Towns 'overwhelmed' by Nepalese(Gurkhas), MP claims

PUBLIC services are in danger of being "overwhelmed" by a recent influx of Nepalese immigrants, according to the area’s MP.

Gerald Howarth, who represents Aldershot and Farnborough in Parliament, has made an extraordinary plea to the prime minister to deal with an issue he said was of "grave concern" in the area.

In a letter sent to David Cameron on Tuesday, Mr Howarth said the problem related to the inward migration of Nepalese people as a result of the 2009 High Court ruling that gave all Gurkhas the right to settle in the UK with their dependants.

“This has had a very significant impact over a very short period of time and it is now estimated that 10% of the borough of Rushmoor’s population of approximately 90,000 is Nepalese,” said Mr Howarth in the letter.

Chhatra Rai, general secretary of the British Gurkha Welfare Society, whose headquarters are in Farnborough, said that while there were problems, Mr Howarth’s intervention was "unhelpful" and could set back efforts to help new arrivals settle.

http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/s/2086425_towns_overwhelmed_by_nepalese_mp_claims

NWN: We at NWN predicted this a few years back and especially when 'liberal bleeding heart' Joanna Lumley started spouting off.The Gurkhas should have been paid the same as any other British squaddie, but NOT allowed to bring themselves and all their families over here. This will all besmirch the reputation of the 'Gurkha soldier' which would be a bad thing.

IMPORTANT NEWSFLASH

Anonymous said on Griffin Watch...

.MSM blackout. Kevin Carroll one of the EDL leaders last night was the victim of an assassination attempt by a group of muslims that threw rocks at his window to draw him out of his house. He and his family are with armed police.A shotgun was fired at Kevin details are still sketchy and the rally in Luton will still go ahead.

28 January 2011 03:43
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anonymous, hope you don't mind me copying and putting your important report on Northwest Nationalists - apologies, all the same.

===================

NWN: Any truth in this anyone ?
While the leadership of the EDL and it's pro-zionism is anathema to genuine nationalists, this sounds bad.

New info.
BBC report sent in to NWN at 14:25 ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-12305490

and audio of Kevin ...
http://audioboo.fm/boos/264249-senior-edl-leader-kevin-carroll-speaks-exclusively-to-bbc-three-counties-about-the-attack-on-him

Chris Beverley sacked in Yorkshire !

,From Eddy Butlers blog;

,

Chris Beverley has been sacked as Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Organiser and replaced by Ian Kitchen. To many readers of this blog, Ian Kitchen will need no introduction. He is well qualified to be a member of Nick Griffin’s inner circle.

Chris Beverley was one of the last remaining competent Regional Organisers, one of the last capable election campaigners and one of the last independent voices left on the Advisory Council. As such his replacement was inevitable and long overdue.

Chris’s replacement at the outset of the Barnsley by-election is very ill-timed and is sure to harm the party’s ability to run a decent campaign. However, it is certainly the case that the reason Nick Griffin and Clive Jefferson decided to get rid of Chris at this juncture was precisely because of the Barnsley by-election. They were desperate for him not to have anything to do with the running of the campaign. This is because they feared that he would run a good campaign and obtain an improved result compared to the General Election. This would contrast badly, from their narrow, selfish and factional point of view with their disastrous showing in Oldham.

That quite simply is why Chris Beverley was sacked now. He had to go so that Clive Jefferson could interfere in the Barnsley campaign just as he interfered in the Oldham campaign. The result is secondary to making sure no one can get any credit for doing well. A distinct pattern is forming. Exactly the same reasoning motivated Clive Jefferson to come down to London and screw up the Goresbrook ward by-election in June.

http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2011/01/breaking-news-chris-beverley-sacked.html

'

NWN: It's interesting that even 'slow lad' Eddy Butler has mentioned, that in his opinion, Beverley was sacked so that he couldn't help the BNP candidate in the forthcoming Barnsley by-election to get a decent vote. WE have been saying this since 2001. That Griffins job is to ruin the BNP not help it !

It's taken Butler more than 10 years to realise.

Beverley is supposedly close to Andrew Brons. What will Brons do ? Anything ? Brons record for actually doing anything is pretty bad. He'll probably just 'keep his head down' and do nothing, as per usual.

The ruining of elections by the narcissistic Mr.Griffin was especially noted in Burnley some years back.

Paul Golding resignation letter

Just been forwarded this via email from my regional organiser:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


PRIVATE COMMUNICATION - 16th January 2011

Fellow nationalist,

I am writing to you privately and in a personal capacity because now the dust has settled I thought it both prudent and courteous to give you a brief outline of why I resigned from my position last November. It was a great privilege and honour to work full time for the party and I was always conscious of this, and of the trust vested in me by the members and party officers and my duty towards them - that is why I resigned.

I could no longer, in good conscience, be part of what ‘party central’ had become. Don’t get me wrong, it’s easy to moan about things from the sidelines - please don’t for one minute think that this is what I am doing. I merely want to set a few things straight for the future advancement of this party and the nationalist movement generally, also considering that Nick Griffin has been spreading false reasons why I resigned. I have been forced to set the record straight. I resigned for several reasons, the main ones being:

1) The EU fiasco: I was/am totally dismayed by the amount of time our Chairman spends in the EU parliament, much to the determent of our party overall, and the ‘gravy train’ mentality that now infects the new Solidarity ‘elite’ who have jumped on board the leadership team in more recent months.

It seems that the party now plays a secondary role to Nick Griffin’s European Parliament indulgence. Having our Chairman over in Brussels almost every week, Monday to Thursday (then taking Friday off), has been catastrophic and has lead to serious problems that could have been easily dealt with had Nick been on home soil with his eye on the ball.

Unfortunately, Nick Griffin appears to have lost interest in the day-to-day grind of running the BNP, and has submerged himself in the grandiose – but totally ineffectual – farce that is the European Parliament. A farce, yes, but a very lucrative one, as the attendance and travel allowances involved can net an MEP around an extra £5,000 per month on top of an 80,000 euros annual salary. After years of struggle, Nick is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his labours but not at the expense of the party.

2) Clive Jefferson: This man has in a few short months been appointed to the posts of National Elections Officer, National Organiser, National Nominating Officer and National Treasurer. I could see the ‘game plan’ take shape in the summer and warned the Chairman but nothing was done and now we have nearly every senior position held by one man. How can we be taken seriously by the public and the general membership when we have allowed such a farce to occur?

I also see little evidence that Mr. Jefferson is suited to any of the positions he now clings too. As National Organiser, Mr Jefferson has brought about no tangible improvements to our organisation and its functionality; as National Elections Officer, he has presided over the longest and most embarrassing string of mediocre election results in our history; and now this man has been appointed National Treasurer, instead of a suitably qualified individual. He has talked a good talk to the Chairman, but this man has not produced the goods for our party, quite the opposite in fact. The Oldham result being the latest in a long series of Jefferson-created electoral disasters.

Clive’s ineptitude was a key reason for my resignation. I was sickened to watch the highly successful “Bring Our Boys Home” campaign being totally wasted by Mr Jefferson. After the hundreds of activist stalls, after all the hard work and sweat of our members and organisers, after the Communications Department worked hard to produce the leaflet, banner and petition, and organised the promotion of the campaign via email bulletin, website, and organisers’ bulletins, all Clive had to do was to utilise and do something meaningful with the resulting data (around 100,000 names and addresses).

But to date nothing substantial has been done with the data (a few thousand were imputed by Belfast). The 100,000 names and addresses are gathering dust - what a total waste and failure of all our efforts. Any talk of ‘using them for the future’ is pie in the sky, as anyone who understands data handling will tell you, data goes cold very quickly and is rendered useless. The party did at the time, employ data experts working in our own headquarters but through Jefferson’s ineptitude an excellent opportunity, the goodwill of the public and the hard graft of our activists, has been shamefully squandered.

Talk about the new super ‘Alfred’ data system is not even worth commenting on as it is such a fantasy and another hair-brain dream that I do not believe it will ever be a credible election tool while being developed by amateurs (wait for the appeals to finance its so-called development appearing shortly).

Considering the image problem that always hinders our progress, was it wise for the Chairman to have appointed a man like Mr Jefferson who (although never convicted) was a named defendant in a major international drug trafficking trial in 2002 that resulted in lengthy jail sentences for several of his co-defendants, to his multiple senior posts within our party?

Nick Griffin has effectively handed over control of the entire party to Clive Jefferson (and Pat Harrington) – I fear this is so Mr Griffin can concentrate on being an MEP and going to Europe. This would be half-acceptable if party affairs were sound and in order – but as we are in a crisis, and have been for a long time, Nick’s persistence with his EU trips must raise some serious concerns.

3) Pat Harrington: This man’s involvement with our party has, I believe, been a huge mistake. He is not a member and in fact is the leader of a rival party that has even stood against us. Harrington, his wife, and a group of his Solidarity officials, are now on the European pay roll as ‘researchers’ but in effect Pat is the main decision maker in OUR party and has given Nick some terrible advice in recent months that has, in my opinion, led to the administration and staff management chaos that now prevails.

His track record in nationalist politics is shocking, and those who are old enough will know this and his involvement in the destruction of the National Front, and his roles in the formation of so many other micro-entities that never amount to anything. His amateurish Machiavellian approach to our party was a key feature in my decision to leave my job.

Six months into his job as de-facto staff/party manager, we still have chronic wastage, staff chaos, inefficiency, no contracts (a legal requirement), no staff training and wages not paid and several NEW employment-related court cases looming. Several staff are even complaining that they are employed but haven’t got any work to do. Pat’s interference in our party has been highly corrosive and much of his advice has been farcical and demoralising. Despite all this, Pat and his Solidarity ilk are safe and thriving financially off our party on the secure European payroll. Shameful and disgusting.

I could not and would not abuse the trust of our members by being involved with what I consider a detrimental situation, i.e. a political rival with an unimpressive past effectively taking overall control of the BNP, usurping the authority of our senior officials and presiding over a total management disaster of the party. Again, I fear Nick has brought Pat and his group of useless Solidarity officials in so he can concentrate on being an MEP and going to Europe.

4) Finances and the treasury department: All I am prepared to say is that after years of presiding over the shambles that is our “treasury”, the person mainly responsible has now been ‘rewarded’ for making us the laughing stock of British politics by being given a secure job in Europe on a safe and generous salary while the financial chaos he caused threatens to destroy everything we have all worked hard to build over the years. Why has this happened?

Again, faced with foreknowledge of this disgusting situation I felt that I had no alternative but to remove myself from this immoral and contemptible charade. I was involved in fundraising for the party, so I know that around £4million was raised over the last three years by the party overall, so what did treasury do with it all considering the crushing debts that we now face? The spin that the party has only £200k worth of debts is wishful thinking and won’t help or assist us in facing up to our REAL liabilities and potentially fatal financial crisis. Action, not spin, is what we need to save the party.

These are the facts and it grieves me to have to admit that I probably should have done the only honourable thing I could have done and resigned sooner. I could say a lot more but it is not my intention to stir up trouble or to be a hindrance to our survival but I do feel strongly that you should be informed of my heartfelt reasons for walking away from a job I felt privileged to do for our party and our people.

I am no rebel and despise those that have worked against the party over the last year but much of our troubles could have been avoided. I fought hard against the rebels last year and will fight again if our party is attacked by the same nefarious elements, but enough is enough, things need to change now if the BNP is to survive as a credible political party.

Recently, it has come to my intention that certain individuals are trying to have me expelled from the party and withdraw the whip from me as a BNP councillor out of hatred and spite. I cherish my BNP membership and will use every means available to protect myself and remain a member of the party.


Paul Golding

Former BNP Communications Officer"

Is Nick Griffin 'working for the State', or is he just an absolute loser in everything he does ?


After the debacle of last nights result in Oldham, we must ask if Mr.Griffin is just constantly accident prone, and always has been, or is it something much more sinister ?

Perhaps if we look back at some information we might get a better picture .

On the 18th.February 1999, the Metropolitan Police said that; "intelligence officers will infiltrate far Right groups such as the British National Party". And also; "Scotland Yard and MI5 are planning a huge covert operation to break up violent racist organizations...".

Later that year Mr.Griffin launched his plan to hijack the BNP.

The BNP has been gutted and just about destroyed. Expulsions and promotion of 'deadbeats' has become the norm, but of course Nick Griffin has done all this before ! He helped to destroy the NF in the late 1980's together with his chum Patrick Harrington.

DEJA VU ?

Because we at NWN have seen Mr.Griffins 'mad cap antics' before.

Now might be a good time to have another look at the article written by the late John Tyndall, in his magazine SPEARHEAD of January 2005, not too long before Mr.Tyndall died.

We copy most of that article below, as it needs to be kept at the forefront of our thoughts as to what just has been going on in the BNP, and to make sense of it all.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Enemy Finger in the Pie
John Tyndall asks: Is the BNP infiltrated by hostile agents?

A study of the history of Nick Griffin's involvement in nationalist politics indicates that he gets rather a kick out of expelling people – or, if not that, proscribing them – which amounts to almost the same thing. In our October 2003 issue we took a look at a document titled Attempted Murder, of which Mr. Griffin was the main author. This chronicled the internal quarrels that convulsed the National Front in 1986, in which he (Griffin) stood right at the centre. As a sample of paranoia it takes some beating; and it should be studied by everyone who wants to arrive at some understanding of the troubles now besetting the BNP. Attempted Murder can be read online at www.aryanunity.com/attempted_murder.html

But this would only touch at the surface of these troubles. There is much more that is needed to explain what is now going on in our party than the personality of Chairman Nick. We need to step back for a moment and focus on the bigger picture. This is important because, from the many letters and e-mails that I receive from nationalists around the country, I sense that an awful lot of people are utterly confused. The political climate in Britain is now more favourable to us than it has ever been. Despite the disappointments of last June's round of elections, both European and municipal, we are still getting some hugely encouraging votes. We should be on the crest of a wave of high morale and optimism, with our ranks united and our tails up. Yet the BNP is racked with internal division and widespread demoralisation – a truth which is only superficially concealed by the upbeat 'spin' that comes from official publications and bulletins.

Suspensions and expulsions
Right now, one of the party's best organisers in the South of England is under suspension, with his branch virtually in a state of limbo – only a probable five months from a vital general election. Another excellent organiser, in the East Midlands, has just been expelled (welcome to the club!). A leading activist in the London area only reported to me just before Christmas the alarming state of dissatisfaction among members throughout the capital and its suburbs. Just what is happening?

I will endeavour to give my own up-to-date 'take' on the situation. It is one which necessarily requires a certain amount of repetition, over which I hope readers will bear with me. The repetition must begin with some words quoted in these pages in our March 1999 issue. They come from a report in The Express newspaper published on 18th February of that year, and they read:-

'Scotland Yard and MI5 are planning a huge covert operation to break up violent racist organizations. The Express has learned that intelligence officers will infiltrate far Right groups such as the British National Party.

'Other officers will tap telephones, open mail and scrutinise bank accounts and medical records. "We plan to close down these organizations by using every administrative device available to us," said a Yard source.'

I believe that we must constantly keep these words in the forefront of our minds if we are to make sense of what has been happening to our party in the near six years that have followed. And it is perhaps the right place and moment for a further quote:-

'More recently, as the National Front declined to a mere rump, the British National Party (BNP) has been seen as more dangerous. By the early 1990s MI5 had successfully recruited or turned several agents inside the BNP.'

These words come from a book Defending the Realm, by Mark Hollingsworth and Nick Fielding, published by Andre Deutsch in 1999. I have no way of ascertaining the sources of the writers' information, but I have to presume that they carried out considerable research into the workings of MI5, the establishment's main internal security service, and would have had no reason to invent their claim. They are almost certainly no friends of the BNP and would not have made it to do us any favours.

This aside, the claim gives all the appearance of fitting logically into the picture of what has been happening in the party. Taken in conjunction with the words of the Scotland Yard spokesman reported in The Express newspaper, they present a scenario that should at once sound loud warning bells and enlighten us as to what our enemies are doing. For myself, I can see no rhyme nor reason in the conflicts we have had in the BNP without such forces at work – and this applies not only to our party but to other nationalist organizations, past and present, where similar internal trouble has been constantly visible. In one case, in the National Front in the 1970s, I was able to observe the same pattern: recurring internecine quarrels and splits, which seemed to break out not when there was organisational and political failure but at the moments of greatest success, when in theory morale should have been high and unity at its strongest.

Internal subversion
These experiences of years ago led me to give a good deal of study and thought to the question of internal subversion of dissident political groups carried out by the state and other hostile agencies. The phenomenon is not new, and it is not confined to Britain; in fact it has been a recognised technique of political warfare for centuries. Neither should we imagine that it targets only our side of the political spectrum. The writers of Defending the Realm affirm that it is practised also against radical left-wing organisations, most notably of all the IRA but also cranky fringe groups like the Socialist Workers' Party.

The infiltrator is an animal of which most nationalists are aware, but many have only the sketchiest idea of his chief function. There is often talk of 'enemy plants' working to get inside information, but where this occurs it is only for the purpose of that information being used in much more destructive designs. At the end of the day, nationalist political parties like the BNP are absolutely legal: unlike terrorist groups, they have nothing to hide. Not a single one of their activities is secret. The infiltrator, whether state or other, can obtain no information about these activities that his controllers do not already know about because of their completely open nature.

The principal function of the infiltrator in a nationalist political group that operates within the law (and nearly all do) is to promote internal sabotage. This can best be done by encouraging the formation of rival factions, in conflict with one another over matters of leadership or policy. Here there is almost always ready-made fuel for the saboteur.

Radical organisations tend by their nature to be fractious. They attract individuals with strong opinions, sometimes amounting to obsessions. This fractiousness is most common on the left, where ideological arguments that would appear to us ridiculously nit-picking in their proportions can become the subject of passionate and raging quarrels. On our side of politics conflicts of this kind are less common, though far from unknown. In the early to mid-1980s a group gained ascendancy in the National Front which pushed hard and persistently for the adoption of what came to be known as 'Strasserite' policies. This appellation was taken from a rebel faction in Hitler's National Socialist Party in Germany led by the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser, which sought to combine a kind of civic Nationalism with social and economic doctrines that were little short of Bolshevism.

At the time all this was happening, I and people of like mind to me had parted company with the official Front over matters in no way connected with it, but we were still hoping for the fractured marriage to be repaired and the party united again. I noted that those most vociferous in their advocacy of the 'Strasser' line of thought were the most obdurately resistant to such a reunification, resorting to ideological pettifogging as an excuse for their self-entrenchment rather than focusing on the bigger picture. At the time I thought of them, politically speaking, as immature schoolboys who had a lot of growing up to do: their political ideas were shallow, sloppily thought out and very easy to demolish in debate. What I did not consider seriously enough then – though I did later – was that there could be some method in their evident silliness, and that 'Strasserite' politics could well have been some skilfully conceived wedge driven into the remnants of the former NF in order to ensure its continued division.

Unnecessary divide
However, a more obvious and easily available pretext for division within nationalism has always been the disagreement between what, for simplification, we might call the 'hard-liners' and the 'modernisers' within the movement. I have always regarded this conflict as grossly exaggerated in substance and wholly unnecessary when measured beside the strategic imperatives confronting us.

In all politics there is the ever-present debate as to ways and means: whether to present objectives in strident, uncompromising tones or to employ the 'soft sell', the soothing, moderately worded approach that will encounter the fewest objectors. To a great extent, divisions over these matters are rooted in the differing personal characters of those who argue them. There are those of the born warrior outlook, who will tend naturally towards the fighting approach which brooks no compromise; and there are the natural conciliators, who will forever be seeking gentler methods because their temperaments can conceive no other way.

I have long believed that the course of practical politics demands a fusion of the two instincts: that of the fighter and that of the diplomat, wisdom lying in recognising the moments and situations in which one or the other is called for, and deciding accordingly. A movement with an excess of warrior qualities over the qualities of the conciliator will rush blindly into political action that is often ill-conceived and self-destructive, while one in which these attributes exist in reverse measure will atrophy and wither on the vine because of a shortage of courage, motivation and will.

When all is said and done, I believe that it has to be the code and approach of the fighter that must prevail over that of the conciliator; but the fighter must be one with the discernment to accept the need for conciliatory methods when the situation calls for them. Here we who like to think of ourselves as fighters must be aware of instincts within us which sometimes need curbing, and to curb them when required. Here we have the fusion that makes for the soldier-politician, of whom Caesar, Napoleon and Marlborough were outstanding examples.

On the other hand, human nature being what it is, it is only rarely that life's born conciliators can overcome their innermost instincts and face a real fight when fighting is the only option.

And as with individuals, it is the same with ideologies, which tend to conform to individual bent. An ideology of firmness and strength should be able to incorporate the gentler virtues and practise them when needs demand. But an ideology rooted in weakness can never summon firmness and strength that simply are not there.

Recipe for splits
This is a bit of a diversion but, I hope, a useful one in identifying potential sources of conflict in a political movement. Between people of goodwill there is reasoned thought and discussion over the respective tactical viewpoints; but to the would-be wrecker these viewpoints, instead of being reconciled in synthesis, present a perfect recipe for internal quarrels resulting in factions and splits.

Again and again, I have seen this happen in nationalist organisations; and again and again I have come to the conclusion that somewhere, in each case, there is an external agency stoking the fires of conflict where common sense, and a focus on the greater common good, could have avoided it. I believe that just such an external agency – indeed more than just one – has been present in the divisions which over recent years have convulsed the British National Party.

It is at this point that we should focus on a third type that is to be found in organisations. This type has instincts neither towards the 'hard-line' nor gentler approach but is in the struggle for essentially egotistical reasons – and sometimes also mercenary ones. To this type, arguments about 'hard-line' or 'soft-line' politics have only one utility and criterion: do they advance or retard his own personal ambitions and personal faction? He can be at one moment the hard-line fundamentalist and the very next moment the soft-line 'moderniser' according to tactical requirements – the tactical requirements being not those of the party but purely his own.

This type, again, is putty in the hands of the would-be wrecker. His ego and ambition can be so easily exploited by cunning manipulation which sets him against others with whom he should be working in dedication to a common cause.

Mysterious new arrivals
Many of us noticed that shortly before or shortly after the leadership change that took place in the BNP in 1999 a number of new figures emerged in the party, little or nothing of whom had been known previously; and many of these graduated quickly to senior positions. Where were they coming from? What was their motivation? Were they with us to help or hinder?

Absolutely certain answers to these questions cannot be supplied, but it was noticeable that virtually all of these people aligned themselves decisively with the so-called 'modernising' faction in the party which had gained the ascendancy through the leadership change.

In what limited contact I had with these people one thing struck me vividly. Their arrogance and conviction in the rightness of their attitudes was astounding. Most of them were young enough to be my children and some even my grandchildren. Their practical experience of the nationalist struggle was at an apprentice level. Yet they spoke to me about political ideology and tactics as if they were experienced achievers with battle honours under their belts and I a young lad just out of school. Just where had they learned all this stuff? At an MI5 training college perhaps? Or were they just wired up that way? One of these explanations is not necessarily exclusive of the other.

In previous articles I have focused on the various policy and presentational gimmicks that have been employed allegedly with the object of making the BNP more 'electable': a Sikh newspaper columnist; a Jewish candidate (and later councillor); a Asian spokesman on a TV party political broadcast; declarations that the party would be satisfied with the permanent presence of ethnic minorities in Britain, providing there were not too many of them. I could go on.

I have never believed that these innovations make more than 0.01 per cent difference either to our election results or to our recruitment. On the other hand, they have been hugely divisive to the party internally, with large numbers of members, including some of our best activists, quitting it in disgust. Is this just folly – the lack of intelligent political calculation of gain and loss? Or is it deliberate – a quite cynical manoeuvre aimed at alienating the genuine nationalists within and without and turning the BNP into nothing better than a neutered Tory pressure group? I am in no doubt myself as to the answer to these questions. I hope that what is written here will lead others to think about them seriously. Let us remember the words of the 'Yard source' back in 1999. "We plan to close down these organisations..." One way to close down an organisation is to divide it into fragments which, separately, exert almost zero influence in national politics. This was what happened to the National Front at the end of the 1970s. Is it the strategy now being pursued with regard to the BNP? There is a great deal of evidence – albeit admittedly circumstantial – that it is.

I have spoken earlier of the sacking and suspension of excellent organisers and branches. If this is not intended as a deliberate act of sabotage of the party, it most certainly is operating to that effect. The pretext for this orgy of purges is the need to maintain internal party discipline. Well, there is no one more firmly committed to the principle of internal party discipline than I. But in an organisation of volunteers – very different from a branch of the armed forces – discipline cannot be imposed by bullying and coercion; it must be maintained with prudence and must begin with its ultimate arbiter – the top party leadership – winning respect and being seen to apply it disinterestedly and with a view solely to the party's welfare. This simply has not been happening in the BNP. Certain people have been 'chopped' on purported disciplinary grounds, while others much more deserving of disciplinary action have been allowed to get away with almost anything they like – providing they show loyalty and willing subservience to the people currently in control. This is not a recipe for order in the party; it is one for self-destruction.

Financial gravy train
It is the time now to take another look at the BNP's quite ludicrously inflated wage bill. I have asked the questions before: Who is being paid and how much? And whence is coming the money to keep this gravy train on the rails? The people bidding to take over the party in 1999 made one of their main campaigning issues a demand for transparency and accountability in the handling of party finances. Yet these present questions continue to be shrouded in secrecy. Why?

I would suggest that the overriding reason for the payments that are being doled out to so many party functionaries is that they are intended to keep them subservient and acquiescent in the numerous outrageous policy decisions that have been made over the past few years and a few examples of which I have highlighted. In any other circumstances there would have been a palace revolt at the top of the party, with numerous senior officers simply not being willing to accept what has been going on. Yet there has been an almost indecent compliance. Could it be that when promptings of rebellion come from the inner conscience a self-reminder about bread-and-butter dependency stiffle the urge. Thoughts about the mortgage or instalments on the motor car act as a brake on protest.

I would strongly urge those in receipt of these emoluments to examine their consciences again. Can they reconcile their positions with personal honour and self-respect? Can they with sincerity condemn the 'bought' politicians of the established parties when they have their feet planted on the same path?

And I ask again: where is the money coming from? I remind those in control of their previous clamour for transparency. Where is the transparency here?

No to new party!
As I write these words, many still urge me to take the lead in forming a new party. As has happened in the past, I refuse to take that step. All previous experience counsels against it. Indeed I am convinced that it has been the intention and hope that I would launch and lead a breakaway movement from the BNP that explains so much of what has been happening – both to the party itself and to me personally. But I simply do not intend to play these people's game. The name of the game is divide-and-conquer. It made Nationalism in Britain impotent for so many years. It is the hope and prayer of those who seek to keep things this way.

And just as I would be playing our enemies' game by consenting to the setting up of a breakaway party, so also are those who on grounds of principle and protest have let their party subscriptions lapse, and have thus disenfranchised themselves with regard to action for internal change. If you aren't a member you can't vote. And if you can't vote you're going to leave things as they are. Here I risk offending some of my staunchest friends and allies by saying that this kind of abstention boils down to a form of self-indulgence. It is precisely what is wanted by the people who are steering the BNP – whether by intention or under manipulative forces of which they have no knowledge – to self-destruction. You may not like sending these people money at renewal time. Nor do I. But it is an utterly necessary procedure if the BNP is to be saved.

With these thoughts I wish a happy new year to all those genuinely devoted to the cause of race and nation.

http://www.spearhead.com/0501-jt3.html

Nick Griffin to stand in Barnsley Central





Without a doubt Mr.Griffin will 'parachute' himself in and stand in this forthcoming by-election. That is what he does.


Disgraced Eric Illsley said today that he was quitting as an MP after being convicted of dishonestly claiming more than £14,000 in expenses.

The Member for Barnsley Central said he 'deeply, deeply' regretted his actions and would be resigning before his sentencing next month.

In a statement issued by his office, Illsley said: 'I would like to apologise to my constituents, family and friends, following my court appearance, for the distress and embarrassment caused by my actions that I deeply, deeply regret.

'I have begun to wind down my parliamentary office, following which I will resign from Parliament before my next court appearance.

The announcement came 24 hours after David Cameron and Ed Miliband called for him to resign his seat and trigger a by-election.
Commons Leader Sir George Young was expected to ask for an emergency vote on forcing the Barnsley Central MP out of the Commons if he failed to fall on his sword.
Government sources said the move would have happened ‘swiftly’ – even before Illsley is sentenced next month.

The procedure was last used in 1954 when Conservative MP for South Norfolk Peter Baker was jailed for forgery.

Illsley was due to stand trial at Southwark Crown Court in London.
But the 55-year-old changed his pleas on three charges of false accounting relating to three years of expenses for his second home in London.
Illsley had previously denied dishonestly claiming a total of more than £25,000. But yesterday his barrister, William Coker QC, said his client admitted wrongly claiming a revised sum of about £14,500.
The claims were made for council tax, telephone usage, service charges and maintenance, and insurance and repairs at his second home in Kennington, South London, between 2005 and 2008.
In a five-minute hearing, the MP sat in the dock rubbing his face. He spoke only to confirm his pleas, saying ‘guilty’ to the three charges.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346463/MP-Eric-Illsley-quits-Commons-pleading-guilty-14k-expenses-fraud.html#ixzz1AsVjUbdO

Arizona Shooter Jared Loughner is Jewish

by James Buchanan

The man who shot 19 people in Arizona, killing six and severely wounding Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, is Jewish according to an interview by a reporter from Mother Jones magazine.

The Mother Jones article notes “about eight hours before he allegedly killed six people and wounded 14, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), in Tucson—Jared Lee Loughner phoned an old and close friend with whom he had gone to high school and college.

The friend, Bryce Tierney, was up late watching TV, but he didn’t answer the call. When he later checked his voice mail, he heard a simple message from Loughner: ‘Hey man, it’s Jared. Me and you had good times. Peace out.

Later.’ That was it. But later in the day, when Tierney first heard about the Tucson massacre, he had a sickening feeling: ‘They hadn’t released the name, but I said, ‘Holy sh-t, I think it’s Jared that did it.’ ‘ Tierney tells Mother Jones in an exclusive interview that Loughner held a years-long grudge against Giffords and had repeatedly derided her as a ‘fake.’ ….Tierney believes that Loughner was very interested in pushing people’s buttons—and that may have been why he listed Hitler’s Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books on his YouTube page. (Loughner’s mom is Jewish, according to Tierney.)” Loughner also listed the Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books.

There was a speedy attempt by the left-wing media to portray Loughner as a right-wing lunatic even though other statements by people familiar with Loughner described him as a leftist.

So a mentally ill, left-wing Jew shoots a Congresswoman and the mainstream media tries to pin the blame on the Tea Party, on right-wing White Gentiles and on the pro-White movement. This should be a good reminder to everyone to be suspicious of the mainstream media.


http://www.davidduke.com/

http://counterpunch.com/shamir01052011.html

The Secrets of Wikileaks
Julian Assange's Deal With the Devil

By ISRAEL SHAMIR

In Part One of my report last weekend here on the CounterPunch site I showed that the US was secretly funnelling money into Belarus to fund the unelected opposition. Previously, the claim had been routinely denied. Now we have sterling proof. It is engraved in a confidential cable from a US Embassy to the State Department. It is undeniable.

That is, if you found the cable and were able to understand it.

And you happened to understand the political background of the cable.

The cables are raw data. Not as raw as Afghan Diaries, the previous coup of Wikileaks, but still quite raw. They are written in obscure state department lingo; much of the story is implied, as the cables were composed for colleagues and definitely not for strangers. They simply have to be explained, interpreted, annotated and then finally delivered to the reader. Dumping raw cables onto the web would not do: you’d never find the relevant cables and probably you wouldn’t be able to understand its significance even if you did find it.

The main job of a newspaper or news website is to process raw data and transmit it to a reader. This work requires an experienced and highly qualified staff. Not every newspaper or website has such resources, and none of the independent sites can compete with the mainstream outlets for readership. If all the cables were published in a local newspaper in Oklahoma or Damascus, who would read them? In order to get our news to you, our reader, we are forced to make use of the dreaded mainstream media.

That is why Julian Assange chose to partner with a few important Western liberal newspapers of the mainstream media. Let us make it perfectly clear that we understand that all mainstream media are at their heart embedded; in bed with the Pentagon, the CIA, with Wall Street and all its counterparts. Let us also make it clear that we understand that not every journalist on the staff of The Guardian, Le Monde or The NY Times is a crooked enforcer of imperialist ideology; no, not even every editor. We do understand that not everyone is willing to sacrifice their career to field a story that will attract storms of protest. From this point of view, the difference between the soft liberal and the hardline imperialist media is one of style only.

For instance, if they plan to attack Afghanistan, the hardline Fox News would simply demand a high-profile strike against the sand rats, while the liberal Guardian would publish a Polly Toynbee piece bewailing the bitter fate of Afghani women. The bottom line is the same: war.

Modern embedded media constitute the most powerful weapon of our rulers. The modern Russian writer Victor Pelevin succinctly explained their modus operandi: "The embedded media does not care about the content and does not attempt to control it; they just add a drop of poison to the stream in the right moment."

Furthermore, they skilfully arrange the information in order to mislead us. The headline might scream MURDER MOST FOUL but the article describes an unavoidable accident. We do not look beyond the headline, but the headline has been written by the editor and not the journalist who penned the article. Twitter is nothing but a mess of headlines; we are being trained to think in terms of slogans.

In the case of Belarus, the Guardian published three cables the day before elections in order to maximize the exposure and to influence the results of the election. One of the headlines, published on December 18, 2010 said: “WikiLeaks: Lukashenka’s [sic] fortune estimated at 9 billion USD”. It was a very misleading headline. Wikileaks made no claims about Lukashenko’s wealth. Read the entire article, and you will find that it was nothing more than a US embassy employee who had heard a rumor and transmitted it to the State Department. Only in the second to last sentence of the article do they mention that the cable admits: “the embassy employee couldn’t verify the sources [sic!] or accuracy of the information”.

So a corrected headline would read: “Wikileaks reveals: US diplomats spread unverifiable rumors about Lukashenko’s personal wealth.” But the Guardian made it appear as if it was Wikileaks itself that made the claim.

Let us suppose that one day Wikileaks will publish cables from the Russian Embassy in Washington to Moscow Centre. Shall we expect to see in the Guardian a screaming headline like: "WikiLeaks: The Mossad behind 9/11!!"

Isn’t it more likely we would be soberly told: “Wikileaks reveals that Russian diplomats in Washington report the persistent rumors on Israeli involvement in 9/11”?

Another cable on Belarus published on the same day was headlined: “US embassy cables: Belarus president justifies violence against opponents”. Again, a misleading headline, and again the majority will never read beyond it. In reality, this very interesting report contains the debriefing of the Estonian Foreign Minister after his long chat with President Lukashenko. The most interesting factoid was deliberately not highlighted in the article: Lukashenko told the Estonian visitor that the opposition in Belarus would never unite, and only existed “to live off western grants.” When you read the article, your eye gravitates to the highlighted section, skipping the valuable information just above. In fact, the highlighted section itself says nothing about justifying violence against opponents. The text says something completely different: “Lukashenko stated the opposition should expect to get hurt when they attack the riot police”. Again, it is sterling truth: in every country, people who attack riot police end up getting hurt. In Israel they also get shot, but that’s another story.

Thus the Guardian made use of Wikileaks in order to influence Belarus voters and Western audiences, and prepare them for an Election Day riot.

So here we are: in order to get valuable data to the people, Julian Assange had to make a deal with the devil: the mainstream media. It was most natural for him to deal with the liberal flank of the mainstream, for the hardliners would not even touch it. But since the liberal papers are also embedded, they freely distort the cables by attaching misleading headlines and misquoting from the text.

For me, a Guardian reader since I worked at the BBC in the mid-1970s, it is painful to say that the Guardian has become an impostor. This paper pretends to provide the thinking liberal and socialist people of England with true information; but at the moment of truth, the Guardian, like a good Blairite, will switch sides.

Next, the Guardian apparently decided to destroy Wikileaks after using it. The Moor did his job, the Moor may go. The Guardian’s embedded editors, understanding full well that the Wikileaks crew won’t be tamed or subverted, are preparing a book called The Rise and Fall of Wikileaks. It’s not quite released yet; they have still to arrange for the fall.

This will be done in two ways.

First, by slandering the Wikileaks chief Julian Assange. Destroy the head, and the body will wither and die. This is not the place to deal with allegations in detail, but I’ve never seen an article more crooked and lying than the one the Guardian published recently on Assange - and I’ve seen some beauties. It is trial by media in the best tradition of Pravda 1937. Its author Nick Davies ingratiated himself into the vicinity of the trustful Julian and then bit him in the best scorpion’s manner. Davies wrote years ago in his Flat Earth News that the practice of journalism in the UK is "bent"; now he proven it beyond a doubt by his own writing.

There is no doubt: Assange never raped. The day after the alleged rape, the alleged victim boasted to her friends in a twitter that she had a wonderful time with the alleged rapist. It was all published.

Moreover, if Swedish authorities are primarily concerned about prosecuting Julian for rape, why do they attach a special condition to their demands of extradition, specifically reserving the right to pass him on to US authorities?

Nick Davies clearly performed a cruel hatchet job. But was publishing the article a simple case of bad judgement by the Guardian, or the beginning of a smear campaign? "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action", as James Bond in Goldfinger put it neatly. Here is the second attack. The third piece was surprisingly an attempt to smear Assange by association with me.

This last attack was written by Andrew Brown has been described as “The Guardian‘s resident moron”, and with good reason. I always enjoy discussing my views, though Brown completely missed the subtleties and nuances of my writings. Andrew Brown is a man who understands the public’s need for screaming headlines. Now we are left with a lot of crazy bloggers who claim I am the Mossad’s liaison to Wikileaks and that Wikileaks is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mossad.

I do not for a moment think that anybody sane takes these ridiculous accusations seriously – they are just more things to throw at Julian. I am not a member of Wikileaks, not even a spokesman, just a friend. But even without me, Brown will still be able to attack Assange for quoting Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel Prize winner and “notorious antisemite whose works are being published by a racist site.” Quoting a popular blog, Brown “is beneath contempt, and, from now on, beneath notice”. Still, the Guardian editors let him off his leash from time to time, to their eternal disgrace.

The second mode of attack on Wikileaks is to use it as a source of misinformation. These US State Department cables are double-edged swords. They are full of rumors, trial balloons, and hopeful thinking. Worse, the newspaper headlines often declare that Wikileaks is the source of the rumor, and leave it to the discerning reader to discover that an embassy staffer was the real source of the story. Readers often do not understand that headlines are little more than come-ons, and reflect a very loose interpretation of the article content. They tend to believe the misleading headline that says, “Wikileaks: Iran prepares nuclear weapons” or, “Wikileaks: all Arabs want the US to destroy Iran”. Wikileaks never said it! It was the Guardian and the NY Times that said it, and loudly. A corrected headline would look like this:

Wikileaks reveals that US diplomats spread unsubstantiated rumours on the Iran nuclear program in order to ingratiate themselves with the State Department

But you will not live long enough to see this headline. Such is the price for using mainstream media: they will eventually poison the purest source.

However, I would rather place my bet on Assange. He is smart, and he has a mind of a first-class chess player. He has many surprises up his sleeve. It is possible that the Guardian will have to rename their book The Rise and Rise of Wikileaks.

The Israeli Angle

Now you can understand the mystery of Israeli satisfaction with Wikileaks. While the US officials were furious at the disclosure, Israelis were rather smug and complacent. Haaretz has this headline: “Netanyahu: WikiLeaks revelations were good for Israel.”

Simple-minded conspiracy junkies immediately concluded that Wikileaks is an Israeli device, or, in the words of a particularly single-minded man: a “Zionist poison”.

The truth is less fantastic, but much more depressing. The Guardian and the New York Times, Le Monde and Spiegel are quite unable to publish a story unacceptable to Israel. They may pen a moderately embarrassing piece of fluff, or a slightly critical technical analysis in order to convince discerning readers of their objectivity. They may even let an opponent air his or her views every once in a blue moon. But they could never publish a story really damaging to Israel. This is true for all mainstream media.

Furthermore, no American ambassador would ever send a cable really unacceptable to Israel – unless he intended to retire the next month. Yet even supposing this kamikaze ambassador would send the cable, the newspapers would overlook it.

Even with thousands of secret cables about Israel in their hands, the mainstream media delays and prevaricates. They don’t want anyone to yell at them. That is why they have postponed publishing the articles. Once forced by circumstance or competition to publish the contents of the cables, you can bet they’ll twist the revelations into toady headlines and bury the truth in the final paragraph.

Always kind, Julian Assange attributes this behavior to the “sensitivity of the English, German and French audience”. I am not that kind; I call it cowardice, or if you insist, prudence. Any journalist who confronts the Jewish state will be made to suffer.

In such a situation, the mainstream media just can’t help us. Professional journalists have families and careers to protect. We can’t count on them when the rubber meets the road. We shall never know and will never fully understand the truth behind any Israel-connected event as long as the cables remain only in the hands of the mainstream media.

Edited by Paul Bennett

Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

Greece follows U.S. example by building giant border wall to keep out illegal immigrants

The Greek government has unveiled plans to construct a wall along its 128-mile land border with Turkey in order to tackle the influx of illegal immigrants.

Interior minister Christian Papoutsis said the wall was a necessary measure after more than 100,000 people illegally entered the Mediterranean nation last year.

But the plans - which have compared with the 650-mile barrier along sections of the border between the U.S. and Mexico - have been criticised by the European Commission as a 'short-term measure' that does not deal with the root of the problem.

Point of entry: Illegal immigrants have attempted to enter Greece by sea and now a huge wall is to be constructed on the land border with Turkey

The first stage in the planned structure was unveiled yesterday, with a 10-ft high, eight-mile-long trial fence to cover a section of the border near the town Orestidada.
According to the EU's border agency Frontex, the area concerned has become the main entry point for migrants travelling from Africa and Asia, with an average of 245 people per day crossing illegally in October alone last year.
Around 90 per cent of all illegal immigrants into the EU have come through Greece, it is estimated.
Mr Papoutsis insisted the new wall along the land border was necessary after the EU deployed border control troops to the region last year.

'Co-operation with other EU states is going well. Now we plan to construct a fence to deal with illegal migration,' he said.
'The Greek public has reached its limit in taking in illegal immigrants. We are absolutely determined on this issue. Greece can’t take it anymore.'
Violent clashes: Greece has played host to chaotic riots over conflicting views regarding illegal immigrants
But while the deployment of troops on the border has been extended until March, the EU Commission said barriers such as that proposed by the Greek government were not the solution to the issue.

A spokesman said on Monday that for the EU Commission said that such proposals were 'short-term measures which will not allow us to tackle illegal immigration in a structural manner'.

'We made clear with Greece that the country needs sound and long-term structural reforms and measures to better manage its border, to better address the challenges linked to migration flows,' Michele Cercone said.
'It is important that these borders... are managed in order to discourage and interrupt traffickers and smugglers that exploit (illegal immigrants).'
The proposals have also been criticised within Greece itself, with the national Communist Party labelling the plans 'inhuman and ineffective'.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343885/Greece-follows-U-S-example-building-giant-border-wall-illegal-immigrants.html#ixzz1A7ddLUYV

Eddy Butler calling for even more compromise !



More rubbish is being spouted by Butler over on his blog, but then we already knew this didn't we ?

On the left we see what the BNPs IDENTITY magazine 2001, has to say about Butler. Butler then, as now, was spouting 'pro multi culti' and tory inspired reactionary nonsense.

He is even more pro-multi racial than Griffin.

Griffin who wanted non-whites in the BNP in 2004, till the membership pushed him back. But with the influx of liberal types plus the expulsions and general 'pissing- off' of party activists, he has pushed this through .

Here is the latest nonsense expounded by Butler on his blog;


What then are the blocks preventing unity?

Personalities. Jealous personalities. I will not name names but they are obvious.

Some may genuinely believe that the only way to achieve unity is through the destruction of the opposition. The law of the jungle, with the best man left standing swallowing the rest at the end.

Some may genuinely feel repelled at the prospect of joining with people in other parties. For example some UKIPer's are genuinely anti European liberals and hate everything to do with the BNP (not just the BNP’s bad image). However it would be a tiny minority who would hold such entrenched incompatible views.

Some people in the BNP will be repelled at the idea of ‘selling out’ and having to water down in order to mix with ‘Tory’ types. They have to realise that if the BNP where ever to gain any sort of success in the future then it would attract such people and have to water down anyway. In any case it is all about presentation and emphasis, rather than policy (NWN Our emphasis). There is now very little that would need to be ‘watered down’. This makes the failure to unify all the more indefensible.

http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-should-happen-in-2011.html