the genocidal multi-cult that is destroying our world.

Laying out our stall

It is time for all nationalists to oppose Bush and Blair’s and the neo-cons’ Middle Eastern ventures on proper nationalist grounds. We should oppose the war-mongers on grounds of what they do, not what they are. For simple propaganda reasons we should go out of our way to avoid criticism of neo-cons being portrayed as ‘anti-Semitism’ by pointing to the contra-indicators: The huge peace movement in Israel, the radical left Jews opposed to the war in Western countries, the role of other motivations and interest groups - oil, reconstruction contracts, and the vanity of individual politicians.

Saying this is not a matter of “trying to get the support of the Jews in the media” (although looking for ways to weaken, even slightly, old hostilities that make the job of winning power harder is the proper concern of organisations that are serious about getting somewhere in the real world, as opposed to standing for ever on the sidelines hoping that a warm feeling of being virtuous will make up for the pain of losing) it is a matter of commonsense political tactics.

We should be positioning ourselves to take advantage for our own political ends of the growing wave of public hostility to Islam currently being whipped up by the mass media. This is not a matter of dancing to neo-con tunes, but of finding members of the public who are already used to the sound of that kind of music willing to cross over and dance to our tune.

For reasons of natural sentiment and neo-con war propaganda alike, the public will not join in any group dance which appears to include Muslims (in Britain and Europe in particular) or A-rabs (in the USA especially). And the more of our boys who come home in body bags, and the more the irresponsible neo-con project inflames the Islamic world against us, the more strongly this factor will affect the political climate.

In the real world, it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether the Danish cartoons furore or 9/11 were the work of Islamic fundamentalists with huge levels of support among ‘ordinary’ Muslims (for the record, my belief); or of Muslim extremists who no more represent mainstream Islam than the KKK represents white America; or of CIA or Mossad black bag teams seeking to stampede us into World War Three.

Spanner in the works

From the point of view of those of us working and organising to save the nations of the West and the great race that built them from irreversible subjection and subsequent extinction, it really doesn’t matter which group Providence has chosen to drop - at the eleventh hour - a giant spanner into the works of the multi-culti tolerance machine, and of the even bigger debt-recycling contraption that passes for the American economy on which it is perched.

Who dropped that spanner, and why they did so, will be a matter of interest to future generations of historians, and even perhaps the next generation of Western politicians. But for our generation, such arguments are - like putting ourselves in a position where the public could be persuaded that we are sympathetic to the enemy in the now unavoidable Clash of Civilisations - a luxury we cannot afford.

All we need to know is that the spanner has been dropped in among the whirring, clanking cogs and wheels, and that pieces of the multi-racial genocide machine are already breaking and flying off as a result. Sooner or later, one of those pieces may well in turn foul up something in the workings of the debt-recycling machine, and then opportunity will knock for those who are already organised and positioned to take full advantage of it.

In the meantime, we need to redouble our efforts to organise a credible and acceptable political alternative to the old parties and governing institutions which are so closely identified with those interlinked machines, and are going to be very badly damaged indeed as they fall apart under the strains of a war without borders or mercy.

In 1914, the Crowned Heads of Europe scarcely paused for thought as they gave the signal to start the First World War that, within three or four years, left them lying broken in the dust, their power destroyed forever. By the time this new conflict is over, those who started it may in turn have reason to rue the day they let slip the dogs of hate and war.

Our job is not to apportion blame for the chaos, but to position ourselves so as to take maximum advantage of it. There is no point standing like King Canute, ordering the tide to go and flood a different beach; rather, we must ride the wave of public opinion and harness its power for our own use.



by Robert Locke

The depth of the crisis facing Israel and other Western nations from Moslem terrorism, and more profoundly from Moslem immigration, is such that some unconventional political allies deserve a glance they would not otherwise merit. The small hard-right nationalist parties of Europe are among them, if only because they are sometimes the only political forces that are serious about this crisis in nations where the mainstream left is deluded and the mainstream right feckless.

The destruction of America by mass immigration is mirrored in most Western nations. The temptations of cheap labor for the business class that dominates rightist parties, and of electoral cannon fodder for the permanent-government class that dominates leftist parties, are the same everywhere. Even Israel has been affected, in the form of a not-so-secret addiction to cheap Arab labor that has created behind-the-scenes pressures to hang onto[1] a dangerous population.

Although mainstream anti-immigration groups in most Western nations have had no particular association with anti-Semitism in recent years, this has unfortunately not been true of the political parties that have taken opposition to immigration as their raison d'ĂȘtre. With some exceptions, these parties -- which exist in all Western nations except Ireland and the USA -- have tended to base themselves on old-school ethno-nationalism that is at best suspicious of Jews, and at worst sympathetic to Hitlerism[2]

But this is, fortunately, changing, which may eventually make such parties useful participants in the Clash of Civilizations. Let's take Britain as our example, and look at the changes in the British National Party (www.bnp.org.uk.)[3]

The BNP's origins are utterly unpleasant. It began as something called the National Front (NF) in the late 1960's, a noisy and occasionally violent protest group known for shaven heads and combat boots. If the NF wasn't formally Nazi -- this is Britain, after all, within living memory of the Blitz -- it clearly at least sympathized with Nazism. It was correct about immigration -- for which there is absolutely no conceivable reason in a small overcrowded island like Britain -- but otherwise a colorful horror show. Its rump version (natfront.org.uk)[4] still exists, and its founder, John Tyndall, recently died, unrepentant to the last.

The NF had no lasting accomplishments, though it was at one point in the early 70's the 4th-largest political movement in Britain, after Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Party. But in the late 1990's, elements of the British National Party, as a faction of the NF had renamed itself, sought to break out of fringe politics and go mainstream. They believed the country needed to be saved from immigration and the submersion of Britain in the EU[5] before it was too late.

Objectively, the immigration situation in the UK is not as bad as in the US, though deteriorating fast. Britain is currently 93% British, but decaying at about 1% per year. At present rates of immigration and demographic change, the British people will be a minority in Britain by 2050, as they already are in London. The present Blair government has done everything it can, lawfully and unlawfully, to increase immigration.

In the BNP, matters came to a head in a leadership struggle in 1999, in which the aforementioned Mr. Tyndall was ousted and replaced by Nick Griffin, a charismatic Cambridge-educated lawyer. Griffin set about reshaping the party into an organization capable of waging mainstream politics without abandoning its core convictions.

The party's core conviction has always been, in whatever incarnation, a fairly straightforward "Britain for the British" message: foreigners out, national sovereignty in. What is new is that today it is, by world standards, a fairly conventional right-wing populist ethno-nationalist party, having abandoned the fascistic trappings, tendency to violence, and weird obsessions that once characterized it.

The party's transformation is not wholly complete as of this writing. Some of the rank-and-file membership is clearly not as far along as its leadership. But, after four years of reform, the BNP seems to have managed a decisive break with its past and become a credible "major minor party," as they say in Britain. (In the UK, minor parties are considerably more important than in the US, both electorally and ideologically, though not as important as in Israel.)

The BNP's new ideological complexion is generally denied by its opponents, both on the left and on the establishment "right," which is as hostile to serious nationalism as the Republican Party in the US. But it seems to be real. The accusations of "sell-out" hurled at present BNP leadership by devotees of the old ways make this clear, if nothing else does.

It would seem, in fact, that there is no longer any basis to consider the party outside the scope of legitimate democratic politics - begging, of course, the question whether even truly noxious parties should be banned, if we take democracy seriously. Such participation is something the party's opponents, from the Blair government on down, are trying to deny it, sometimes in ways that raise questions about Britain's claim to be democratic.

When last in the UK, I interviewed chairman Nick Griffin about his party at his farmhouse in the mountains of Wales, soaking wet from opening farm gates in the rain but gradually drying out in front of his fireplace. The root change, as he saw it, was the change from being centered on hating foreigners to being centered on a love of one's own country. As he put it,

"At the end of the day, it's always the positive agendas that win in politics. Anger about what is being done to this country is legitimate, but mere anger just leads to hooliganism and political impotence. It attracts angry activists who can't behave themselves or articulate an agenda, and once you've milked the public's resentments, you've got nothing more to offer them and you stall politically. It's the positive vision of a restored and redeemed Britain that's the key for us now."
In the last year or so, the BNP has completed the final stages of its ideological reforms. The three big things that had to go were anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, and fascist-socialist economics. To wit:

1. The BNP has now evolved to the point where it doesn't have any significant antagonism towards Jews as such, or towards Israel. Unlike the left, it has no interest in Palestinians or the larger Arab cause, and it takes the Islamic threat seriously. It has zero inclination to actively side against Israel, simply because it really wants to have nothing to do with the Middle East at all. Griffin said:

"As nationalists, our duty is to work to build a better country for our own people, not to worry about or interfere in the affairs of others. The Middle East is simply not our problem or our business."
To some extent, this attitude just reflects the fact that ethno-nationalist parties ultimately reflect, naturally enough, the national characters of the nations they represent. Britain, although snobbish, is simply not a particularly anti-Semitic culture by European standards. It has historically had, going back to Benjamin Disraeli's tenure as Prime Minister in the 1870's, a greater presence of Jews on the political right than, say, the US or France, let alone Russia or Germany. Thatcher had a lot more Jewish support in her country than Reagan had in the US.

This attitude is also a reflection of the fact that Britain's great religious enemy right now, Islam, is not only obviously not Jewish, but is itself an obvious enemy of Jews, and thus tends to put British and Israeli nationalists on the same side of a global struggle. And the BNP is immensely serious about fighting the Islamification of Britain. As Griffin put it,

"We are deeply concerned about the mainly -- though not exclusively - French elite project to morph the EU, Turkey and the Mahgreb into 'Eurabia'. Bat Y'eor is 100% right about this. If this now far-advanced scheme comes to fruition then it would in turn lead to the Islamification of the whole European continent. A generation ago the revival of the historic Islamic threat to Europe would have been unthinkable; now it is clearly destined to be the great issue and decision of our time. For us, the closely linked threats of mass Third World immigration and Islamification outweigh all other considerations.
On the specific question of anti-Semitism, Griffin said this:

"Look -- we have very serious enemies in this country, both at home and abroad. If you're going to go with that old [National Front] nonsense of Jews under every bed and responsible for all the ills of the world, then you're going to have a crazy strategic vision of who you're fighting and what to do about it. The idea that 'the Jew is the enemy' is simply over for us now, and not a moment too soon, because now we can get on with the real struggles."
He qualified this by saying:

"We insist on the right to criticize individual Jews who do wrong or Jewish groups which use the influence and power that all organized and motivated groups have to lobby, for example, for British foreign policy to take directions at odds with our national interest. But there is a world of difference between such criticism and the old fantasies about Learned Elders of Zion controlling the world, and the rabid anti-Semitism that they reflect and incite."
Clearly, this qualification is elastic, and could be abused. But one notes that it would rule out, if sincere, even a Pat Buchanan level of anti-Israelism or anti-Semitism. And the BNP does seem to have dropped the Jewish Conspiracy angle: while it opposed the Iraq war, and did complain about Jews who lobbied for Britain to fight in it, this was not generalized into attacks on the Jewish community as such and was peripheral to blaming the war on Tony Blair and the pursuit of oil.

One sign of this reformed attitude towards Jews is that the BNP not only has Jewish members, but even has a Jewish officeholder: Councilor Pat Richardson, elected last year by residents of the borough of Epping Forest, just north of London.

2. The old National Front had been suspicious towards the United States as a foreign power occupying Britain, an antagonism muted during the Cold War by fanatic anti-communism. But the BNP has now adopted a foreign-policy stance whose self-described essence is "staying out of trouble," i.e. avoiding foreign conflicts. So while it is unwilling to fight wars on behalf of the US, it has rejected doctrinaire anti-Americanism. It even suggested, in its official 2005 manifesto,[6] that it would allow American military bases to remain on British soil -- albeit, it seems, reluctantly and on account of realpolitik considerations of not wanting to provoke American opposition and needing a counterbalance to the power of continental Europe.

3. The BNP was originally, and until recently, at heart a socialist party with an economic policy based on 1930's fascist models that have largely been forgotten outside far-right fringe movements. The party's generally working-class orientation (its voters are largely alienated white working class; its leadership is generally upper-working-class with a sprinkling of the exceptionally independent-minded highly educated) made socialism natural, as did its early recognition that mass immigration to Britain was largely driven by business interests. However, Margaret Thatcher killed the credibility of socialism in Britain, so the party has since moved towards a form of economic nationalism that combines worker-owned ESOP capitalism (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) with an admiration for the paternalistic developmental economics of East Asian nations like Japan and the Asian "tigers."

Economics has not generally been the center of its message, but may become more prominent if Britain suffers a serious recession, which seems to be impending. The party has for some time been accusing the present government of selling out the nation's long-term economic future, so it probably stands to benefit from a downturn.

Despite these changes, the party is still handicapped by its past, simply because its pre-reform era remains a recent memory in the mind of the British public. Its opponents can still plausibly, if inaccurately, call it "fascist" and bring up past violent incidents of its supporters. Although it is impossible to quantify with absolute confidence, probably 10-15% of currently reported incidents are actually real, the rest being either a) ancient history, b) wholly fabricated, c) exaggerated, d) perpetrated by other organizations, e) routine working-class rowdiness, or f) speech crimes and other offences that would not be considered crimes at all in the US.

Given that the British government is known to employ agents provocateurs, given the interest of the British race-relations industry in fabricating or exaggerating incidents to justify its own power, and given the plethora of left-wing groups involved in seeking, stirring up, or faking trouble, one must apply some discount to what one hears about the BNP. Equally, one must remember that some of these stories are true. But given that the ruling Labour Party still has its labor-union thugs and the Conservatives its crooked businessmen, it is doubtful that the BNP is more indictable for lawlessness than the major parties.

The British voting public -- which is deeply dissatisfied with the mainstream political establishment in Britain and eager for alternatives to listen to, if not actually vote for -- seems to be gradually, and with due skepticism, picking up on the fact that the BNP has changed. This will take longer with the political and journalistic establishment, which has a vested interest in keeping this newly-mainstream political competitor "beyond the pale." When the BNP isn't criticizing the destruction of Britain by immigration and the EU, it is usually, criticizing the incompetence, corruption, and fraudulence of the present government and opposition, something that hardly endears it to them.

The BNP has accused Tony Blair's ruling Labour government of waging an empty war on terror. It has accused this government of ignoring supposedly effective solutions, like establishing effective border controls and ending Moslem immigration, and resorting instead to measures that either make the problem worse, like invading Iraq, or amount to mere power grabs and authoritarian posturing. It has claimed that while the government's proposed new anti-terror law will violate legal due process and the rights of the accused, this government has so vitiated the police with political correctness that it is unable to enforce existing laws with ethnic minorities. It has argued that without serious enforcement of such laws against crimes like illegal immigration, people smuggling, illegal weapons, ordinary gangsterism, and drug smuggling, any anti-terror effort is doomed from the start, because such non-political crimes are the foundation of terrorist operations.

The BNP has also opposed the government's attempts to abolish such basic legal rights as trial-by-jury even for non-terrorist cases. It has a curious de facto ideological alliance on such questions with some British civil libertarians, which extends to its opposition to national identification cards and other illiberal measures.

In the May 2005 British election, the BNP hounded the opposition Conservatives with accusations of insincerity in their pledge to reduce immigration. As this pledge has been made and broken by successive Conservative governments for decades, this seems to have resonated with the public, and the BNP probably thus played at least a small role in Michael Howard's defeat. That British voting turnouts are at record lows suggests that the BNP's main electoral effect, thus far, has been to undermine public confidence in both major parties, despite not capturing a large vote for itself.

The BNP is subject to continuous harassment by the government, which subjects it to police surveillance and other measures that are quite surprising to learn of in a democratic nation -- though similar things are, of course, done in Israel to dissident parties. Arbitrary arrests of its leadership, seizures of party literature, interference with its bank accounts, and attempts to fire its members from public-sector employment are routine. This harassment may subside in future, if the party's new-found legitimacy becomes more widely recognized, or it may not, probably depending on how much public sympathy it wins.

Most Americans are unaware that British law makes it actually illegal to say things like,

"Islam[7] is a wicked and evil faith,"

Which BNP chairman Griffin is soon to be on trial for saying, with real jail time as a possible outcome. Americans who admire Tony Blair because he consented to send Britain's tiny army to Iraq have no idea how terribly he is repressing basic freedom of speech at home. The penetration of European Union law into British law only makes things worse, based as it is on a Napoleonic tradition that lacks Anglo-American ideas about freedom of speech.

The BNP's effectiveness is enhanced by the existence of a "respectable" doppelganger, the United Kingdom Independence Party (ukip.org),[8] which began as a quit-the-European-Union movement but has morphed into a polite bourgeois imitation of about 80% of what the BNP stands for. The mainstream political establishment seems to have deliberately promoted UKIP to steal the BNP's thunder, but then the respectability of UKIP has meant that the BNP's ideas, which are mostly similar, can no longer be dismissed as fringe. And the BNP has "street cred" (credibility) with the alienated working class, which its genteel doppelganger doesn't, and Britain still being Britain, class still matters.

The EU is an aspiring superstate[9] that aims to displace America from its dominant world position, if not become the outright nucleus of a world government.[10] Recent popular votes in several European states against further EU integration have been answered by the EU establishment with plans to continue with the federal project regardless. It has been giving a billion Euros a year (roughly a billion dollars) to the Palestinian Authority, plus the legitimacy of recognition. The BNP's opposition to such funding, and to the EU itself, therefore places it in a very interesting position for anyone who cares about Israel. It is, at the very least, an interesting creature to watch, and not the monster it once was.


1. Locke, Robert, "Is Population Transfer the Solution to the Palestinian Problem -- And Some Others?," July 8, 2003,

2. Locke, Robert, Rethinking History: Were the Nazis Really Nationalists?" August 28, 2001,

3. http://www.bnp.org.uk/

4. http://www.natfront.com/

5. Locke, Robert, "Abolish The European Union," June 5, 2002,

6. http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/manifesto.htm

7. Locke, Robert, "Islam: A Defective Civilization?" February 28, 2002,

8. http://www.ukip.org/

9. Locke, Robert, "Abolish The European Union," June 5, 2002,

10. Locke, Robert, "Conspiracy Theory and the National Question," July 24, 2004,