Sunday, October 28, 2007


As readers will know, the press hounds were sniffing around the British National Party in August hoping to help themselves to some tit bits following the news of my expulsion from the party.
Unfortunately, they were given some by representatives of the BNP leadership, who were only too ready to blab their mouths off on matters that are internal to the party and should not be disclosed to the media.
There were reports in The Times and The Observer which, only too predictably, supplied fuel to the theory that the divisions in the party are over policy and ideology. The Times report spoke of internal discontent over the 'watered-down' policies of Nick Griffin and went on to quote one 'senior source' as saying:-
'We are not a Nazi Party, but people in Burnley were being seduced by John Tyndall's rhetoric. He was leading people astray, trying to split the party, attacking the leadership.'

I would like to know who this 'senior source' is but if he/she cared to contact any Burnley BNP member who was at the meeting at which I spoke last May they could confirm that during my speech I uttered not a word about party internal divisions nor even mentioned the party leadership. As for saying that the BNP is not a Nazi Party, that is to raise a total red herring. I said nothing at the meeting to suggest the BNP should be a Nazi party, and I challenge anyone to produce a shred of evidence to the contrary.

The Observer spoke of a 'power struggle' in the BNP and went on to say that I was expelled "as its chairman, Nick Griffin, seeks to portray the organisation as a more mainstream body in a bid to attract new voters." Red herrings again! There is not the slightest disagreement between Mr. Griffin and myself over the fact that the BNP should aspire to be a mainstream party and attract new voters. It was set firmly on this course from about 1990 onwards long before Mr. Griffin came anywhere near it.

The report went on to state that "BNP modernisers said Tyndall was expelled due to his extreme views." This is nonsense, and if someone in the party made such an allegation he/she is guilty of total distortion. Nothing in the charges against me said anything about my views, only about my alleged actions. Of course, whether my views were an underlying reason for my expulsion is another question.

We have taken issue with Mr. Griffin over certain public relations stunts and 'gimmicks', which we believe have not gained us a single extra voter and only serve to demoralise the party internally: Sikh columnists being given space in the party newspaper; candidates endorsing black sons-in-law; talk of a few ethnic minorities in Britain being better than none at all; declarations that an all-white Britain is neither desirable nor feasible.
But, these errors apart, we are at one with everybody in the BNP over the principle that the party should present itself with an image of reasonableness, decency and civilised behaviour and should, whatever it may say on racial issues, avoid expressions of hate.

This is what makes so downright dishonest Nick Griffin's article in the July issue of Identity magazine, which consists of a four-page tirade against me, no doubt intended to prime members to accept my kicking out of the party. I could go through this article point-by-point and refute in detail every political allegation made, but that would take excessive space and I decline to do so. I will just deal with two particularly misleading references.

At one point Mr. Griffin says:-
'The fact that our spokesmen can be guaranteed not to launch into tirades of racist abuse or turn up wearing boots and braces provides them [the media] with the reassurance they need to be able to justify... giving us a platform.'

The clear implication here is that I favour BNP interviewees facing the media with boots and braces and yelling racist abuse at them. Mr. Griffin knows that this is a million miles from the truth but he chooses to let his readers think it actually reflects my ideas on political tactics. In fact, in the interview with Mark Collett on the Dispatches programme in November last year the BNP went far closer to projecting this image than I would have ever allowed.

In another passage Mr. Griffin refers to John Tyndall's "self-serving thesis that people are getting so desperate that they'd vote for a pig in a nazi armband if it stood for the BNP..." This is so pathetic, and reeking of desperation, that it is hardly worth dignifying with a reply. I have given ample chapter and verse in numerous articles in these columns to show that not so very far back Mr. Griffin himself was striking political postures far more extreme than anything I have endorsed for a long time - the most noteworthy example being an article in 1995 in a journal of which he was editor praising the Waffen SS, and more recently than that his talk of meeting left-wing opposition with "a well-aimed nationalist fist or boot."

The truth is that Nick Griffin's pose as a political leader of 'moderation' is so transparently phoney that it can quite easily be demolished by any media hack at any time who cares to do a little research into his verbal and written utterances of the not-so-distant past; and if he wants to play the game of digging up old photographs, as he did with his July article, people might ask him about the one taken of him visiting Libya just 14 years ago and posing in front of a gigantic portrait of Colonel Gaddafi. Gaddafi, it might be worth reminding readers, helped to finance the IRA, was behind the gang responsible for the killing of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in a London street in 1984 and is generally perceived (rightly or wrongly) to have instigated the Lockerbie air disaster.

Avoiding the arguments
I allowed myself to become involved in some foolish political associations back in my late twenties (I am now 69). There is thus a four-decade gap separating me from those escapades. Like Mr. Griffin, I have made some past political mistakes; but unlike Mr. Griffin, I do not dishonestly exploit the past mistakes of others to deflect attention from current arguments. A number of us in nationalism have been guilty of indiscretions in our earlier political careers, some a long time ago, some not such a long time ago. On these matters we should present a united front, affirming that the important thing is what we propose for Britain today, not what we may have said about foreign politicians in bygone days. Least of all should any nationalist worthy of the name attempt to score cheap points over another nationalist by raking up past errors as a substitute for intelligent debate over matters of the here and now. This is to play the game of Searchlight and the equally obnoxious Express newspaper group.

Long ago, I came to realise that as far as Nick Griffin is concerned policy stances are simply things to be adopted or discarded in accordance with how they further his ends in the factional wars in which, for his whole political life, he seems to have been engaged. His tactics are nothing if not consistent. He ascertains the policy stance of the person he perceives to be his current rival, and he then adopts a different one - so that he can then present his position as arising out of political necessity rather than egotism and ambition. He gets away with this with many people because he has a silver tongue that at times can be extremely persuasive. It takes getting to know the man to see through his tricks.

I have covered these matters in order to get to what is really the core of the issue; and the core of the issue is the personality and character of Nick Griffin; not policy arguments, not ideology, not questions of party 'imagery'.

Portent of disaster
It was after some three years of close acquaintance with Mr. Griffin that I foresaw that his assumption of the leadership of the BNP would portend disaster for the party. I have not changed that view despite some very favourable election results that the party has enjoyed since the Summer of 2001 - results that I attribute to factors far removed from Mr. Griffin's leadership and his U-turns in policy. I would incidentally say also that our earlier election victory in East London in 1993 was in no way due to anything I did myself when then leader but was entirely the result of a happy marriage between local anger against immigration and an excellent campaign by our local activists - factors which have so immensely helped us in various parts of the country over the past couple of years.

I have said this before but I will say it again: As far back as the mid-1990s I was already thinking about the desirability of finding a replacement BNP leader younger than I, and I had started to see considerable attractions in a life which, though still busy, would be free from the intense pressures that weigh on the head of the party.

But I have to say that I never saw Mr. Griffin as the right person. From the very start there was something about him that inspired doubt. On this, my wife was far more emphatic. She has met nearly all my main political associates over the years, and I have never known her to be wrong in her personal assessment of a single one of them. From the very first moment she met Griffin she warned me that I should never trust him. I conceded that she could well be right but, nevertheless, I needed some new blood in the party leadership team, particularly in the writing field, where up till then far too much fell on me.
I needed someone to take over the editorship and production of Spearhead so that I could give my almost exclusive time and attention to party matters. I took a gamble in taking Griffin on, while resolving to keep a careful eye on him.

It became clear to me after working with him for some time that he had joined the BNP simply and solely for his own ends. I had been warned of this from the beginning by one or two people who knew him, and it was not long before I realised that their warnings had been correct. He had a history of playing disruptive roles in virtually every organisation with which he had been involved, but at the time I was willing to put this down to the immaturity of youth. I later realised too late that he had not changed a jot.

Biting the hand that fed
Griffin did not perform the duties on Spearhead for nothing; I paid him, as is necessary with the work involved in a publication of our size, quality and frequency. In addition to this, he was also paid for doing certain jobs for the BNP, mainly the writing of bulletins. As proprietor of Spearhead and leader of the BNP, I provided Nick Griffin with his living for some three years. Right from the start, he showed his appreciation and gratitude by plotting and scheming against me.
Treachery of this kind I have not known in some forty-plus years of involvement in nationalist politics, during which I have encountered some pretty despicable people.

When Griffin launched his takeover bid in 1999, I was in no way surprised. What did surprise me were the forces in the party that he had working for him. I had had some inkling of these from the effusions of Patriot magazine but I have to say that I totally underestimated the poison they had spread and the gullibility of so many of those on whom they had worked. Many of the latter have subsequently expressed to me their bitter regret that they were taken in by the Griffin faction, but the fact is that taken in they were at that crucial moment in the party's progress. (NWN :This current writer was also taken in by the crook Griffin.The biggest mistake I have ever made in my life. Nick Griffin is a crook and a charlatan.)

Our achievement pre-Griffin

And there was progress.
The Griffin propaganda machine has skilfully manufactured a myth about the "bad old days" preceding the leadership change, but the fact is that in the two years before Mr. Griffin's takeover the BNP had increased its membership by almost 90 per cent.
It put up a full slate of candidates in England and Scotland in the Euro Elections in 1999 and won TV time. Its vote over the country was steadily increasing, though it had not yet experienced the dramatic increase that later led to several councillors being elected. This big upsurge began in certain northern towns in the general election of June 2001, and the catalyst that caused it was undoubtedly the race riot in Oldham just three weeks previously.
This gave the party a new credibility rating that led to council seats being won the following year and again in 2003. The fact is, however, that between the leadership change in September 1999 and June 2001 (nearly two years) there was no significant rise in BNP votes that marked anything new from what had already been occurring for some time. When Nick Griffin himself stood as the party's candidate in West Bromwich West in November 2000 he obtained a very mediocre 794 votes (4.2 per cent) in an area which had always been very fertile nationalist territory. This was a mere 13 votes more than a previous BNP candidate, Steve Edwards, had achieved in just one ward in the same constituency a few months earlier!

Fiasco in West Midlands

Mention of Steve Edwards brings us to the story of how Nick Griffin virtually wrecked the BNP in the West Midlands as a result of his paranoid witch hunt against Steve and his wife Sharron in the late Summer of 2000. Steve and Sharron, among others, had raised some awkward questions about Nick's management of party finances.
The next thing was that, like many before and after them, they found themselves expelled by Griffin from the party.
Sharron Edwards had in fact been the region's chosen candidate for West Bromwich West, but Griffin deselected her at the same time as expelling her. He was later forced to reinstate the Edwards as members following an angry protest meeting in the area in support of them, but Sharron was not reinstated as the West Bromwich candidate.
The result?
Disgusted local activists who had been prepared to campaign for her, and had in fact already started to do so, refused to campaign for Griffin.
The latter was forced to import campaign helpers from other areas to make any kind of showing at all, but it was not enough.
The opportunity for an excellent vote was thrown away.

The Edwards and a large portion of the then BNP West Midlands membership then left the party and took part in the formation of the breakaway Freedom Party, on behalf of which Sharron Edwards is now a councillor. I believed this to be a big mistake and advised Steve and Sharron against it.
However, their anger against their treatment by Griffin was such that I failed to persuade them to stay in the BNP. Prior to their departure, the BNP in the West Midlands was experiencing a tremendous boom similar to that which it later enjoyed in the North West of England, and had Griffin not wrecked everything it could today be as strong as the North West.
It has made a partial recovery but is still very far from what it was prior to the Summer of 2000.

Steve and Sharron Edwards had previously supported Griffin's candidature in the BNP leadership ballot in 1999, and their names and photos were prominently featured in this capacity in some of the Griffin campaign literature. They were to become badly disillusioned. In a letter to me in December 2000 they said:-

'The current leader Nick Griffin is a... and a... (words deleted to avoid possible libel action)... Decent people have been badly let down...Griffin has wrecked and factionalised every movement he has been associated with... If Griffin is replaced, we may be able to join forces again.'

The reference to wrecking and factionalising is significant.
Griffin is in fact well on the way to doing this to the BNP as a whole, whereas prior to his entry it enjoyed 14 years of almost total harmony. Before that, he accomplished much the same thing with the National Front, and this is why we have given considerable space to the story of the NF break-up in 1986 earlier in this issue. But Nick does not seem content with this record.
He seems to want to extend it.
The latest area of his wrecking operations is the very one where the BNP has been doing best of all in the last couple of years: Lancashire and the North West.

Vendetta against Burnley BNP
The full story of the damage Griffin has been doing in this region is much too long and detailed to fit into this article; others are working on that and before long we may have the chance to study it. Here I will just give a few of the barest of bare bones.

Somehow Nick has managed to alienate a large portion of leading activists in the most successful branch of all, the Burnley branch. Local people are better qualified than I am to give chapter and verse as to how this has happened. My own vantage point is a limited one and connected with my own personal experience. I was invited to speak at a Burnley branch meeting on the 1st August 2002. This infuriated Griffin when he heard about it and he employed all the persuasion he could to get the then organiser, Steve Smith, to cancel the invitation. Steve, to his great credit, stood firm. From then on, it became clear that his card was marked.

Spearhead gave a full account of that event in its September 2002 issue and I will not repeat all the details here save to say that, mysteriously, Anti-Nazi League demonstrators turned up on the evening, whereas they had not been present at any previous Burnley BNP meeting nor have been since.
Who tipped them off about the meeting and my appearance at it as speaker?
You can make up your own mind!

The meeting, notwithstanding all this, was very successful - but not nearly as successful as the one which took place on May 29th of this year, when 140 people turned up to hear speeches by Richard Edmonds and myself. This further angered Griffin. An inside report I received from friends in the party told me that at a private meeting at Blackburn just previous to the Burnley one Griffin had hatched a scheme to disrupt the latter.
The plan was that one of his (Griffin's) acolytes would be present at the Burnley meeting accompanied by a group of 'heavies'. At a certain point in my speech the acolyte would stage a protest, whereupon if anyone tried to restrain him the heavies would move in and a violent scene would ensue. Then Griffin would be able to claim that wherever Tyndall speaks at BNP meetings there is disorder.

The plan went badly wrong. As the meeting proceeded, the Griffin acolyte could see that his brawny companions were reacting so enthusiastically to Richard Edmonds' and my speeches that he would be unlikely to get their support if he tried to make trouble. He remained silent and nothing happened. The meeting went smoothly and was a terrific success.

Apparently, Searchlight got hold of the story and printed it, but in this case the fact does not make the story untrue. My own source for it is much more reliable.

I have spoken at other meetings in the North West over recent months, in all of them getting a very good reception, and was down to speak at more when Griffin contrived my expulsion. It is very clear that he was getting frightened that I might influence local members.


The upshot of all this - combined with other factors with which I am not connected is that there is now widespread dissatisfaction with the party leadership in this the BNP's strongest and most successful region. Nick Griffin seems to have alienated, one by one, a large portion of the local leaders and leading activists in the region, and the latest is that Steve Smith, the initial architect of the party's tremendous success in Burnley (others have played important parts more lately), has been driven out of his position in the branch. Actually he chose to leave of his own accord, but it was his treatment by Griffin that led to this.

I have had to spend a great deal of time on the telephone in the past few months endeavouring to bolster the morale of people in the North West of England and persuade them that on no account should they quit the party.

I believe that if Nick Griffin is allowed to continue his jealous and vindictive rampage he will wreck the Lancashire and North West BNP just as he did the West Midlands three years ago and the National Front many years before that.

It gives me no satisfaction to say that the warnings I gave about Nick Griffin back in 1999, ignored as they then were by many, have been overwhelmingly vindicated.

As readers will know from the opening words of this article and from last monthly report, I am currently a non-member of the BNP, having joined the long list of people who have been expelled from nationalist parties by the machinations of Nick Griffin.
I am planning to take legal action over this but for the moment am barred from BNP meetings, along with several others.

One of the counts on which Griffin's disciplinary tribunal expelled me was that I had 'slandered' him personally (libel is the correct term but we will not split hairs). Nick alleges that I have made defamatory remarks about him.

The 'gay' story
Well, it is interesting to learn that Nick Griffin these days considers defamation of himself a cause for action against the defamer, for this did not seem to be his attitude back in 1999, when a former high ranking National Front official, Martin Webster, put out a circular alleging a homosexual relationship between himself and Griffin back in the late 1970s. Webster, in doing this, challenged Griffin to take him to court for libel if the allegation was untrue. Griffin declined to do so, arguing that as Webster was a 'man of straw' he would not get any damages off him.
This completely side-tracked the main issue, which was not one of money but of the personal honour and reputation of the leader of the BNP, and thus of the BNP itself.

But it was not only Webster whom Griffin could have sued. The story was covered in both The Sunday Times and Searchlight magazine, in the latter case being written in tones which gave credence to Webster's claims. Neither of these publications are exactly without assets, and Griffin could have got tidy sums off them had he taken them to court and won.

But he chose not to - which makes it strange that he is now so sensitive to imagined 'defamation' by me and has had me hounded out of the BNP for my troubles. As to whether Webster's story of a homosexual affair with Griffin was true or not, I simply don't know.

But what I do know is that if it was not true Griffin should have sought satisfaction in a court of law. He did not, and it is now well past the time limit for him to do so. If the story is again raised either by Webster or anyone else, it will be his duty to take immediate legal action to squash it - because the good name of the BNP is at stake, not just his own.

It will be gleaned from what I have said in this article that I believe that the removal of Nick Griffin from control of the BNP is essential to the party's long-term health and national credibility - and, in the shorter term, to its internal harmony and unity. The man is a wrecker, wherever he goes and whatever he gets into. Throughout his political career he has left a long trail of disillusioned one-time supporters and betrayed and disgusted one-time friends.

The takeover tendency
Griffin's takeover of the BNP might be likened to the familiar practices of certain people in the world of business. First, an enterprise is founded and built up by the vision, dedication, hard work and sacrifice of a number of pioneers, who have faith in the idea behind it and slave away with perseverance to make it a going concern. Then, once it becomes just that, a going concern, the big business sharks move in and through unscrupulous boardroom politics take it away from its founders to exploit it for themselves. We know who are the people most adept at this kind of operation.

When the BNP was founded in 1982, Nick Griffin was one of those on the sidelines, sneering at and deprecating our efforts in the columns of the publications with which he was then involved - all publications, incidentally, which folded up a long time ago and have not been seen since (these people can never sustain anything for long).

But when in the early 1990s the BNP started to move ahead and show some excellent results in elections it was then that our Nick changed his attitude towards us. He began to become friendly, and he built some fraternal contacts with our Croydon branch. It was not very long after we won our first council seat in Millwall in September 1993 that he started to write to me. One thing led to another and, bit by bit, Nick got his feet under the table of the BNP - something for which I must bear the main share of the responsibility, notwithstanding the mitigating circumstances I have explained earlier in this article.

Talent wasted
Now in a position of control, Griffin is directing the party on a basis of favouritism towards his friends and vicious hatred towards those of talent and ability who are prepared to stand up to him. The result is that the BNP is only employing a part of its real human resources: promotions are made of those prepared to be subservient - or, if people of genuine merit do get promoted inadvertently, they will be doomed to have their rise in the party curbed the moment they give the slightest hint that they are unprepared to accept lackey status. I have numerous witnesses to this.

There are still some fine and very able people in the senior circles of the BNP, not-withstanding all this. But they are aware of the need for them not to show dissent if they are to continue occupying responsible positions and giving the party the full benefit of their abilities. For the most well-meaning of reasons, their dissatisfaction is muted. Were it not, Griffin would have a whole lot more problems of personnel than he already has, and he has problems enough.
And indeed we would be witnessing yet more expulsions!

But alongside these excellent servants of the BNP there are also, inevitably, a number of pure toadies of the kind that get close to the top of any political party, not by performance but by flattery and yes-manship. I have come to see a number of them through close acquaintance over the years - people who, when I was seen to be 'on top', were eager to declare their loyalty to me but underwent an indecently rapid change of allegiance once this situation no longer applied. They are of the type who, if Griffin were defeated and down tomorrow, would be pushing to the front of the queue to kick him.

Last, but not least in importance, there are a few who have their own particular agendas. I suspect that these people mostly harbour the same personal contempt for Mr.Griffin as I have, but find him a useful tool in their designs.

Riding on a roll
At the moment the one thing going for Nick is the fact that the BNP is, election-wise, on a roll - with the Thurrock win just the latest case in point. As long as there is the widespread perception in the party, however mistaken it is, that he and his policy somersaults have some connection with this, he will survive for a while, and any premature bid to unseat him in an election would be a charge of the Light Brigade. Not only do I and my allies know this, but he also knows it. Hence his insufferable arrogance and hubris and his belief that he can carry on conducting purges against anyone who crosses him - and get away with it.

For four years, while being critical of some of Nick Griffin's policy decisions, I have held back from giving him the full treatment in terms of personal assessment. In view of recent events, I no longer feel constrained to do so. Hence this article and the one preceding it.

At my stage of life, I do not care over-much whether I ever again become BNP leader or not.
I never was obsessed with this position as Nick Griffin very clearly is.
If future events should take a turn that led to a demand for me to come back, I would be available as a matter of duty.
However, from my point of view the much preferred solution is that a younger man emerge from out of the many talented people we are now recruiting and show the ability and willing to take over the reins and lead the party forth into the future. If such a person does appear he will have no firmer supporter than me.

But first things first.
Before anything permanent can be done, we have to get rid of the wrecker-in-chief.

Action for reinstatement of John Tyndall - Legal Fund
Last month, at the end of a report on the expulsion of Spearhead editor John Tyndall from the British National Party, it was stated that Mr. Tyndall would be taking legal action to secure reinstatement, and that we would be launching a fund to help meet the costs involved.
Mr. Tyndall has in fact placed the case in the hands of a London solicitor, and just before our going to press with this issue he received a letter from the solicitor giving a favourable opinion on his prospects of success in the action.
It has, however, been necessary to supply our solicitors with an 'up-front' payment in order to get the case on the move, and further costs of this kind will be incurred in due course.
Mr. Tyndall does have access to a special fund arising from a legacy from a deceased supporter, which has been placed at his disposal for political use to be decided at his own discretion. However, we wish to dip into this fund to the very minimum extent necessary. We are therefore launching what will be known as the 'Spearhead Legal Fund' with a view to raising the money to cover most, if not all, of the costs incurred in this action. Should Mr. Tyndall win the case and be awarded his full costs, the money will of course be recovered. In that event we will confer with the main contributors concerning its disposal.

A supporter in Lancashire has kick-started the fund with a donation of £50.00, for which we are most grateful. Further donations should be made out to our publishers, Albion Press, and sent to our usual address at: P.O. Box 2471, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 4DT.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Steve Smith ruffling a few feathers again !

From todays Lancashire Telegraph:

'Race hate' probe over party's leaflet

A RACE investigation has been launched into a political leaflet distributed to thousands of Burnley homes by a far right group.
The leader of Burnley Council is also considering legal action against the England First party after claiming that the leaflets were 'peddling hatred'.
Burnley Police's hate crime and diversity unit began its probe after the publication was sent to homes in the Brunshaw, Gannow, Rosegrove and Cliviger areas.

Councillor Gordon Birtwistle, leader of the Liberal Democrats, who was handed a copy of the leaflet in the Rosegrove area by a shop manager, said he was taking legal advice over its contents.
The leaflets are part of Operation Blanket Burnley, which will include the party fielding Steven Smith as a candidate at the next general election, a spokesperson said.
Smith is the former leader of the Burnley branch of the British National Party (BNP).
In 2001 he was jailed after pleading guilty to six charges involving forging signatures on nomination papers.
Titled "England is being deliberately destroyed by cowards, liars, anarchists and traitors", the leaflets criticise Labour and Kitty Ussher and Gordon Birtwistle and the Liberal democrats.
It claims they have helped create a country where 'white people are facing the prospect of becoming an ethnic minority in their own land'.
A spokesperson for the hate crime and diversity unit said: "We are aware of the leaflets.
"We have a copy and we are examining them to see if there is anything improper in them."
Gordon Birtwistle condemned the leaflet for propagating racial disharmony within Burnley.
He said: "I think these leaflets are absolutely disgusting and I am appalled.
"We have a multicultural community here, not just Muslims but also people from Eastern Europe.
"I would hope the police are looking at these leaflets.
"I am looking at it with my solicitors and the party.
"I am taking advice on the matter but I dropped the leaflet in the bin.
"Parties like this who are pedalling hatred should not be allowed to drop such leaflets through letter boxes."
Kitty Ussher said she was not prepared to comment on the leaflets or the party's campaign.
A spokesperson for England First, which has headquarters in Westview, Overtown, Cliviger, defended their campaign.
He said: "The leafleting is part of our campaign for the general election so if the election was called people would be aware of our party.
"What has happened under the current government is not good for native people who we believe are being displaced.
"In the next 60 years native people will become a minority in England.
"We believe people will vote for us because they agree with our policies."
The party plans to put up candidates in Burnley, Milton Keynes and possibly Blackburn in the general election having fielded candidates at the last election in 2004.
10:55pm Friday 26th October 2007

There's a pretty lively comments section as well.

Burnley Dynamo.

Racism worse crime than murder say reds !

Racism worse crime than murder say reds !

According to the zionist/communist 'Searchlight' centred LUAF, my comments are worse than the murder of my late brother.
Their story though, admittedly, was quite sympathetic. Much more than many of the arsewipes in British nationalism.
I thank them for their humanity.
Unfortunately, we have much of the scum of the earth in white nationalism. Just check out VNN UK for most of them plus the Tommy Williams group. These scumbags issue threats on the web every day, and have done for years, without Police intervention.
I have had to change my phone number due to menacing calls from;
Tommy Williams -Sheffield
FYC/Simmo - Oldham
Jock(?) Shearer - Oldham
Griffins pervert bodyguard - Leeds
Adrian Brooks / Kruger - Manchester
and a number of others which BT have recorded. These are all Griffins central players. Just using 141 does not beat BT you pricks !
We also have the unfortunate scenario of the intellectuals of British nationalism doing feck all.
Just what is Richard Edmonds doing for example ?
Then we have Pete Rushton with Eddy Morrison and the drunken thug/idiot and incontinent Pete Williamson from Brighton. Rushton has a first class honours degree from Oxford. So why is he trashing friendship to be with these nazi wannabes ?
Both Edmonds and Rushton need to get a grip - pronto !
When we have the singing, castrato crook, Griffin. Running the show. We ought not to be allowed to run our own Country.
For my own part, this board will be having a radical think, and a definite change of policy.

Vote politics out of the BNP - Vote BNP !

The marginalisation and expulsion of activists and politicos in the BNP, has been going on since traitor Griffin hijacked the BNP in 1999.

Now we hear that the BNP is having Nick Griffin singing about Suffolk ale at BNP meetings.

Bloody hell !

Did Griffin indeed drink any Suffolk ale ?

He comes from a upper middle class family who's penchant would have been beaujolais nouveau. Still not one to rob the crook of poetic license, but the only Suffolk ale around there, was a brew fit only for the toilet bowl, known as Greene King.

Now we hear that the North West ad hoc BNP Organiser, Bev Jones, is organising trips on the Settle railway at £150 per head, as well as over priced excursions to see the Blackpool illuminations.

Oi , BNP ! Where have the politics gone ?
London nationalist Christmas social

Friends of NWN , and many others, are holding a London function.

Details soon.............

(It's true! You couldn't make it up!)

An 'ELC' subscriber has been doing some digging to follow up the content of ELC#21.

What he has found is at once very sad and very funny and establishes that Joe Pearce has not disappointed his early promise of opportunism, cynicism and lust for cash.

His latest patron turns out to be -- no! not the Pope! -- but billionaire Robert Monaghan, owner of the multi-national Domino pizza chain chain; Ave Maria Town (currently "the largest construction site in the USA")near Naples, Florida, where Ave Maria University has recently moved from its original base at Ann Arbor, Michigan.

It is not, of course, Monaghan's huge heap of cash which has attracted to him the close collaboration of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in the USA, but his insistence that he has had "personal visitations from the Blessed Virgin Mary".

It seems that Pearce has just produced a book called "Small is Beautiful", based on the philosophy of E.F. Schumacher, in which greedy monopolistic capitalism is lambasted and small family private enterprise concerns upheld as the ideal (all of which, of course, is a re-run of 'Chesterbellocian' thinking.

This publication has been funded by......Robert Monaghan!Read on! Enjoy!Martin.P.S. By the way, publicity emanating from Ave Maria University refers to Joe as "Professor Pearce"."


He did not leave his Barking comprehensive secondary school with any GCE 'A'-level exams and never attended any university to obtain a B.A. or M.A. degree, let alone a Doctorate which would qualify him for a Professorship.

This is yet another strand of the web of ambiguities and outright deceptions which have surrounded Pearce for a long time.

======================================== 24Robert Monaghan's Pizza Palace and Ave Maria University[Photo captions:Robert Monaghan's Pizza Palace of the "Conservative" New Order.

The Chapel at Ave Maria University near Naples, Florida.Monaghan claims that he received a vision from the Virgin Mary, but he is now going to be seeing the Inside of a Courtroom as he is accused of fraudulent actions.]

Readers of the TRADITIO Network will remember the "conservative Catholic" university that multi-millionaire pizza purveyor Robert Monaghan, an avowed partisan of Newchurch, built near Naples, Florida. Monaghan pulled in another avowed partisan of Newchurch, Newjesuit Presbyter Joseph Fessio, to be chancellor.

Fessio and Monaghan later got into a cat-fight, with Monaghan firing Fessio and having security guard escort him off the campus.There have long been serious charges by faculty and parents of Ave Maria University's students, from its original site in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Now three professors of the university's law school have sued Monaghan and other university officers. They charge that they were removed from their positions in retaliation for their having reported illegal conduct by Monaghan and Dean Dobranski to law enforcement and other governmental agencies, and for refusing to go along with Monaghan's attempts to control the university board improperly by permitting his private, conflicting interests to supersede the best interests of the law school, including his attempt to re-locate the school from Ann Arbor to "Ave Maria Town" near Naples, Florida.Monaghan, whose brain is as peppered with pepperoni as it is with the New Order, claimed that the Virgin Mary "personally directed him to develop Ave Maria Town and Ave Maria University in southwest Florida."

A faculty vote against the planned move in September 2006 and a vote of "no confidence" in Dean Dobranski in April 2006 have not deterred Monaghan.

Two of these professors were denied tenure by Dobranski even though they received the unanimous support of the tenured faculty.Tenured Professor Safranek was ejected from the building and his salary and benefits terminated. Dobranski and Monaghan did not even grant him a hearing.

The suit claims that Professor Safranek has been subjected to false smears as part of the retaliation effort, that certain staff used their positions and law-school resources to obstruct a criminal investigation into a priest's alleged involvement in sex crimes and that Professor Safranek reported this to law enforcement.

All sounds like business as usual for Newchurch, doesn't it?It appears that something is desperately wrong with Monaghan's "Marian vision." This lawsuit is the latest debacle in the collapse of Ave Maria School of Law.

In the summer of 2007, nearly half of the faculty fled or were removed from the school.

Approximately 40 first-year students transferred to other law schools (out of a class of 135), and the quality of the incoming class continued to decline. Dobranski was forced to hire a slew of visiting professors and adjunct professors to keep the school afloat. [Source: Law School Reports]

Things are going from bad to worse for Ave Maria University, for Monaghan, and for Newchurch.

Newchurch is Newchurch is Newchurch. It doesn't matter whether it is "conservative" or "liberal." It partakes in the same immoral muck.


The Hypocrisy of SizeFunded by billionaire Tom Monaghan, AMU writer Joseph Pearce's new book ("Small is Still Beautiful") is either a brilliant spoof on conservative Catholic thought, or ironic to the point of being hypocritical.

The University being built by money from Domino's global fast food franchise - and located in a new south Florida super-development recently named "the nation's largest construction site" - has put forth a writer to "warn of impending calamity if rampant consumerism, technological dynamism, and economic expansionism" continue.


UPDATE, 2/22/07 - The response to this post has been stunningly positive and appreciative. Businessman Mark Egger tells AveWatch "I made a contract proposal three years ago to manage the college bookstore at AMU, but instead they selected the world's largest college bookstore contractor [Follett].

I guess a small Catholic family-run business just didn't fit with their plans." Other important points were submitted:"You can't tell Wal-Mart and Walgreens that they can't sell contraceptives, but a Catholic pharmacist could be found who would operate under Catholic teaching and would not sell contraceptive.

But this is not Monaghan's way of doing things. For him, big is beautiful."Several visitors stated that Dominos franchises, under Monaghan's tenure, would hire manager trainees with the verbal promise that they'd eventually become managers.

The trainees worked long hours for low wages. Just prior to the end of their trainee period, they were fired."Small is Still Beautiful: Economics as if Families Still Mattered" is a modern reflection on the work of economist E.F. Schumacher.

Many prominent conservative Catholic intellectuals are applauding Pearce's work as "a timely warning against the idolatry of giantism".

But some of these same writers and academics also point-out an obvious crisis of credibility - billionaire Tom Monaghan's sponsoring of Pearce.Monaghan is, and continues to revel in, the antithesis of what Schumacher and Pearce advocate.

In fact, Monaghan typifies what they call "the obsessive pursuit of wealth" in an economic lie that will not "lead to utopia but more probably to catastrophe". A reading of Monaghan's biography "Pizza Tiger" makes this clear.

Success is defined as being, and having, the biggest and best to consume. His empire is built on fast food - the very icon of corporate homogenization of culture and taste in America, even globally. The mega-corporation buys ingredients in huge quantities, hiring an army of disposable part-time employees, thereby forcing the closure of local made-from-scratch mom-and-pop shops via economic/pricing pressure.

It worked, and Monaghan achieved his goal of wealth and pizza "domination". But such an achievement would have surely been repugnant to Schumacher. What of Pearce? Is Tom Monaghan some type of changed man to Pearce, or is Pearce opportunistically using the fruits of Monaghan's gigantism to promote his writing?

Monaghan's new venture as a south Florida real estate developer may be teeming with issues contrary to Catholic social thought. He is developing a new town on the edge of the Everglades in what was once tomato fields that provided income to migrant farm workers. The endangered panther roams the area. In late January 2007, Ave Maria Florida became "the nation's largest construction site" according to Pulte Homes Inc., a contractor for Monaghan's development. Rather than opt to use local builders, as Schumacher (Pearce?) would insist upon, Monaghan hired Pulte, a FORTUNE 200 company that is "the nation's largest builder of active adult communities for people age 55 and better".

Pulte homes are considered by some to be the antithesis of Catholic culture, with artificial cookie-cutter gated-communities that sterilize and homogenize normal family life.

Try putting-up a basketball hoop or nativity scene on your property. Ave Maria town will have at least one Pulte community where home buyers are forbidden, by contract, to have children under 18 live in the house for more than 3 months. Other family-hostile implications are less apparent.

What are the effects on family and society when grandparents move en masse to places on-the-way-to-nowhere, content to have phone relationships with their grandchildren and adult children? Is it culturally healthy to have large congregations of individuals over 55 doing little but complain about the service at Denny's while riding-around in golf carts all day?

Isn't there more than self-indulgence and luxury to "active adult living"?

How many scraped-knees and First Holy Communions will be missed living in remote south Florida?

One conclusion is indisputable. This is not the kind of living that Schumacher described.Tom Monaghan's ostentatious taste is well documented:+ tried to build "the world's largest crucifix" in Ann Arbor but was denied zoning+ tried to build "the largest church in North America" (skinned in glass, no less), but finally reduced the size due to budget pressures for Ave Maria Town+ tried to build the largest Catholic newspaper in America ("Credo"); now defunct+ constructed his Domino's office building to have "the world's largest copper roof"+ owner of the world's largest private collection of Frank Lloyd Wright memorabilia+ owner of the famous "Monaghan Collection" of rare cars Monaghan has also "dabbled" in the collection art and wine; a 2005 Sotheby's sale from some of his cellar went for over $3 million, with many bottles bringing-in well over $20,000/each.

In contrast, according to New Oxford Review (June 2006, online), Monaghan's Ave Maria University advertised for a full-time senior-level PhD-trained biology professor at a salary of $37,000/year (less than 2 bottles of wine). The mean salary for a comparable position in biology in other Florida universities is reported as $56,000/year. What kind of housing could a single-income Catholic-sized family afford in south Florida, the nation's most over-priced housing market, on $37,000/year? Is this what is meant by "Small is Still Beautiful: Economics as if Families Mattered"?

It may be that Pearce's book is his first attempt to get-out from under Monaghan's influence.

Sources claim that Pearce no longer resides on campus year-round. His new book was published by ISI Press, a departure from Ignatius Press, the publisher of his other books. Ignatius is run by AMU Provost Fr. Joseph Fessio.Pearce, however, still appears solidly behind Monaghan. Sources report that Pearce's Saint Austin Review magazine has a policy of rejecting, without review, submissions from anyone thought to be unsupportive of Monaghan's management. According to former Ave Maria College (Michigan) employees, such lack of backbone runs in contrast to Pearce's rousing orations on Monaghan's administrative "violations of human dignity" offered during faculty senate meetings prior to moving to Florida.

The problem is that Pearce's writing on "smallness" gives cover to Monaghan's past and current business practices, and such practices undermine Pearce's writing.

Maybe this "scratch-each-other's-back" symbiotic relationship is an attempt by both to be shrewdly opportunistic.

But who, besides Pearce and Monaghan, benefit from such contradiction in the end?

Monday, October 22, 2007

Libertarian site exposing machinations of neocons(zionist Jews) to start WW3

Ukraine calls for recognition of 'Hunger Holocaust'

zu Anerkennung der Hungerkatastrophe als Genozid auf RIA Novosti, Moscow Friday, 19 October 2007

NEW YORK — A representative of the Ukrainian foreign office, Pyotr Dozenko, has called upon the UN to recognize as genocide the starvation catastrophe

of the years 1932-33. So reported the UN press center."Dozenko is of the opinion that such a step would serve to make an important contribution toward the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, the communiqué said. Dozenko noted that this was the the 60th anniversary of the genocide convention. In this connection he stressed that 15 years before the convention resolution, Ukrainian citizens were the victims of genocide.

Some of the Ukrainian victims of a real holocaust later re-labeled as "dead Jews""The famine (Ukrainian—Holodomor) ... artificially caused by the totalitarian Communist regime in the Ukraine in the years 1932 to 1933 led to the death of seven to 10 million innocent men, women and children, which constituted 25 percent of the population of the Ukraine at the time," Dozenko said, according to the press center statement.

The primary cause of the famine was the forced collectivization of agriculture under Stalin.* This was recognized by 11 states [including NS German: ed.] as genocide. *NOTE: Most of the commissars executing this policy were Jews.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Troops treated like vermin, veterans tell Queen

Horrifically injured servicemen returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are being shown "the most detestable contempt" by the Government, two war veterans have said in a letter to the Queen.

Retired servicemen George Kay and Ricky Clitheroe delivered their letter to the Queen at Buckingham Palace Speaking outside Buckingham Palace, where they handed the letter to an aide, Mr Clitheroe said he thought returning troops were being "treated like vermin".

The pair also accused the Government of sending troops to fight as "political mercenary forces" in "illegal wars".

Mr Clitheroe, a former corporal with the Parachute Regiment, from Catford in south London, said: "When we fought, we fought for King and country. "Nowadays we feel sorry for the servicemen because they are fighting for politicians. But they come back and are treated like vermin."

Mr Kay, who served with the SAS and twice escaped German captivity in 1945, heavily criticised the lack of support for injured troops. The former sergeant major said: "Why can't we have a naval hospital?

The Ministry of Defence says there are insufficient numbers of wounded soldiers but we know there are over 800 wounded soldiers now as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan."

In the two-page letter, they criticised ministers for showing troops who had fought in "illegal wars... the most detestable contempt of all by callously ignoring the desperate needs of those luckless service men and women who suffer the horrific injuries of modern warfare, all too often caused by the irresponsible disregard for their basic needs in equipment."

They also accused "successive governments" of treating the Queen's constitutional position with "absolute contempt"."We have witnessed your governments, and in particular your prime ministers, using the soldiers, sailors and airmen under your Majesty's command as political mercenary forces," they wrote.

Mr Clitheroe told The Daily Telegraph: "She's the governor. The Queen is in charge - it's Her Majesty's Forces."Mr Kay, who joined the Army two days before his 16th birthday and fought the length of the Second World War, revealed he did not think his son Daniel should be fighting in the Middle East.Corporal Daniel Kay, 28, has just started a six-month tour of Afghanistan, after serving in Iraq.But Mr Kay said: "I don't think he should be out there, especially Iraq."Their letter follows increasing pressure on the Government to improve a range of welfare issues for troops, including accommodation and injury compensation.

Problems highlighted by The Daily Telegraph include the level of compensation paid to injured troops, the lack of dedicated medical facilities for many of them, the poor standard of much military accommodation, the lack of a specific military award for those serving in war-torn southern Afghanistan, and the poor official reception from councils for those returning home.

The paper also campaigned on the problems with lack of resources to ensure military inquests are concluded more swiftly.

Last month the Royal British Legion launched its campaign to ensure the Government respected the Military Covenant, the agreement by which the state promises to look after troops and their families because they risk their lives for the country.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said: "All correspondence is opened and read by the Queen's office. All correspondence receives a reply from Buckingham Palace."

NWN: Sorry folks, but Blogger is not allowing images to be posted at the moment. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.

We are also sure that Her Majesty will be deeply upset about the treatment of 'her' troops.
The latest spat in historical revisionism !

As Irving himself said 'the boundary between genius and madness is a fine one', as a first rate document researcher why is he unable to justify his latest assertion?

David Irving attacked me and other revisionists at

What follows is my response. We shall see where the Truth really is!!

Holocaust revisionism will triumph!!!!!!!!!!!

Paul Grubach

Open letter to David Irving from Paul Grubach—to be widely circulated

Mr. Irving:

I respectfully request that you publish this letter unedited and in total. This would demonstrate fairness on your part.

Please stop using “clever” rhetorical fallacies and ad hominem attacks to evade the central issue. I am not abusing you. I am simply asking legitimate questions and making legitimate points about the issues you raised.

Here is the central concern. You claimed the Hoefle document, if genuine, refutes the Holocaust revisionist position. This document, you allege, now makes you believe the Nazis murdered 2.4 million Jews in Poland . Let us assume for the sake of argument the document is 100% genuine.

You have written: “[Grubach] is trying to lure me into a discussion of that awkward Hermann Hoefle document, the piece of evidence that indicates—by extension—that about 2.4 million Jews were disposed of in Poland.”

You publicly raised these issues, so why won't you now publicly settle these issues?

You label the Hoefle document as “the piece of evidence that indicates—by extension—that about 2.4 million Jews were disposed of in Poland .” I interpret this as an implicit admission the document does not mention “homicidal gas chambers” and the mass murder of Jews at camps in Poland . (Correct me if I am mistaken.)

Your terminology, “by extension,” now means that David Irving is going to give us some speculative type of argument as to how the document “supports” the view that 2.4 million Jews were murdered. You don't have any proof of this, just another convoluted and metaphysical argument as to how this “could be true.” So please state your argument.

Based upon everything that I've read and studied about the document, it appears as though it is wholly consistent with the Holocaust revisionist position. The document speaks only of large scale deportations. Once again, correct me if I am mistaken.

How does this document refute the Holocaust revisionist position as presented by Carlo Mattogno and Jurgen Graf in their meticulously researched Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp?, and in Mattogno’s Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research and History? Revisionist scholars Mattogno and Graf did visit the sites of Treblinka and Belzec, and they did examine all of the available evidence in regard to these alleged “extermination camps.” So it is now up to you to show how the Hoefle document refutes their findings. After all, it is you who has stated that the Hoefle document, if genuine, refutes the Holocaust revisionist position. Where are Mattogno and Graf wrong?

I wish you and your family health and happiness, Mr. Irving. Hopefully, this rift between you and the Revisionist community can be healed. And you can begin to heal this rift by simply answering in an honest manner the questions in this email.

Best Wishes,
Paul Grubach

Vigilantism - the way forward ?

Have we to go backwards to go forwards again ?
The law abiding are suffering every day. The police seem only interested in their pensions.
Is there a need for a police force ?
Have they outlived their use ?
If so what will we replace them with ?
Replies please;

PJB: Who Restarted the Cold War?
by Patrick J. Buchanan

“Putin’s Hostile Course,” the lead editorial in the Washington Times of Oct. 18, began thus:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Moscow is just the latest sign that, more than 16 years after the collapse of Soviet communism, Moscow is gravitating toward Cold War behavior. The old Soviet obsession – fighting American imperialism – remains undiluted. …

“(A)t virtually every turn, Mr. Putin and the Russian leadership appear to be doing their best in ways large and small to marginalize and embarrass the United States and undercut U.S. foreign policy interests.”

The Times pointed to Putin’s snub of Robert Gates and Condi Rice by having them cool their heels for 40 minutes before a meeting. Then came a press briefing where Putin implied Russia may renounce the Reagan-Gorbachev INF treaty, which removed all U.S. and Soviet medium-range missiles from Europe, and threatened to pull out of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, whereby Russia moved its tanks and troops far from the borders of Eastern Europe.
On and on the Times indictment went.
Russia was blocking new sanctions on Iran. Russia was selling anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. Russia was selling weapons to Syria that found their way to Hezbollah and Hamas. Russia and Iran were talking up an OPEC-style natural gas cartel. All this, said the Times, calls to mind “Soviet-era behavior.”

Missing from the prosecution’s case, however, was the motive. Why has Putin’s Russia turned hostile?
Why is Putin mending fences with China, Iran and Syria?
Why is Putin sending Bear bombers to the edge of American airspace?
Why has Russia turned against America?
For Putin’s approval rating is three times that of George Bush. Who restarted the Cold War?

To answer that question, let us go back those 16 years.

What happened in 1991 and 1992?

Well, Russia let the Berlin Wall be torn down and its satellite states be voted or thrown out of power across Eastern Europe. Russia agreed to pull the Red Army all the way back inside its border. Russia agreed to let the Soviet Union dissolve into 15 nations. The Communist Party agreed to share power and let itself be voted out. Russia embraced freedom and American-style capitalism, and invited Americans in to show them how it was done.

Russia did not use its veto in the Security Council to block the U.S. war to drive Saddam Hussein, an ally, out of Kuwait. When 9/11 struck, Putin gave his blessing to U.S. troops using former republics as bases for the U.S. invasion.

What was Moscow’s reward for its pro-America policy?

The United States began moving NATO into Eastern Europe and then into former Soviet republics. Six ex-Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, as are three ex-republics of the Soviet Union. NATO expansionists have not given up on bringing Ukraine, united to Russia for centuries, or Georgia, Stalin’s birthplace, into NATO.

In 1999, the United States bombed Serbia, which has long looked to Mother Russia for protection, for 78 days, though the Serbs’ sole crime was to fight to hold their cradle province of Kosovo, as President Lincoln fought to hold onto the American South. Now America is supporting the severing of Kosovo from Serbia and creation of a new Islamic state in the Balkans, over Moscow’s protest.

While Moscow removed its military bases from Cuba and all over the Third World, we have sought permanent military bases in Russia’s backyard of Central Asia.
We dissolved the Nixon-Brezhnev ABM treaty and announced we would put a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Under presidents Clinton and Bush, the United States financed a pipeline for Caspian Sea oil to transit Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Black Sea and Turkey, cutting Russia out of the action.
With the end of the Cold War, the KGB was abolished and the Comintern disappeared. But the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and other Cold War agencies, funded with tens of millions in tax-exempt and tax dollars, engineered the ouster of pro-Russian regimes in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia, and sought the ouster of the regime in Minsk.

At the Cold War’s end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, historic or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred.

We blew it.

We moved NATO onto Russia’s front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our “indispensable-nation” arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles.

Who restarted the Cold War?
Bush and the braying hegemonists he brought with him to power. Great empires and tiny minds go ill together.

Friday, October 19, 2007

¡Recuerde mañana sábado!
a las 18 horas
Voluntarios europeos contra el bolchevismo

La otra cara de la Historia
Horario de 10 a 14 horas y de 16.30 a 20.30 de la tarde de lunes a sábado.
Calle Séneca, 12 bajos (Metro "Diagonal")Apartado de Correos 9169 E-08006 BarcelonaTelf.: 00-34-932370009 Fax: 00-34-934159845Nuestra cuenta bancaria: La Caixa 2100-1344-60-0200026408IBAN ES32 2100-1344-6002 0002 6408 / BIC CAIXESBBXXX

Sheffield : murdered lad a 'churchgoer' ?

No he wasn't , he was yet another gangsta !

Just like Jessie James in Moss Side, the 'mass media' trot out the usual garbage about these feral gun toting blacks.

In this case according to the media, he was a 'churchgoer'.

According to the media they are usually would be brain surgeons or followers of Mother Theresa and the Sisters of Mercy in Calcutta.

Yet again, if we look a little closer, we see that the murdered lad Jonathan Matondo was nicknamed the 'venemous' , El Diablo and the 'General' !

The General ?

Here is an example from the Sheffield Star;

Boy shot dead "was churchgoer"

A TEENAGER shot dead in a Sheffield park was a churchgoer who had dreams of becoming a priest, it has been revealed.
The 16-year-old, named this evening as Jonathan Matondo from Burngreave, was gunned down in a recreation area on Nottingham Cliff yesterday.A post mortem examination revealed he died from a single gunshot wound to the head.In an emotional press conference, his uncle Armand Vibila paid tribute to a "wonderful, funny boy" who regularly attended church.

He said: "He was only 16, much too young to die. He was such a good boy and so funny."This should not happen in our community, this should not happen to my Jonathan."

And Rev of his local church Jack Kinsiona, said he "could not understand who someone would want to hurt Jonathan".He added: "Jonathan was a great person. He had been to my church on many occasions and he had told me 'I want to be a preacher', to which I said yes."

Chief Supt Jon House, district commander for Sheffield, said he was confident the police would be able to make arrests "shortly" but he asked for anyone with information to contact them urgently.

But if we read the messages/comments, from his friends in the link above, we see all the gangsta niggah sub cultural nonsense being spouted. Just as we had with Jessie James who was yet another innocent gangsta.

We don't have a gun problem, we have a black problem !

Elite mischief - Dr David Kelly -no prints on his knife - De Menezes, doctored photo - Princess Di and the hitmen

Fresh doubts were raised over the suicide of Dr David Kelly after it
emerged that no fingerprints were found on the knife he supposedly used to kill himself.

The Hutton Inquiry into the death of the Ministry of Defence weapons expert ruled that he slashed one of his wrists with a blunt garden knife and took an overdose of pills.

But the campaigning Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker has carried out his own investigation after forensic experts questioned the official version of events.

He has called for the case to be re-opened after Thames Valley Police revealed that no fingerprints were found on the knife.

The Lewes MP made the discovery after submitting a Freedom of Information request to the force.

The lack of fingerprints is especially strange as police records also revealed the germ warfare expert was not wearing any gloves when he died nor were any found at the scene of his death.
Daily Telegraph
Picture of Menezes and bomber 'manipulated'
By Richard HoltLast Updated: 1:21pm BST 17/10/2007
A composite picture designed to show the similarity between the shotinnocent Brazilian man Jean Charles de Menezes and the failed suicidebomber for whom he was mistaken was dishonestly manipulated, it has beenclaimed.
Video: Jury shown new footage
The picture, showing half the face of Mr de Menezes and half the face ofHussain Osman, was shown by lawyers for the Metropolitan Police at theforce's trial at the Old Bailey.Police image compares Hussain Osman (left) and Mr de Menezes
The image was used to show how officers, who shot Mr de Menezes dead inJuly 2005, may have had difficulty telling the difference between thetwo men.
Clare Montgomery QC, prosecuting, told the court that it had been altered "by either stretching or resizing so the face ceases to have itscorrect proportions".The judge, Mr Justice Henriques, told the jury: "A serious allegation has been made that a picture has been manipulated so as to mislead."
Daily Telegraph
Princess Diana death dossier 'disappears'
By Richard HoltLast Updated: 5:49pm BST 05/09/2007
Tens of thousands of legal documents and photographs detailing thecircumstances surrounding the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, havegone missing, according to a French newspaper.Diana, Princess of WalesJust weeks before the opening of the high-profile inquest into herdeath, Le Figaro reported that a Parisian lawyer had been told a dossiermore than a metre high has disappeared.The inquest into Diana's death is due to open on Oct 2Jean-Louis Pelletier, who represents a French paparazzi photographer,said his request for access to the case files had been turned down bythe French courts, as the entire dossier could not be found."It's the first time I've seen anything like this. There are certainlyfiles that disappear from time to time, but, in this particular case,it's not normal," he said."All the more so since the case is still ongoing."Mr Pelletier is the lawyer for Fabrice Chassery, one of nine paparazziaccused of the manslaughter of Diana and her companion Dodi Fayed afterthey were killed in a car crash in a tunnel under the Pont de l'Almabridge ten years ago.The charges were dismissed in 2002.Mr Pelletier wanted access to the case files to prove Mr Chassery tookone of the most notorious pictures of Diana, which showed her trapped inthe wreckage of her Mercedes moments after the crash.advertisementThe picture was published after the accident but quickly withdrawn, anddeposited in the French courts' case files.Mr Pelletier claims it has since been republished as part of a USdocumentary in 2004 and then again in Spanish and French publicationslast year, and wants to halt further publication.He told Le Figaro that the original case files could not be foundanywhere in the records of the French High Court, or the Court ofAppeal. He has also searched at local district courts without success,he said.
NWN: We think that Dr Kelly was murdered to cover up the Iraq war that Blair was pushing for.
We also think that Diana was 'bumped off', due to her actions in running around with 'wogs' . Her behaviour would have totally destroyed the Royal Family, and severely hurt the Crown and ultimately Britain . We could not have had the possible future King William being the half brother of the progeny of an Egyptian crook from Cairo.
The Menezes case, by contrast, was just the 'cover up' by top Met Police Officers. For those with an eye for such things, if they have a look at the immediate aftermath of this shooting ,there is a small group of men that are standing aloof from the Police. In our opinion, those men are SAS, and who had been sent into action by such incompetent idiots /senior Police Officers such as Cressida Dick.
The SAS were just following orders. The Senior police officers, the Dicks of this World, are to blame (Pun intended) for the killing of this Brazilian bloke.

I just can't help it.

This kind of thing gives me a big thrill. And a big chill.

It's not that often that you find the entire state of Jewish life today encapsulated in one place.
So when you do, it's worth taking note of and learning from.

The place of which I speak is the October issue of Vanity Fair magazine.
Vanity Fair is one of the most fascinating magazines around, one that every issue features an amazingly eclectic collection of articles, from the very serious to the completely frivolous.

Indeed, while the October issue features such stories as "How $9 billion in cash vanished in Iraq;" "Inside Bush's bunker;" "How the Media Gored Al Gore in 2000;" and more, the cover features Nicole Kidman wearing a sailor cap and opening her shirt to reveal her nautical necklace and her brassiere.

Vanity Fair is nothing if not on the cutting edge of where society is and is going. Vanity Fair is definitely not a Jewish publication.

And yet, in this one issue, it tells us more about the Jewish world as it is today than any lecture or book or class out there.

It does that in two ways.

The first is its annual list of what it calls The New Establishment, the 100 most powerful, most influential people in American society.

What is absolutely amazing, stunning about the list is how many Jews there are on it. Jews make up about 2.5 percent of the U.S. population so there should be two or three Jews on the list.

Guess again, bubeleh.

The list of the Vanity Fair 100 includes, get ready, 51, yes 51 Jews.

I say 51 because that's how many I'm sure are Jewish.
There may be others on the list who are Jewish but who I don't know are Jewish and whose names are not obviously Jewish.

But let's say I got them all. That means that more than half the names on the list of the 100 people who are the most vital to this society are Jewish. And this is a list that includes Apple's Steve Jobs and Oprah and Bill Clinton and Warren Buffett, to name a few of the few non-Jews on the list.

That is absolutely nothing short of astounding.

Talk about us being accepted into this society, talk about us having power in this society, talk about anti-Semitism being a thing of the past, talk about Jews no longer needing to be afraid to be visible and influential.

And it doesn't stop there.

The magazine also has a separate list of what it calls The Next Establishment, younger people it believes destined to make the big list some year soon.

Of the 26 names on that list, 15 are Jews. That I'm sure of. 15 of 26. More than half.
And it doesn't stop there.

The magazine also has a separate list of what it calls The Pit-Stop Club, those who have made The New Establishment list in the past but who didn't make it this year but are fairly certain to make a comeback in a future year.

Of the nine names on this list, eight are Jews. Eight out of nine. Don Imus is the only non-Jew on the list.

I mean, it's just unbelievable.

This is a big country with lots and lots of very talented, highly educated, tremendously motivated people. And no one has its finger on the pulse of the people who make this country what it is more than Vanity Fair.

And when it came time to pick the 100 who most move and shake things in America, more than half-more than half-are Jews. And on the list of those who will one day be on that list, more than half-more than half-are Jews. Not to mention that almost 100 percent of those who were on the list and are poised to make a comeback are Jews.

Tells you so much about the place of Jews in this country, about the amazing people Jews are.
That's something we should never take for granted, something we should always be blown away by, feel very, very good about.

Instead, however, the Jewish world is so much about kvetching and worrying.

When will we learn to fight fights that matter. When will we learn not everything needs to be made a big deal of. Not everything we don't like is a threat, indeed some of the things we don't like only become a nuisance because we make a big deal out of it.

We are powerful, very powerful. We play a major, pivotal role in the life of this country. And yet we are always acting like scared little mice on the verge of annihilation.

And if you think how we are doesn't have consequences, please look at something else in this Vanity Fair issue, something that also tells us much about Jewish life today.

Judaism has so many powerful people among us, as the Vanity Fair 100 list shows. We are such a part of this society, have such impact on this society and yet we're always unhappy, always feel victimized, always kvetch about this and that.
It's always another Holocaust around the corner, there's always the next Hitler on the scene, Israel is always embattled, we're always worried, always scared, always sure the end is near.

Well, who the hell wants to join that little party?

More than half those on the Vanity Fair 100 are Jews. And yet we don't feel powerful, indeed, the very fact of the list makes us even more nervous than we were before. Instead of being pleased and taking pride, we fret that it's not so good to be so visible, bad that the gentiles see how much influence we have.

Joseph Aaron is Editor of The Chicago Jewish News.

David Dukes view;
According to Vanity Fair, the Jewish minority, which makes up only about 2.5% of the American population, represents more than fifty percent of its most influential citizens.
More notable, perhaps, is how overrepresented Jews are among what Vanity Fair calls the “New Establishment,” or the up-and-coming American power men–of twenty-five, at least sixteen are Jews.
This means that, of America’s wealthiest and most influential men, more than sixty percent–more than twenty times the amount one would expect from their percentage of the population–are Jews.
And though Vanity Fair, of course, won’t have the courage to tell you, their so-called “Pit Stop Club,” which includes a list of nine men who, thought they didn’t make the “New Establishment” list this year, will certainly be back on the list soon–of the nine men, eight are Jews: fully eighty-eight percent!

To see Jewish author Joseph Aaron’s interesting, and somewhat pompous, comments on this recent article, visit The Jewish World Review.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Rallies banned at Franco's mausoleum

Thursday October 18, 2007

The basilica in which General Franco is buried will no longer be used to hold political rallies in celebration of Spain's former dictator, according to a new law to be voted on at the end of the month.

The foundation that runs the Valley of the Fallen, a vast memorial to Franco topped with a giant cross visible for miles around, will also have to provide information on "all of those who died during the civil war and who suffered repression", not just the victims of the republicans.

The Valley of the Fallen, in the Guadarrama valley north-west of Madrid, remains a shrine for the small band of followers who still openly support Franco. But if the new law is passed, they will no longer be permitted to meet there on the anniversary of his death, when they gather to sing "Cara al Sol", or "Face to the Sun", the anthem to Franco.

Between 1940 and 1958, republican prisoners were forced to build the mausoleum under Franco's orders, and the underground crypt was declared a basilica by Pope John Paul XXIII in 1960.

The change in status of the Valley of the Fallen is one of a number of amendments made today to the historical memory law, one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in Spain's 30 years of democracy.

First proposed by the Socialist government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero last year, the law has been fiercely opposed by the conservative People's party (PP). In a surprise move today, The PP supported the amendment on Franco's mausoleum, but continued to express their opposition to the law. The PP's general secretary, Angel Acebes, described it as the result of a process intended to "divide rather than unite the people of Spain".

It was also announced that the grandchildren of those who were forced into exile, or chose to leave Spain during the dictatorship, will be able to apply for Spanish nationality. Until now only those whose parents were born in Spain could apply for citizenship. According to the governing PSOE, this amendment will affect around 1 million people, who will have a two-year period from 2009 within which to apply.

Last week it was confirmed that Spain would ban all public references to the Franco regime, with all statues, street names and symbols associated with the dictator to be removed. Those churches which still have plaques commemorating Franco and the victims of his republican opponents risk losing state aid if the refuse to remove them.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Tony Lecomber - the grass !

Thank you for your e-mail headed "Lecomber Grass".
Most people believe that Tony Lecomber runs the "" web site.
Despite his expulsion from the BNP, Lecomber still acts as Griffin's message-carrier and propagandist.
It is also widely believed that it is because of this work that Lecomber continues to be paid cash-in-hand gratuities by Griffin (from BNP funds) even though he has been expelled from the party.
You might be interested in the two e-mails (the second is by way of being a P.S. to the first) which I have received recently from one of M'Learned Friends.
I have been told by other contacts that Griffin is now anxious to expel Eddy Butler from the BNP, even though he is the BNP's elections expert.
It seems that after Butler was attacked outside Loughton Tube Station by Lecomber (who tried to disguise himself with a mask which Butler pulled off in the tussle).
Butler was only persuaded not to go to the Police by Griffin promising to expel Lecomber and to categorise him as a "Proscribed Person" via the BNP Organisers Bulletin.
Butler submitted to Griffin the terms of that Proscription Notice.
In the event, while Lecomber was expelled, Griffin tore up Butler's Proscription Notice.
Instead, Griffin issued a very mild statement saying that even though Lecomber was now no longer a member of the party, he is "a genuine nationalist" and so was NOT a Proscribed Person. Griffin added that BNP members were therefore free to associate with Lecomber on a social/private basis.
Butler erupted at this and had a blazing row with Griffin so intense that Griffin is seeking a way of expelling him.
As I see it, the same people who are patronising and protecting Griffin (right-wing Zionists and media Neo-Cons first and foremost, but also, I think, the Police and the Whitehall 'Establishment') do the same for Lecomber.
John Tyndall was of the view that Lecomber was "turned" by the Special Branch during his last jailing. As you will see below, my contact reports that many believe Lecomber got a very light jail sentence after beating-up a Jewish teacher at a Tube station.
He already had one previous conviction for bomb-making and would normally have gone down for quite a long time.
Recruiting political people serving or facing long stretches is a long-established Special Branch method for adding to their army of informants.Sometimes these people end up becoming full-time salaried snouts who get a handsome monthly retainer, plus expenses, plus -- if they have been on the job for a decade or more -- a four figure gratuity when they come to the end of their informing career. All such payments are tax free.
This is what happened in the case of Peter Marriner, the long-term informant for the West Midlands Police Special Branch., who was featured on the "True Spies" TV series of a couple of years ago.The film-makers did a bad job (deliberately?) of obscuring Marriner's identity.
Marriner not only spied on right wing groups but also, when that scene was quiet, spied on the far Left from within the Labour Party in his capacity as a Labour Party constituency agent in Birmingham (a fact not mentioned in the programme).
The Police and other elements of the Whitehall 'Establishment' such as the Home Office like the direction Griffin has taken the BNP.
They like:
(1) No more marches and demonstrations and public meetings which attract the attention of the Red 'Rentamob' and which "provoke" riots which could spark of major racial conflagrations, with which the Police could not cope and which would require the Army being deployed in support of the civil power.
(2) Acceptance of the the multi-racial society. Griffin declared on the BBC Radio 4 'Today' programme that "repatriation would be unfeasible and inhumane". (This is another potential burden lifted from the shoulders of the Police. At the moment, even individual illegal immigrants can avoid being compulsorily repatriated by throwing a tantrum in the airport!) In the same interview Griffin accepted inter-racial breeding by saying that Britain can take "a little salt in the soup".
(3) As a consequence of the fundamental ideology shift set out above in (2) Griffin has directed the focus of the BNP membership away from opposing ALL immigration and rejecting the concept of a multi-racial society, towards an anti-Muslim campaign, which newcomers to nationalism and the more stupid among the BNP membership confuse with a principled and logical racial-nationalist position.
These people never ask: If Zionist-Jewry is entitled to insist that Israel be "a homeland for the Jews", why cannot the indigenous British demand that the British Isles be "a homeland for the British"?
The British 'Establishment' is committed to the American / Israeli / Neo-Con project which has inflamed Muslim opinion world-wide provoking Muslims in the UK and elsewhere to resort to terrorism.
Zionist-Jewry and the Neo-Cons happily exploit this situation (helped by Griffin and the BNP) by seeking to demonstrate to the Gentile 'lumpen' that "the West", in fighting side-by-side with "brave little Israel" against the "terrorist Muslims", is engaging in the age-old "Clash of Civilisations".
The horrendous terrorism, genocide and ethnic cleansing by which the state of Israel was created and by which it is sustained to this very day is all ignored, of course.
This is the screaming injustice ignored by "the West" for decades which has impelled outraged frantic Muslims down the terrorism path.
Have you read Griffin's outpouring expounding the Zionist line on the "Clash of Civilisations" posted on the BNP web site a year or so ago?
It could have been drafted by Melanie Phillips or Danny Finkelstein.
I have it on file, if you would like to see a copy?
Israel and "the West" are the good guys in the white hats, while the Muslims are the bad guys in the black hats.
Is this what used to be referred to as "simple patriotism"?
I am copying this e-mail to a few entities in my Contacts List who share an interest in these issues.
From: [snip]To: Martin Webster Date: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 10:21 PM

Subject: From one of my covert sources . . .
Griffin seems to be getting rid of his old Executive Committee, and forming a new invisible one, incorporating;Arthur Kemp; Tony Lecomber; Patrick Harrington; Simon Darby; Lee Barnes.
This inner circle is nothing to do with the EC, but the real people that Griffin shares ideas with.
As the EC can get rid of the Party Chairman by a two thirds majority if they wish, rumour has it that Griffin is moving to abolish the EC.
Doc Russell had a heated argument with Arthur Kemp about Tony Lecomber. Kemp told him he was a useless fat old fucker who should just go away.
This was the real reason for his departure, and not because of Doc's first wife being Polish.The general feeling amongst the (ever growing) anti-Griffin crowd, is that Griffin wishes to use the European elections to put all the party's resources into fighting the best seat.
Griffin hopes to get elected, whereby he'll be on £250,000 a year tax free + expenses + pension. After five years, he would then be in a position to switch parties if he so wished (ahem), and then possibly retain his seat for another five years. Chaiow for now,
From: [snip]To: Martin Webster Date: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 10:36 PM
Subject: ps.It's an interesting thought that of those on this list, Arthur Kemp has been named by Gaye Darby-Lewis (wife of jailed South African patriot Clive Darby-Lewis) as a South African police spy, Simon Darby (who lives a comfortable middle class life style without visible means of support, and claims to be in business while working virtually full time for the BNP) is probably a career MI5 agent, while the late John Tyndall suspected that Tony Lecomber had been "turned" by the British state during his second spell in gaol (when he received a remarkably light sentence for attacking a Jewish school teacher). Lee Barnes is completely insane, while Patrick Harrington is nominally the leader of another political party (the Third Way)!====================================-----Original Message
-----From: joe owens To: resistance Date: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 3:00 PM

Subject: Lecomber Grass
Strange how Lecomber never made any newspaper headlines or TV documentaries?
Joe Owens

Heroes of London Bridge including banker who lost his life confronting jihadis with a skateboard and nurse who died running towards dange...