Thursday, July 31, 2008

Important Information regarding the EGM

All paid up members are entitled to vote. You do not have to be a 'Paying Voting Member'.
If you own a current ordinary membership card you are entitled to vote.

1...Griffin needs 2/3rds of those present to vote in his favour in order to win
2...By law the show of hands must be counted, including abstainers.
3...Abstaining counts as a no vote according to the law of unincorporated business
4...Anyone holding a family membership may vote for all those in their family, even if their family isn't present to vote.

Try and inform as many members as possible. By law you cannot be charged entry fees to any building, or land, to vote. You may enter free.


More than half of Britain's businesses plan to make job cuts

Jul 29 2008The number of British businesses who are planning on making job cuts in response to the increasingly dour economic climate has almost doubled over the last three months, according to KPMG’s quarterly National Business Confidence Survey. KPMG’s survey of senior executives in both public and private sector organisations indicates that more than half (53%) now plan to reduce their staff headcount over the coming months, with a similar number (52%) planning to implement recruitment freezes. Back in March 2008 when the same organisations were questioned for KPMG by Opinion Leader Research, only 29% were looking at job cuts as a cost-saving measure.Malcolm Edge, regional chairman for KPMG in the North, commented: “The clouds that were on the horizon when we first conducted this survey back in early spring are now right overhead, with businesses now feeling the impact of this so-called ‘perfect storm’ of rising inflation, tightening credit conditions and plummeting consumer confidence. With six out of ten businesses looking to cut costs, staff redundancies may seem like the obvious, albeit painful, solution. The widespread redundancy programmes we have already seen in the financial services and housebuilding sectors may therefore just be a small sign of things to come.” Malcolm Edge continued: “It is particularly interesting to note that eighty percent of the organisations who took part in our survey were based outside London, signifying that the credit crunch may finally have hit home across the UK regions. There were certainly arguments in some quarters at the beginning of the year that it was primarily the City of London that had been caught in the eye of the storm, and that the rest of the British economy may escape relatively unscathed. However, there’s now no denying that we’re all in this together, possibly for the long haul.” Unsurprisingly, the general mood of British business has significantly darkened over the course of the quarter, with 75% of executives confirming that their organisation has been negatively impacted by the credit crunch. Indeed, only 40% of people surveyed now feel optimistic about their own company’s prospects for the forthcoming year, compared to 60% who were feeling bullish in March. Furthermore, organisations certainly seem resigned to the fact that they could be in the doldrums for some time to come, with 56% expecting the current economic conditions to have a negative impact on UK business for one to two years, with a further 16% thinking that it will be between two and five years before we see an upturn in fortunes.

Fund Holder for Heretical Two

Is there anyone out there with some professional status willing to be a fund holder for the Heretical Two please let me know Tony

Hello Tony,

I was speaking to a friend of Simon's, Rick Hobbs, who attended Leeds court on Monday 28th July, and Simon is to be retried for the remaining charges in December. Mr. Davies says that Simon and Steve must raise £5,000 asap if they are to have any chance of remaining in the USA.

The Heretical Two need some help in the way of a fund raising drive. It seems that USD 10,000 should do the trick, or £5,000. Are you able to tap any sources in England or the USA to help them?


Fixed' trial date fixed ? - Heretical Two

Preston racist jailed in USA
1:50pm Thursday 31st July 2008

By Nazia Parveen »

A Preston man who skipped bail and fled abroad after being convicted of distributing racist material, is still locked up in the United States.

Stephen Whittle was found guilty of a series of race-related offences by a judge at Leeds Crown Court.

The 41-year-old, from Avenham Lane, Avenham, was due to return to court on Monday, July 14, while a jury continued deliberating over further charges, but he did not turn up.

It is believed Whittle travelled with his co-defendant Simon Sheppard from the UK to Ireland by ferry before taking a direct flight to Los Angeles.

Both were detained by immigration officials at Los Angeles Airport.

Whittle was convicted of five counts of publishing racially inflammatory written material.

Simon Sheppard, 51, of Brook Street, Selby, North Yorkshire, was also found guilty after a seven-week trial of nine counts of publishing racially inflammatory written material on a website.

A Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson said they were both still in custody in the USA and a re-trial date for Sheppard has been set for December 8.

NWN: A retrial date for the 8th.December ? Errm , how do they know that Simon and Steve will be coming back to the UK ?

British Gas adds £260 a year to family bills in 35% price hike

Hikes: British Gas is increasing its prices by 35 per cent

Britain's biggest energy supplier is increasing gas prices by a record 35 per cent from today.

British Gas, which has 16million customers, is also putting up electricity by 9 per cent in the second round of price rises this year.

Customers with a dual fuel contract face an increase of 25 per cent, adding £262.80 a year to bills.

The decison comes days after rival EDF Energy also announced price rises and will trigger a series of similar moves by other suppliers.

As well as hitting households already suffering from soaring prices for petrol and food, the energy increases will push up costs for businesses and threaten thousands of jobs.

They are likely to wreck attempts by the Government and Bank of England to tame inflation and will fuel inflationary wage demands from workers suffering the biggest squeeze on the cost of living since the 1970s.

British Gas had already put up bills by 15 per cent in January.

This latest increase means the annual dual fuel bill will rise from nearly £913 in January to £1,317 today. The company said wholesale gas prices for the coming winter are up by 89 per cent on last year.

An estimated 4.5million households are already in fuel poverty, meaning they cannot afford to keep warm.

If the British Gas price increases are repeated across the industry, this could jump by one million.

Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern, said: 'These price rises are a hammer blow for vulnerable groups, including thousands of pensioners, who have already seen their energy bills rocket far above the realm of affordability.
NWN: This is what comes from closing our coal mines , selling off our oil and gas reserves under Thatchers privatisation , and linking up more for this 'World economy' crap. Self sufficiency must be our watchword !

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Electronic Loose Cannon No. 24

Wednesday 30th July 2008
Published in tandem with the Electronic Watch on Zion


Postal address: Mail Box ICR, 44 The Common, IP22 2QP, United Kingdom.*

Mobile: 07932 049019

George Orwell, Oswald Mosley
and Double-Think on Europe

On 2nd July I sent an e-mail headed "Mosley got in wrong - Orwell got it right" to a Mosleyite friend of mine, Bill Baillie. Bill issues an interesting monthly e-bulletin of news-reviews and commentary called 'The Nation Revisited'. His address is . I sent copies of my e-mail to a small number of my 'Electronic Loose Cannon' subscribers.

I argued that in his book '1984', Orwell had postulated that the future world would be administered by three super powers comprising (approximately) America, Asia and Europe; that these three powers would appear to be in a constant state of war with each other; that they would constantly appear to shift their alliances; but that this apparent state of flux was contrived to keep the masses in a permanent state of 'patriotic', dictatorship-accepting stampede and that behind the facade was a global dictatorship.

From this scenario of the future set out in '1984' I asserted that Orwell was against the development of regional power blocks, such as the EEC/EU, because they would lead ultimately to some form of World Government dictatorship. Hence my summation: "Orwell right -- Mosley wrong".

Quick as a flash, Bill forwarded to me an article by Orwell headed "Toward European Unity" published in 1947 in the 'Partisan Review', an obscure and long-since defunct left wing magazine. [See Appendix 1 below.]

If one were to judge this matter simply on a reaction to a headline, the reader might be tempted to say "Game, Set and Match to Bill".

But consideration of Orwell's text in that article and his very much more developed expositions in his books, not least his last work '1984', convinces me that Bill achieved what is known as a "debating point", but not a victory on substantive issues.

In the 'Partisan Review' article Orwell examined the various post WW2 futures seemingly on offer to mankind and opted for a vision of a unified Europe as a counter-poise to the American Empire and the Soviet Empire. Bill deployed this to insinuate that Orwell's vision of Europe and its purpose was similar to that of Sir Oswald Mosley.

Despite that heading of Orwell's 'Partisan Review' article, I feel justified in asserting that:

1) whatever vision Orwell had for Europe in the immediate aftermath of WW2, it was certainly not the same vision that Mosley had in mind;
2) Orwell would have abominated the European Union structure and the increasingly tyrannical way in which it operates, which we now see before our eyes.


In the long years that remained to him after WW2 Mosley devoted himself frantically to trying to re-ingratiate himself with the Establishment, of which he was once a member, by supporting those European politicians (headed by the Belgian politician Paul Henri Spaak) who were setting about the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC), which later evolved into today's European Union (EU).

Mosley correctly assessed where the Establishment's new wave was coming from, but he was too vain to accept that there was no room on the Euro-surfboard for him and that he would be left to flounder in his rapidly dehydrating low-tide puddle.

The question is, would Mosley have supported the works and pomps of the European Union as it has evolved (and as predicted by those who were always opposed to the development of a European Super State)? I think one must answer "Yes" for two reasons:

Firstly, because the deceitful, corrupt, tyrannical, internationalist, multi-racialist and pro-World Government nature of the EEC/EU had become manifest before he died (late 1960s/early 1970s?) yet he continued to give unswerving support to the monster until his dying day from his Temple of Glory near Paris.

Secondly, Mosley's dwindling band of acolytes have followed their master's line, ignoring -- even attempting to justify -- every cynical act of corruption and dictatorship and ignoring the increasingly obvious fact that a wholly integrated European Super State is not the ultimate destination of the "European movement" but simply a regional consolidation preparatory to the imposition of a Global Super State or World Government.


As to George Orwell, as he died in 1950, he did not live to see even the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community, let alone Stage 2 of the European Project, the European Economic Community. The European Union, stage 3 of the project, was denied as even being even a remote possibility by EEC propagandists throughout the 1960s and 1970s until it emerged fully formed from its chrysalis.

Spaak's dictum "We must deny with our mouths what we are building with our hands" has ever been the leitmotif of those involved in constructing the European Super State. Spaak's international career path led through the chief offices of the United Nations, NATO and EEC administrations.

Because of this background, and because of the values he extolled in his books, especially in 'Animal Farm' and '1984', I am entitled to assert that not only was George Orwell's vision of Europe different from that of Mosley's; but also that he would utterly abominate all the works and pomps of today's European Union.

Let me cite just one example of how Orwell's values conflict with the actual practice of the European Union dictators:


In 'Animal Farm', shortly after the animals' successful revolution against the farmer, the pigs, who were cleverer than the other animals and who had learned how to read and write, daubed on the barn door the fundamental principles of the creed of Animalism. Among these were: "All Animals are Equal" and "Four Legs Good -- Two Legs Bad".

After some while that dictum was altered by the pigs at night, while all the other animals were sleeping. The really stupid animals did not notice this, but thy few who had managed to get some grasp of reading discovered that the sign now read: "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others".

Soon after, it was noticed that the pigs -- who had moved into the farm house, ending its use as a museum of the farmer's oppression -- had taught themselves to walk on their hind legs, but did so in the privacy of the farm house, out of sight of the farmyard animals.

When a protest meeting was called by the semi-educated to protest against this subversion of Animalism, the meeting was flooded by sheep, who had been taught a new slogan by the pigs which they bleated endlessly preventing any serious discussion: "Four Legs Good -- Two Legs Better".

Don't those examples of the cynical manipulation of fundamental rules and of mass brainwashing to prevent serious discussion mirror the spirit of the way in which the pigs who run the European Union have tried to foist a "Constitution" on us?


When that "move to ever closer union" (to quote the 1956 Treaty of Rome) was defeated by the good sense of voters in Holland and France, who were given a referendum on the matter, the text of the "Constitution" was juggle around, renamed a "Treaty", and then "adopted" by all the top pigs of the individual nations without further reference to their electorates .......with the exception of Ireland which has a national Constitution which requires such Treaties to be ratified by the electorate in a referendum. The Irish electorate said "NO!"

Previous treaties under which the European Union operates specify that new treaties can only be adopted if ALL the constituent nations vote to accept them. Hence, under the EU's own rules, the "Constitution"/"Treaty" fails ......or does it?

President Nicholas Sarkozy of France, who is President of Europe until the end of this year, had the chutzpah to use a state visit to Ireland to tell the Irish people that they must vote again (and if necessary, again......and again) until they vote "Yes", and that in the meanwhile, ratification of the "Treaty" will proceed, ignoring the Irish veto.

Sarkozy may get his way. Similar bullying caused the Danes, who had voted "NO!" in a previous referendum (I think in regard to the Maastricht Treaty) were cajoled to vote again "because the margin was so close...".

When they did vote again, this time "Yes", but by a very narrow margin, the EU did not call for yet another vote to be held "because the margin was so close....". Oh no! On that second occasion, just one vote would have been enough: "The people have spoken!"

We do not have to imagine too hard what Orwell's response would be to that kind of cynical, tyrannical and flagrantly undemocratic swindling.

But that kind of approach to the wishes of the ordinary peoples of the European nations has been characteristic of those who have run the European Project from its very outset.


What is my friend Bill's response to this kind of manipulation. His bottom line is this, contained in issue #44 (May 08) of 'Nation Revisited': "......people seldom know what is best for them."

Bill, like most Mosleyites I know, agree that Coloured Immigration and compulsory multi-racialism, and the war in Iraq (two specify but two issues) were forced on the British people without any mandate in the first instance and against their sustained and clearly-expressed majority opposition ever since.

On those issues Mosleyites are at one with mainstream British racial-nationalists in stating that Coloured Immigration and the resultant multi-racial society, and the war in Iraq, have no democratic legitimacy, have been sustained by lies and deceptions, and must be halted as reversed as fast as is humanely possible.

All of us will remember Prime Minister Edward Heath's solemn and categorical assurance that British membership of the EEC "does not involve any surrender of essential national sovereignty?" That was the biggest, but far from the only, huge lie told to the British people in the service of conning them into the Europe.


Does Bill or any other Mosleyite today claim that British membership of the EEC/EU has not lost us "any essential national sovereignty"?

(Don't let's quibble about the meaning of the weasel-word "essential". Who will say what aspects of national sovereignty are "unessential"? Such a debate is as silly as a convent schoolgirl telling Mother Superior that she is "still a virgin" despite being "a little bit pregnant".)

Yet the Mosleyite mind-set is such that the imposition of the EEC and then the EU on Britain by means of dire bare-faced lies, told by the very same people who lied us into multi-racialism, into Iraq and into so many other places we did not want to go is somehow acceptable, right and "best for us"! This is a classic demonstration of Double-Think.

I say again: George Orwell would not have put up with such Double-Think (an expression he coined in '1984') from even the most senior Euro-Pigs, let alone from Mosleyites, whatever his theoretical, idealistic and tentative views may have been in a short article about Europe for an obscure magazine published in 1947.

Martin Webster.

P.S. Regardless of his views on European integration, I am glad that Bill Baillie located and put into circulation an article about George Orwell's persistent anti-semitism, entitled "Orwell's Dirty Secret". [See Appendix 2 below.]

Appendix 1

First published: Partisan Review, London, GB - July/August 1947.
Reprinted: The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell - 1968.

George Orwell

Toward European Unity

A Socialist today is in the position of a doctor treating an all but hopeless case. As a doctor, it is his duty to keep the patient alive, and therefore to assume that the patient has at least a chance of recovery. As a scientist, it is his duty to face the facts, and therefore to admit that the patient will probably die. Our activities as Socialists only have meaning if we assume that Socialism can be established, but if we stop to consider what probably will happen, then we must admit, I think, that the chances are against us. If I were a bookmaker, simply calculating the probabilities and leaving my own wishes out of account, I would give odds against the survival of civilization within the next few hundred years. As far as I can see, there are three possibilities ahead of us:

1. That the Americans will decide to use the atomic bomb while they have it and the Russians haven't. This would solve nothing. It would do away with the particular danger that is now presented by the U.S.S.R., but would lead to the rise of new empires, fresh rivalries, more wars, more atomic bombs, etc. In any case this is, I think, the least likely outcome of the three, because a preventive war is a crime not easily committed by a country that retains any traces of democracy.

2. That the present 'cold wa'’ will continue until the U.S.S.R., and several other countries, have atomic bombs as well. Then there will only be a short breathing-space before whizz! go the rockets, wallop! go the bombs, and the industrial centres of the world are wiped out, probably beyond repair. Even if any one state, or group of states, emerges from such a war as technical victor, it will probably be unable to build up the machine civilization anew. The world, therefore, will once again be inhabited by a few million, or a few hundred million human beings living by subsistence agriculture, and probably, after a couple of generations, retaining no more of the culture of the past than a knowledge of how to smelt metals. Conceivably this is a desirable outcome, but obviously it has nothing to do with Socialism.

3. That the fear inspired by the atomic bomb and other weapons yet to come will be so great that everyone will refrain from using them. This seems to me the worst possibility of all. It would mean the division of the world among two or three vast super-states, unable to conquer one another and unable to be overthrown by any internal rebellion. In all probability their structure would be hierarchic, with a semi-divine caste at the top and outright slavery at the bottom, and the crushing out of liberty would exceed anything that the world has yet seen. Within each state the necessary psychological atmosphere would be kept up by complete severance from the outer world, and by a continuous phony war against rival states. Civilizations of this type might remain static for thousands of years.

Most of the dangers that I have outlined existed and were foreseeable long before the atomic bomb was invented. The only way of avoiding them that I can imagine is to present somewhere or other, on a large scale, the spectacle of a community where people are relatively free and happy and where the main motive in life is not the pursuit of money or power. In other words, democratic Socialism must be made to work throughout some large area. But the only area in which it could conceivably be made to work, in any near future, is Western Europe. Apart from Australia and New Zealand, the tradition of democratic Socialism can only be said to exist -- even there it only exists precariously -- in Scandinavia, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Switzerland, the Low Countries, France, Britain, Spain, and Italy. Only in those countries are there still large numbers of people to whom the word 'Socialism' has some appeal, and for whom it is bound up with liberty, equality, and internationalism. Elsewhere it either has no foot-hold or it means something different. In North America the masses are contented with capitalism, and one cannot tell what turn they will take when capitalism begins to collapse. In the U.S.S.R. there prevails a sort of oligarchical collectivism which could only develop into democratic Socialism against the will of the ruling minority. Into Asia even the word 'Socialism' has barely penetrated. The Asiatic nationalist movements are either Fascist in character, or look towards Moscow, or manage to combine both attitudes: and at present all movements among the coloured peoples are tinged by racial mysticism. In most of South America the position is essentially similar, so is it in Africa and the Middle East. Socialism does not exist anywhere, but even as an idea it is at present valid only in Europe. Of course, Socialism cannot properly be said to be established until it is world-wide, but the process must begin somewhere, and I cannot imagine it beginning except through the federation of the western European states, transformed into Socialist republics without colonial dependencies. Therefore a Socialist United States of Europe seems to me the only worth-while political objective today. Such a federation would contain about 250 million people, including perhaps half the skilled industrial workers of the world. I do not need to be told that the difficulties of bringing any such thing into being are enormous and terrifying, and I will list some of them in a moment. But we ought not to feel that it is of its nature impossible, or that countries so different from one another would not voluntarily unite. A western European union is in itself a less improbable concatenation than the Soviet Union or the British Empire.

Now as to the difficulties. The greatest difficulty of all is the apathy and conservatism of people everywhere, their unawareness of danger, their inability to imagine anything new -- in general, as Bertrand Russell put it recently, the unwillingness of the human race to acquiesce in its own survival. But there are also active malignant forces working against European unity, and there are existing economic relationships on which the European peoples depend for their standard of life and which are not compatible with true Socialism. I list what seem to me to be the four main obstacles, explaining each of them as shortly as I can mange:

1. Russian hostility. The Russians cannot but be hostile to any European union not under their own control. The reasons, both the pretended and the real ones, are obvious. One has to count, therefore, with the danger of a preventive war, with the systematic terrorizing of the smaller nations, and with the sabotage of the Communist Parties everywhere. Above all there is the danger that the European masses will continue to believe in the Russian myth. As long as they believe it, the idea of a Socialist Europe will not be sufficiently magnetic to call forth the necessary effort.

2. American hostility. If the United States remains capitalist, and especially if it needs markets for exports, it cannot regard a Socialist Europe with a friendly eye. No doubt it is less likely than the U.S.S.R. to intervene with brute force, but American pressure is an important factor because it can be exerted most easily on Britain, the one country in Europe which is outside the Russian orbit. Since 1940 Britain has kept its feet against the European dictators at the expense of becoming almost a dependency of the U.S.A. Indeed, Britain can only get free of America by dropping the attempt to be an extra-European power. The English-speaking Dominions, the colonial dependencies, except perhaps in Africa, and even Britain's supplies of oil, are all hostages in American hands. Therefore there is always the danger that the United States will break up any European coalition by drawing Britain out of it.

3. Imperialism. The European peoples, and especially the British, have long owed their high standard of life to direct or indirect exploitation of the coloured peoples. This relationship has never been made clear by official Socialist propaganda, and the British worker, instead of being told that, by world standards, he is living above his income, has been taught to think of himself as an overworked, down-trodden slave. To the masses everywhere 'Socialism' means, or at least is associated with, higher wages, shorter hours, better houses, all-round social insurance, etc. etc. But it is by no means certain that we can afford these things if we throw away the advantages we derive from colonial exploitation. However evenly the national income is divided up, if the income as a whole falls, the working-class standard of living must fall with it. At best there is liable to be a long and uncomfortable reconstruction period for which public opinion has nowhere been prepared. But at the same time the European nations must stop being exploiters abroad if they are to build true Socialism at home. The first step toward a European Socialist federation is for the British to get out of India. But this entails something else. If the United States of Europe is to be self-sufficient and able to hold its own against Russian and America, it must include Africa and the Middle East. But that means that the position of the indigenous peoples in those countries must be changed out of recognition -- that Morocco or Nigeria or Abyssiania must cease to be colonies or semi-colonies and become autonomous republics on a complete equality with the European peoples. This entails a vast change of outlook and a bitter, complex struggle which is not likely to be settled without bloodshed. When the pinch comes the forces of imperialism will turn out to be extremely strong, and the British worker, if he has been taught to think of Socialism in materialistic terms, may ultimately decide that it is better to remain an imperial power at the expense of playing second fiddle to America. In varying degrees all the European peoples, at any rate those who are to form part of the proposed union, will be faced with the same choice.

4. The Catholic Church. As the struggle between East and West becomes more naked, there is danger that democratic Socialists and mere reactionaries will be driven into combining in a sort of Popular Front. The Church is the likeliest bridge between them. In any case the Church will make every effort to capture and sterilize any movement aiming at European unity. The dangerous thing about the Church is that it is not reactionary in the ordinary sense. It is not tied to laissez-faire capitalism or to the existing class system, and will not necessarily perish with them. It is perfectly capable of coming to terms with Socialism, or appearing to do so, provided that its own position is safeguarded. But if it is allowed to survive as a powerful organization, it will make the establishment of true Socialism impossible, because its influence is and always must be against freedom of thought and speech, against human equality, and against any form of society tending to promote earthly happiness.

When I think of these and other difficulties, when I think of the enormous mental readjustment that would have to be made, the appearance of a Socialist United States of Europe seems to me a very unlikely event. I don't mean that the bulk of the people are not prepared for it, in a passive way. I mean that I see no person or group of persons with the slightest chance of attaining power and at the same time with the imaginative grasp to see what is needed and to demand the necessary sacrifices from their followers. But I also can't at present see any other hopeful objective. At one time I believed that it might be possible to form the British Empire into a federation of Socialist republics, but if that chance ever existed, we lost it by failing to liberate India, and by our attitude toward the coloured peoples generally. It may be that Europe is finished and that in the long run some better form of society will arise in India or China. But I believe that it is only in Europe, if anywhere, that democratic Socialism could be made a reality in short enough time to prevent the dropping of the atom bombs.

Of course, there are reasons, if not for optimism, at least for suspending judgement on certain points. One thing in our favour is that a major war is not likely to happen immediately. We could, I suppose, have the kind of war that consists in shooting rockets, but not a war involving the mobilization of tens of millions of men. At present any large army would simply melt away, and that may remain true for ten or even twenty years. Within that time some unexpected things might happen. For example, a powerful Socialist movement might for the first time arise in the United States as 'capitalistic', with the implication that this is something unalterable, a sort of racial characteristic like the colour of eyes or hair. But in fact it cannot be unalterable, since capitalism itself has manifestly no future, and we cannot be sure in advance that the next change in the United States will not be a change for the better.

Then, again, we do not know what changes will take place in the U.S.S.R. if war can be staved off for the next generation or so. In a society of that type, a radical change of outlook always seems unlikely, not only because there can be no open opposition but because the régime, with its complete hold over education, news, etc. deliberately aims at preventing the pendulum swing between generations which seems to occur naturally in liberal societies. But for all we know the tendency one generation to reject the ideas of the last is an abiding human characteristic which even the N.K.V.D. will be unable to eradicate. In that case there may by 1960 be millions of young Russians who are bored by dictatorship and loyalty parades, eager for more freedom, and friendly in their attitude towards the West.

Or again, it is even possible that if the world falls apart into three unconquerable super-states, the liberal tradition will be strong enough within the Anglo-American section of the world to make life tolerable and even offer some hope of progress. But all this is speculation. The actual outlook, so far as I can calculate the probabilities, is very dark, and any serious thought should start out from that fact.

Annex 2

Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 9:16 PM

Subject: Shocking news about George Orwell-from Jewish Tribal Review

Remembering George Orwell
1903, June 25. - 1950, January 21.

The Guardian - 13 August 2002

What happens when biographers discover something loathsome about their subject?
DJ Taylor on the ugly side of a radical hero.

by DJ Taylor

Looking through the current swathe of publishers' catalogues, I was fascinated to note the long-delayed unveiling of a biography that literary London has had raptly in its sights since at least the middle of the last decade. It would be horribly unfair of me to name the biographee (a distinguished British novelist, dead these last 10 years) or the equally distinguished author, for most of this fascination stems not from the book's prospective merits, but from the existence of a kind of guerrilla warfare conducted by X the biographer and his subject Y almost from page to page. Basically, X, having cheerfully accepted the publisher's commission all those years ago, discovered at an early stage in the proceedings that he didn't much like the man he was writing about. When he found, slightly further down the road, that the dislike had turned to loathing, it was all he could do, apparently, to finish the work.

Curiously enough, this phenomenon is a great deal commoner than it sounds. Obviously, there are professional anti-biographers grimly at work - Kitty Kelley, for instance, or the late Albert Goldman, sedulous stitcher-up of Elvis Presley and others - who simply begin by assuming the worst and go on from there. Most biographers, though, start by adducing some mild affinity with their subject, or at the very least extending some faint respect to the career, the achievement or the personality.

But postwar biography is littered with the bones of supposedly absorbing subjects whose personalities turned out to be so rebarbative or uninspiring that teams of potential anatomists tried, laboured, and gave up.

Never mind the long years of work you have to put in, the interviews with the deceased's surviving acquaintances, the search - if the subject has been done before - for that striking new angle, that unknown love-child, that choir-boy fetish: biography requires a long-term emotional commitment. Five years in a study with someone you don't actually like? There are easier ways of making a living.

My own particular biographer's dilemma started with the discovery, in the files of the publisher Victor Gollancz Ltd, of a letter sent to Gollancz himself in the spring of 1933. The writer, Mr GM Lipsey, had read a copy of George Orwell's newly published Down and Out in Paris and London. He was furious, not only with Orwell but also with his publisher. "On its merits or otherwise I have no desire to comment," he commented. "But I am appalled that a book containing insulting and odious remarks about Jews should be published by a firm bearing the name 'Gollancz'." A spirited correspondence followed. There were threats of legal action, and finally the row fizzled out. Its shadow, though, hangs over much of Orwell's early writings, and indeed his whole attitude towards Jews, Jewishness and, later on, the foundation of a Zionist state.

Having read and annotated Down and Out in Paris and London half a dozen times, I was aware of the book's "Jew" references, just as one is aware of them in, to select a random handful of Orwell's 30s contemporaries, the work of Anthony Powell, JB Priestley, TS Eliot and Graham Greene. Reading it again, in the light of the Lipsey remonstrance, I was struck by how oddly gratuitous they are. Barely has the third chapter been reached, for example, before a hard-up Orwell is unloading clothes in a Parisian secondhand shop to "a red-haired Jew, an extraordinarily disagreeable man". Now, one can be disagreeable and a Jew, but the faint hint that the connection has a racial basis is somehow reinforced by the coda. "It would have been a pleasure to have flattened the Jew's nose, if only one could have afforded it."

Back in London, Orwell wanders into a coffee shop near Tower Hill where "in a corner by himself a Jew, muzzle down in the plate, was guiltily wolfing bacon." How does Orwell know the bacon-wolfer is a Jew? And how does he know that the emotion he detects in his face is guilt? There is something loaded, too, about the reference to a "muzzle", as if the man is not quite human, and the explanation for this sub-humanity has something to do with being Jewish.

One could ignore this, just possibly, if it existed in a single book. And yet for 10 years the abstract figure of "the Jew" makes regular appearances in Orwell's diaries. Out tramping in the early 30s, he falls in with "a little Liverpool Jew, a thorough guttersnipe" with a face that recalls "some low-down carrion bird". Watching the crowds thronging the London underground in October 1940, he decides that what is "bad" about the Jews is that they are not only conspicuous but go out of their way to make themselves so. He is particularly annoyed by "a regular comic-paper cartoon of a Jewess" who literally fights her way on to the train at Oxford Circus. Again, it is perfectly possible that the woman in question resembled an extra from Fiddler On The Roof and that the incident took place exactly as Orwell describes it. Even so, it is a safe bet that no early 21st-century liberal will be able to read Orwell's account without clenching their teeth.

It would be idle to classify Orwell as "anti-semitic". He had dozens of Jewish friends and kept a vigilant eye out for evidence of anti-semitism, both on theatre stages and in print. In fact, the complexities of what he thought and wrote about Jews defy easy summary (although it is worth pointing out that in an argument with Aneurin Bevan, he once referred to Zionists as "a gang of Wardour Street Jews" with a controlling interest over the British press.)

But having come across these attitudes, what do you do with them? Context, inevitably, is all. The only sensible answer to anyone who suggests that, say, Thackeray was a racist or that Trollope hated Italians is: so what? There is a particular school of modern literary criticism which believes in what used to be called the Shakespeare and the Second-best Bed syndrome (the reference is to the inferior piece of furniture bequeathed to the bard's wife in his will) - that if a writer holds to political and social views that are morally disgusting or behaves badly as a person, therefore his work will show similar flaws and should be similarly disregarded. Thus Tom Paulin, for example, seems to believe that because Philip Larkin was a racist and a misogynist his work either shouldn't be studied or, if so, taught only to be disparaged.
On the other hand, there are people who will tell you that it is possible - in fact, desirable - to separate a writer's life from his or her art, and to study the one in isolation from the other. Obviously it is theoretically possible to make this separation. But sooner or later anyone who studies the works of a particular poet or novelist is going to want to know about the life running on beneath, however subliminally or obliquely that knowledge will eventually influence what the reader thinks about the work.

Where does this leave Larkin? And to a slightly lesser extent, Orwell? From the biographer's point of view - not, admittedly, the only point worth staring from - it ought to make them more, rather than less, interesting. Pace Paulin, we should not be writing Larkin off as a racist but pondering the contrast between his venomous remarks about "niggers" and the extraordinary delicacy of his lament over the dead hedgehog scythed apart by his lawnmower.

Similarly, Orwell's fixation with doling out the word "Jew" like a kind of party badge raises fundamental questions about the social milieu he inhabited and the upbringing that put stereotypes of this sort into his head. Above all, perhaps - and this is a man regularly marked down by posterity as a secular saint - it makes him seem human in a way that much of the posthumous embalming of his reputation does not. Meanwhile, I look forward to this autumn's outpourings from Biographer X, the humanity of whose subject will, you feel, turn out to be rather more problematic.

On Nick Griffin, CUNTs and Other Scum

Nick Griffin gets desperate by using 'criminals' to fix the forthcoming BNP EGM

Tommy Williams/Shove the dove

Peter SID Williamson /St George is Cross

Dave Howard/Yorkshire Loyalist coming out of Police station

Now they have wheeled out wannabe gangster, Toward the superman/Joe Owens, he talks about wondering what happened in my life in a thread on Stormfront called 'Peter Barker' !

Owens what happened in YOUR life to make you go down the criminal slide of gangs, weapons extreme violence and drugs?
Owens talks about failures, now that is ironic coming from him.
Isn't it odd that this attack comes after Nick Griffin stated on Stormfront using his monilker of Purging the Droid recently, that steps were being taken against me.
And isn't it odd the attack has been launched just as we, and the Enough is Enough people are joining forces to stop Griffin getting his way at the forthcoming EGM ?

This latest attack using a nationalist name, mine, is forbidden under Stormfront rules, but as Don Black himself and his wife are under pressure warding off complaints by other US nationalists that the Blacks themselves are ant-racists we shouldn't wonder why Don Black has continously supported Griffin. (This is why we need a British forum for nationalists, which we intend to start quite soon).
Who are this support group for Nick Griffin ?
Griffin has very few friends and he has to pay them for their loyalty.

Covert Undercover Nuisance Tactics or CUNTs for short, was started by Nick Griffin as a dirty tricks group a few years ago, and were given a 'bung' every so often to attack those whom Griffin wishes to punish.

Unfortunately, they aren't as covert now, as they have been 'outed' just as they have 'outed' many nationalists in the past and hounded and threatened many such as Jack Black, Peter Rushton, David Jones, Roger Robertson, Jonathan Bowden and their current and seemingly constant target is yours truly.
As an aside isn't outing a 'no no' on the Internet ?

Then why has my name been bandied about all over the web, and the latest is the very stupid act by Mark Collett's mate, Joe Owens, a man who has been pulled in by Police for more than one murder charge.

The CUNT's group consists of Tommy Williams/Shove the dove and Dave Howard/Yorkshire Loyalist. They are also supported by Peter SID Williamson (who has just been banned by Stormfront for outing) and Beverley Kerry/Odinsgal, a very strange 'lady' who is a moderator for an extreme nazi chat group.
Is it any wonder why more and more people want rid of the crook Griffin ?

Searchlight and Operation Wedge

“Operation Wedge” is an organisation which claims to work against “racial hatred.” Nothing wrong with that — except that on its own web site, it claims that it is a subsidiary of ”Searchlight Information Services”, which as all regular readers will know, is the front organisation for the extreme left Communist Party of Great Britain.

Searchlight claims that: “Operation Wedge receives major funding from the Association of London Government and is sponsored by the Prison Service, Crown Prosecution Service, Probation Service and the trade unions POA and NAPO”.

However, according to the Crown Prosecution Service, the CPS categorically states that (in a letter dated the 11th June 2008 - ref. No 1311): “I can confirm that the Crown Prosecution Service do not sponsor or fund Searchlight”.

So – either the Crown Prosecution Service, or the organisation Searchlight, is not telling the truth.

Which, we wonder, could it be?

Without doubt the impressive credentials of being sponsored by: “… the Prison Service, Crown Prosecution Service, Probation Service …” must do much to encourage funds (including public money) to flow into Searchlight’s coffers. For example the Association of London Government recommended approval of a grant of £30,000 to Operation Wedge in 2004 (for the period 1st February 2005 to 31st January 2006) and a grant of £30,000 in early 2006 (for the period 1st April to 31st March 2007).

So what, then, of the claims by Searchlight of the “sponsorship” of Operation Wedge by the Prison Service and the Probation Service?

This is where the story starts to enter the realm of evasion and denial.

A similar request to that for the CPS, under the terms of the FOI Act 2000, was made on the 15th June 2008 to the Ministry of Justice (which includes the Prison Service and the Probation Service), asking:

Has HM Prison & Probation Service ever sponsored, provided support, had a formal working relationship, or provided funds to the Searchlight organisation (or to any of its ancillary groups including, but not limited to, Operation Wedge) – if so, then what are the details of the association between the Prison/Probation Service and Searchlight?

The Ministry of Justice responded on the 15th July 2008 to say that an answer (that requires a simple response to a series of straightforward questions) was “taking longer than we previously anticipated”. The Ministry of Justice requested a further one-month extension to provide an answer. They have not given any reason for this delay.

The enquirer generously gave the Ministry an extension to Friday 25th July to provide an answer. However we learn that no response has been received. The Ministry of Justice is therefore in breach of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and as a result a letter of complaint is to be sent to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

It almost seems that these law enforcement agencies are becoming very wary in admitting any relationship between themselves and the Searchlight organisation. Why should this be? The Crown Prosecution Service has unequivocally denied “sponsoring” Searchlight (including Operation Wedge), the Metropolitan Police is not at all forthcoming, and the Ministry of Justice seems suddenly to be afflicted by institutional amnesia.

Maybe ‘the penny has finally dropped’ and these institutions are beginning to wonder why Searchlight’s relentless and vitriolic hate mongering is directed solely against members of the indigenous British population.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

The Lost Leader: a poem by Robert Browning (A Tale of Modern Leadership)

By Nemesis

I recently found this poem by the nineteenth-century poet Robert Browning. It is bizarrely premonitional of the disgraced BNP Chairman Nick Griffin and our own current relationship with him that it could even be suggested that it was written specially for Griffin.

The Lost Leader by Robert Browning

Just for a handful of silver he left us,
Just for a riband to stick in his coat –
Found the one gift of which fortune bereft us,
Lost all the others she lets us devote;
They, with the gold to give, doled him out silver,
So much was theirs who so little allowed:
How all our copper had gone for his service!
Rags – were they purple, his heart had been proud!
We that had loved him so, followed him, honoured him,
Lived in his mild and magnificent eye,
Learned his great language, caught his clear accents,
Made him our pattern to live and to die!
Shakespeare was of us, Milton was for us,
Burns, Shelley, were with us – they watch from their graves!
He alone breaks from the van and the freemen,-
He alone sinks to the rear and the slaves!

We shall march prospering – not through his presence;
Songs may inspirit us, – not from his lyre;
Deeds will be done, – while he boasts his quiescence,
Still bidding crouch whom the rest bade aspire:
Blot out his name, then, record one lost soul more,
One task more declined, one more footpath untrod,
One more devils’-triumph and sorrow for angels,
One wrong more to man, one more insult to God!
Life’s night begins: let him never come back to us!
There would be doubt, hesitation and pain,
Forced praise on our part – the glimmer of twilight,
Never glad confident morning again!
Best fight on well, for we taught him – strike gallantly,
Menace our heart ere we master his own;
Then let him receive the new knowledge and wait us,
Pardoned in heaven, the first by the throne!

The following lines are so relevent for Griffin and how many of the BNP membership relate to the current regime:

"Just for a handful of silver he left us,"

(Griffin's intention is to get a lucrative job as a Euro MP and leave the BNP with his guilt-edge pension. Apart from his ransacking of the BNP for personal and family gain).

"They, with the gold to give, doled him out silver,So much was theirs who so little allowed:"

(BNP members are known for their self-sacrfice with their hard-earned money given to the BNP cause yet in return they are treated with contempt and what little democracy they have within the party is increasingly being removed from them by Griffin).

"We that had loved him so, followed him, honoured him,Lived in his mild and magnificent eye,Learned his great language, caught his clear accents,Made him our pattern to live and to die!Shakespeare was of us, Milton was for us,Burns, Shelley, were with us – they watch from their graves!He alone breaks from the van and the freemen,– He alone sinks to the rear and the slaves!

(Many BNP members had such great faith in Griffin and his leadership and believed his lies for so long. A loyalty towards Griffin that knew few bounds has been rewarded by being bitterly twisted against them to save his own financial empire. Browning must have also known that Griffin only possesses one eye!)

"We shall march prospering – not through his presence;Songs may inspirit us, – not from his lyre;"

(However, BNP members shall continue fighting the cause long after their traitorous leader has abandoned them in the struggle, its members leading from the grassroots rather than from the 'vision' and 'inspiration' of its crooked leader Griffin who regards as critics as 'vermin').

"Blot out his name, then, record one lost soul more,One task more declined, one more footpath untrod,"

(This refers to the erasure of Griffin's traitorous leadership regime, marked by the notable fact that Griffin tended to refuse fighting the real enemy and always fought his own people first. He always baulked at financing and organising the BNP as a fully-fledged political fighting machine, perferring to accumulate wealth and despotic power first and foremost).

"Life’s night begins: let him never come back to us!There would be doubt, hesitation and pain,Forced praise on our part – the glimmer of twilight,Never glad confident morning again!"

(These four lines of Browning's poem says it all succinctly about Griffin and his leadership. Although the darkness of betrayal is a hard thing to take, BNP members will strive to continue the struggle and to rebuild a new party without the stigma of the rotten and corrupt Griffin regime. Despite the setbacks the darkness will soon be replaced by the light of a new dawn of hope and of victory!)

With revelation after revelation coming out that demonstrate the corruption and despotic nature at the heart of the 'Griffin Project' it is now harder for this man to survive long at the heart of the BNP machine.

Nick Griffin must now fall on his sword.

However, that man has no honour and no moral compulsion to do so.

He will only be removed by force in four ways:. Either an 'Ides of March' coup by disgruntled officials and senior members working together to unseat him. Or a Police investigation into financial corruption.

Or a mass reaction by the membership resigning or not paying contributing financially or working for the party.

Or a legal challenge into his constitutional rigging of the party.

The time for change is now.

Whatever is decided at Griffin's already fixed Special Conference to revise the timescale for leadership challenges the fight must go on.

All those opposed to Griffin must sooner or later organise.

There has been precious little of that in recent months and no co-ordination.

Without co-ordination and a concerted focussing of strength at Griffin's weakest points the chances of success are low.

Since we are dealing with an individual whose megalomania is apparent and who will stop at nothing the fight must be relentless and unforgiving.

It must be backed up by serious money and a serious framework of legal challenges ready to be mounted against the regime if Griffin changes the rules at any time.

Those at the top of the regime who continue to support and aid Griffin and the rest of the Mugabesque cabal must be aware that blood will be unleashed when the Real BNP take back its party.

There must be no mercy and no hesitation. This time the stakes are too high.

The only viable political vehicle of British nationalism is under threat of self-destruction by an irresponsible and mad Dr Frankenstein who wishes to recreate the BNP into a monster of his own image.

Without a secure and effective BNP the survival of our race and nation is at stake. This is Survival of the Fittest.

Are you ready to stand up and be counted?

Police harassment of nationalists at BPP meeting

News is coming in of major harassment by Police in London yesterday, Sunday 27th.July 2008 of a BPP meeting.

We also understand the meetings main speaker 'Jack Black' was arrested , but we don't know if 'jack' was charged with anything.

No doubt these were all just 'fishing' and harassment tactics by Scotland Yard.

Did anyone take photos ? We will upload them if posted to us.

Monday, July 28, 2008


EGM called by Nick Griffin for 17th August.

The reform group will be strongly represented at this EGM and will oppose any change to the Party Constitution proposed by Nick Griffin.

Extract from our Manifesto:

(For full Manifesto see under Manifesto on Home Page.)

“We believe that the Party Constitution should be changed to one that is a recognisable as normal for a corporate body under English law.

In our view, the Party must have a proper structure. It must have a number of the key officials directly elected by the members, in particular, the offices of Vice Chairman and Party Treasurer must be directly elected. The Party Chairman would be bound to discuss and agree with the majority of the other elected officials, matters of policy and discipline.

The new Constitution will provide for a compulsory Annual General Meeting at which all paid-up members are entitled to attend, propose resolutions and vote. We believe that the Party belongs to the members and that Party officials should be accountable to the members.”

Please may we have your support ?

Contact: 0799 058 7575


About Nick Griffin: Wikipedia

News about the BNP that Nick would prefer you don’t know!

Nationalist site: Northwestnationalists

Very anti-nationalist site, but often very well informed:

Lancaster UAF

For the geeks:

Further info on party and related to nick
The Fastest FTPS on the planet Go FTP FREE

Who is going to the EGM ?
There seems to be a rather controversial motion being put to an unprecedented, Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), which has been 'nailed onto' the forthcoming Red/White/Blue function.
Apparently, this motion is to allow Nick Griffin even more dictatorial powers. After rigging elections, expulsions and so on, he wants this job for life. Or until he is rich enough to disappear into the sunset, with his loot. (Suffice to say this site wants Mr.Griffin to have rather less power in the BNP, and reward him for his services to nationalism, with his very own P45.)
General plans need to be made. No doubt Griffin will have his hired hands on the lookout to save his skin, both before the RWB, and at the function.
This site will support those who want to bring honesty and decency back into the nationalist movement.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

BNP Organisers and activists, are you paying attention?

You know how you tirelessly trudge the streets handing out leaflets and depositing them through letter boxes, and you know how you fill your petrol tank up to collect others en route, and dash about doing various other services for the cause of BNP nationalism, and never expect a penny in return?

Well, here is a print out of expense claims, otherwise known as a ‘Form 11’ sadly we only have these snippets to show you, but tell us, how do you feel?

Perhaps you'd also like to tell us how you feel about, Mark Colletts, company 'Vanguard Promotions', and how much he charges the BNP for printing, but keep it civil :)

John Walkers, is a rather small claim compared to the rest of them, and probably why he let us have them, and if you the onlooker feel you cannot handle anymore, then stay away from this blog, because we've only just started.


The two new images added at the top are the fees for, Simon Darby, note fees, and not expenses. Expenses are seperate. And, the fees paid to, James Dowson's 'Midas Consultancy', yes, him again!

Want to know how much Griffin earns?

Want to compare your mobile phone bill with the BNP's?

Do you really believe the BNP has 10,000 members, and big donators?

Uploading this evening...

Friday, July 25, 2008

The Truth about Griffins ‘Truth Truck’

It would appear that the second hand vehicle fetishist strikes again!

So, you thought you were donating to a ‘Truth Truck Appeal’?
Or, like us, did you think it was all a con?

What if we told you the truth truck already exists, but is not being purchased, it’s simply on loan?

Yes, you poor suckers have been suckered again. Here is your truth truck, owned by Mr James Dowson of LifeLeague

He’s the man who owns the villa in Spain that you were never invited to as part of the BNP’s training school. It’s the same villa that Griffin has just spent a month in, writing his tome, for when he’s elected to the Euro parliament, and if he’s not elected he’ll have something to flog while people still remember his name.

Griffin recently asked Dowson to remove the image and page, but fortunately for us, it was cached, and still available. You can see its removal at the following link

It also appears that, Mr. Dowson and Griffin have a great deal in common, and I quote the ‘Guardian’ newspaper below

“Little is known about Dowson. It is reported that he lives in Scotland and is a Protestant minister. Neither, it transpires, is strictly true. Dowson has never been ordained as a minister. And although he claims to live in Glasgow, he spends most of his time in Northern Ireland where land registry records show he owns a buy-to-let property in Comber, a small town in County Down. Dowson, his wife, Anne, and their son, James, 20, who bought a title and calls himself the Laird of Glencairn, actually live at another address in County Down, a four-bedroom semi in Ballygowan. Dowson also has a house in Cumbernauld, Glasgow, where he owns a mission hall.

The LifeLeague's website pledges to spend donations 'wisely' but tracing where the money goes is difficult. Documents at Companies House show Dowson originally set up the league as a private company but it remains dormant and has never filed meaningful accounts. Instead it is run as a society, which means it only has to share its accounts with its members. 'We do not publish our accounts as that would play into the hands of the pro-abortionists,' Dowson said.”

Anyone with further information can email us, and we'll add it.

Make way for the, Tories, again...

Labour MP calls for Brown to quit after by-election humiliation

The Cabinet must tell Gordon Brown it’s time to quit, a Labour MP said today, beginning what is expected to become a clamour for his resignation.
Graham Stringer said that it was time for a “new start” in the wake of the loss of Labour’s 25th safest seat, Glasgow East, in yesterday’s by-election.
The Cabinet should have a “closed and honest discussion with Gordon Brown,” he said. “We need a new start and that can only come from a debate around the leadership.”
Mr Brown faced questions about the prospect of a leadership challenge as he travelled to Labour’s National Policy Forum in Warwick, the venue for crucial talks with the unions over future policy.

Read the comments:

Re: the Heretical duo & closing the border between the UK and Ireland

The Heretical duo- Sheppard and Whittle, stole a move on our oppressors, by hopping over to Ireland, from whence they flew to America to seek political asylum.

All yesterday, on every one of its newscasts BBC radio4 trolled out the news that the UK government is to install border controls between Ireland and the UK mainland,including the Isle of Man.

I do not believe that these two items are unrelated. In fact I am dead certain that this move was provoked by the escape of Sheppard and Whittle, and in order to prevent the same thing happening again.

The action of the Heretical duo in applying for political refugee status could be, and should be (made) an acute embarrassment to the UK government- which is the principal reason for news of the affair being sat upon in both the UK and US media.
Some indication of the importance and urgency with which the government views this affair can be seen via comparison between this move now, and throughout all the many years of Ira atrocities, when British people were being blown to pieces in the streets, and Irish workers, including Ira murderers were allowed to travel back and forth, unhindered..

The case of Sheppard and Whittle is a crucial event. We must do all we can, and spread the word to everyone, and we must fight to win this time. These two brave lads deserve all the help we can give them, but also, the evil ramifications of allowing the UK government to get away with this, will be vast and hideous, and so demands an even greater effort from all of us.
On the other hand we can win this one and make a stab for freedom of speech, lawful trials, and against the politicizing of the police force, whilst tramping the occupation enemy's face into the mud.


NWN: We must confess that the above thought entered our heads too, regarding border closure !

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Update on Heretical Two ! - Donations please

(From an e-mail):

Re: Heretical Two

I shall put the word out, perhaps all those people who waste their money paying Irving's exhorbitant rents eg. £5000 per month currently at Windsor should help.

Hi, Tony!

The Heretical Two need some help in the way of a fund raising drive. It seems that USD 10,000 should do the trick, or £5,000. Are you able to tap any sources in England or the USA to help them?

NWN: We have been asked for our help in this venture to provide a fund for Messrs. Whittle and Sheppard. More details when we have them.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Latest news on the British asylum seekers in the USA - Heretical Two !

" I've just heard that Californian attorney Bruce Leichty (who previously represented Ernst Zundel) has visited the Heretical Two in gaol.

He reports that they are being well treated, but feel rather isolated, so messages of support would be welcome.

A fuller report will follow.

Sheppard, Simon
c/o Santa Ana Jail
P.O. Box 22003 Santa Ana,
CA 92701 USA

Whittle, Steve
c/o Santa Ana Jail
P.O. Box 22003 Santa Ana,
CA 92701 USA

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

"A vote for Nick Griffin is a vote for no expulsions for reconciliation and for party unity" - Nick Griffin .
Well I wouldn't trust Griffin in any way, as his letter below spells out.He cannot be trusted. His word means nothing to him. And certainly nothing to me !
Sounds unbelievable now looking at the 'claptrap' he spouted in 1999, to get his fat greedy hands on the BNP pursestrings doesn't it ?
Click on the images to enlarge..........

Griffin running scared

Below, is an email sent out by, Nick Griffin, to who have become collectively known as 'The Rebels'. It's more than apparent that Griffin, is running scared, and about time to!

Anyone wishing to donate, and advance this case which Griffin claims

"the looming problem of negative equity for many home-owners is sufficiently large that, while the end result is likely to be your collective bankruptcy and loss of several homes"

Can do so here:

We at NWN don't believe the rebels will lose at all, and if Griffin ever attempted to be honest, neither does he.

Dated 8th July 2008


Further to our earlier correspondence in connection with proposed disciplinary proceedings, I am writing to you and your colleagues in this matter in an attempt to bring it to an early - and as far as is possible - relatively painless conclusion for all concerned.

In response to my letter of 8th April, several of your group requested that the BNP's internal disciplinary proceedings and connected unfair dismissal hearings. should be stayed pending the outcome of the court case Griffin v Smith & Others. I accepted this as a sensible proposal for all concerned for the time being.

The delay does not, however, alter the fact that our present course will see us back in court, with both sides incurring further very considerable expense. My informed opinion is that you and your colleagues will lose the case, but that Mr. Davies does not mind this in the slightest because his avowed aim is to try and bleed the BNP financially. He knows that the looming problem of negative equity for many home-owners is sufficiently large that, while the end result is likely to be your collective bankruptcy and loss of several homes, we will be unable to recover any significant part of our costs.

I trust that you will already have learnt from the failure of the desperate "Scottish gambit" in which he encouraged you to set so much store that Mr. Davies gungo-ho tendencies do not always work out in the best interests of his clients (as Steve Edwards, Jay Lee, the Roberts Brothers and Tess Culnane have already discovered to their cost).

Especially now that time has elapsed to allow water to flow under various bridges, I ask you individually and collectively, to give very careful consideration to an agreement to end the action on the basis of each side bearing their own costs and going their separate ways. The sums involved at present are, as we all know only too well, steep without being ruinous. It is surely sensible to bring matters to an end while this is the case?

As you know, the BNP has already through the action secured its assets and the privacy of its members (although my solicitor informs me that he is still waiting for the affidavit on these matters from you in accordance with the Judge's directions). While it would have been far better had it been possible to have done so without the expense incurred so far, we have at last achieved what we needed to do, so we have little other than an expensive moral victory to gain by pursuing the matter further if you and your colleagues will agree to end this and any other possible actions. Please note that there can be no question of leaving an opening through which Mr. Davies can continue to use you people as pawns in his own longstanding personal campaign to bring down those who have achieved political success way beyond anything he has been able to manage in his various forays into either "extreme" or "moderate" nationalism.

All concerned have lives to lead and better things to do than enrich lawyers or waste court time. I hope to hear that we can agree on that at least, in which a settlement along the lines outlined above would surely be the only sensible option.

Is Soros taking his biggest gamble ever ?

NWN: Sent in by our London correspondent; Very interesting article about George Soros, he wants a one world 'open society' with one language, the communist esperanto, and obviously ruled by the 'chosen race'.

Keith Dovkants, London Evening Standard

The gathering storm over London's financial markets hardly needed a pessimistic intervention from George Soros. The billionaire speculator weighed into the gloom this week with a prophecy that Britain and the United States were heading for recession. It was, he said, "the most serious financial crisis of our lifetime".

As his words reverberated around the news wires on Tuesday, the markets plunged. Wall Street watched helplessly as 200 points were wiped off the Dow after federal reserve chairman Ben Bernanke warned of trouble ahead in the US economy. Worries over America's two biggest mortgage lenders and a run on a failing bank that mirrored Britain's Northern Rock crisis contributed to a sense that things were spinning out of control. In London, the FTSE 100 index fell 160 points amid scenes of near-panic. There was a minor recovery but banking shares hit their lowest level for a decade.

As all this unfolded, Soros's bleak assessment came like a thunderclap from the darkening clouds. Soros is the man credited, if that's the right word, with breaking the Bank of England. His judgments over more than 30 years of investment performance provide a template for making indecent amounts of money and he is admired and feared, probably in equal measure. When he says we are in trouble, people listen. When he acts on his own advice, they pay very, very careful attention. This is one of those times.

Talk in the City suggests Soros has taken a significant position on the FTSE index. His nephew Peter Soros is believed to be overseeing the London operation, although when the Evening Standard contacted him yesterday by telephone he declined to speak. When asked if he was, in fact, heavily shorting the UK stock market, he replied "no comment" on three occasions - and then hung up.

It has been known for some time that Soros has gone short on European stocks but now the word is that, through his investment fund, he is staking a big down bet on London quoted shares.

This is how speculators - and Soros is the daddy of them all - make money in falling markets. By buying financial instruments called futures it is possible to take a punt on the movement of the Footsie. Soros's bet, it is believed, is that it will go down.

So what, it might be thought? A lot of people think the Footsie has further to fall. Nicola Horlick, the influential fund manager, has been telling anyone who'll listen to get out of equities. There was a rally yesterday but this morning the index fell 46.9 points to 5239. Will it continue downwards, breaching even the psychologically important 5,000 level? News today that the Treasury is looking at relaxing its own rules on government borrowing will not help. Many will see any attempt by government to borrow its way out of the current crisis as a desperation measure.

Most of the indicators suggest Soros may be safe with his bet that the Footsie will dive. But the clever money might suggest this is hardly the point. The real question is does Soros have the ability to turn his punt into a self-fulfilling prophecy? In these febrile times, with the market like a man sleepwalking on a precipice, perception is everything. Can the power of Soros's reputation and history help tip the FTSE index over the edge?

Any move by Soros commands special attention. His cachet may have slipped a little in the past few years but he still has a reputation for being a man who can move markets, especially those as delicately poised as London is just now. Who can forget Black Wednesday?

On 16 September, 1992, Britain was forced to quit the European Exchange Mechanism after a humiliation that saw the Treasury spend £27 billion in an attempt to shore up the pound. It had been sold short relentlessly by speculators among whom Soros was believed to be the most active. He is said to have made £1 billion from the affair, although he has never confirmed - or denied - this figure. As Soros bets against the Footsie now the inevitable question is - could he do it again?

There may be a view that the stock market has the resilience to withstand even an assault by Soros. But as awareness grows of his shorting strategy there is a bound to be a reaction. The impact of this reaction may depend on how aggressive he and, no doubt, his associates, decide to be.

After hammering the pound, Soros repeated the exercise with the Thai baht. His Quantum fund has been among the most successful investment vehicles ever seen and despite giving away a sizeable portion of his wealth - $6 billion according to one estimate - Soros still features high on the list of the world's richest individuals with a fortune of at least $10 billion. Last year he was the second biggest hitter on Wall Street, according to Forbes magazine, with earnings of $2.4 billion. Soros will be 78 next month. Apart from his philanthropy, he has also been busy helping shape the modern world. His backing for the Solidarity movement in Poland, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and the Rose Revolution in Georgia contributed to profound change in those countries. His influence on Russia before and after communism has been widely acknowledged. He may have failed in his ambition to topple George W Bushbut his successes have been many and some will wonder why he might be bothered, at this stage in his life, to risk a potentially bloody battle on the London stock market.

Perhaps it is a matter of unfinished business. Soros is still hungry for recognition but not as a man who can make vast amounts of money, rather as a prophet of the age, although the word he might use is philosopher. Indeed, philosophy is Soros's first and most enduring love. Anyone trying to second guess himwould do well to look at his roots.

He was born in Budapest in 1930, the son of Teodor Schwartz, a Jewish intellectual and idealist who had been captured by the Russians on the eastern front in the First World War. Teodor made it back to Hungary and pursued a career as a lawyer and one of the world's leading exponents of Esperanto. As fascism took hold in Germany and elsewhere he changed the family name from Schwartz to Soros, the Esperanto for "will soar".

After the war Georgemade his way to London and was accepted as a student at the London School of Economics where he encountered the man who was to become one of the most profound influences in his life, Professor Karl Popper.

Sir Karl, as he became, was an Austrian to whom Soros could relate on almost every level. Theirs was a shared background of intellectual rigour, often set in the context of a conversation, or chess game, in a central european coffee house. Popper's Open Society thesis was adopted wholeheartedly by Soros who expounds it to this day. He is currently chairman of the Open Society Institute. For Soros, an open society is a global entity where the rivalries and conflicts of nation states become irrelevant.

One can detect in this the ideals of Esperanto, the international language that would allow communication between the world's peoples, whatever their mother tongue. Soros values highly the ability of individuals to communicate. When he stepped in with aid for post-communism Hungary one of his first gifts was to provide libraries and schools throughout the country with photocopiers so printed material could be widely circulated.

But it is not as a Popper acolyte that Soros may wish to be remembered. He has formulated his own philosophy and an important element of it is relevant to the question of whether he might be working on a strategy to humble London's financial markets. The key word is "reflexivity", a term he coined as a label for his own thinking on how markets work.

The idea of reflexivity is that perceptions - and misconceptions - interact with an underlying reality while having the ability to change that reality. According to Soros, participants in events change the facts through the way they think about them while the events themselves can change the thinking. The relevance of that to current happenings in the City needs no explanation.

When he delivered a lecture on reflexivity in Washington in 1994, he expressed disappointment that it had not been more widely accepted. Some feel Soros is a touch miffed that his many books have failed to have the impact he might have liked. His latest, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets, opens with the statement that "this is the worst crisis since the Great Depression". It has been well received and, unlike some of his earlier works, is a bestseller.

It is tempting to imagine that the state of the financial markets offers Soros an opportunity not just to make money but also to demonstrate once and for all that his theory of reflexivity really does work.

He may feel he has nothing left to prove.

He lives comfortably but not lavishly by some billionaire standards, commuting between a gleaming white mansion in Westchester County in upstate New York and a house in Onslow Gardens on the border of Kensington and Chelsea. Apart from fund management, he oversees his philanthropic work, writes and gives occasional interviews. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last month, he was tackled about the fact that the dire predictions in his new book repeated similar warnings in two earlier works but neither of them came true. Was he crying wolf again?

Soros took the point in good humour. "After the boy cried wolf three times," he said, "the wolf really came."

Ex-prisoners and dissidents share in €333m EU peace cash bonanza 1 Fruits of peace: From left, Sinn Fein's Pearse Doherty, its...