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
29 comments:
Some More Equal Than Others.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-4006385%2C00.html
Griffin was working in a supermarket before he hijacked the BNP with scum like Tony Lecomber as his main helper.
Lecomber only got a 3yr sentence for bombings. The IRA will certainly vouch for the fact that that is a very low punishment.
Please send him back to stacking shelves !
I believe Mr Griffin is state and brought in more state handlers around 2006 when the BNP started winning quite a few council seats and the party started to peak.In 2009 when the BNP won two seats on the european parliment griffin was given his cash prize on the euro gravy train on the understanding the party is broken down from within and so his state handlers started to get rid of the " key players " in the party and break down groups and branches.Its all starting to make sense what griffins goal was all along.
Good point to remember is that the Kray's were able to buy Police officers.
If they can do it what can the Liebour party and their allies do? I believe they use local criminals to join BNP branches and cause divisions.
There's plenty of good books around on the internet about this subject.
Lecomber, Darby, Stampton all identified as State stooges long ago, but still operating behind the scenes! John Tyndall was correct all along!
Very interesting article in yesterday's Guardian
'Police dismiss the claims, insisting they only monitor the minority on the far left and right who might commit crimes such as damaging property or trespass to promote their political aims.
By far the biggest segment of this "domestic extremism" apparatus is the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), which has been compiling a database of protesters and campaign groups across the country since 1999.
With around 60 to 70 staff, NPOIU costs £5m a year to run, according to the latest official figures. Its budget has doubled in the last five years.
Sensitive information from undercover officers, other informants in protest groups and covert intercepts are handled by a section of the NPOIU called the Confidential Intelligence Unit. The database contains descriptions of people, their nicknames or pseudonyms, reports of their activities and photographs of them.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/13/mark-kennedy-undercover-police-acpo?INTCMP=SRCH
I've just received a renewal membership letter yesterday, inside is a return envelope addressed : Administration Centre, Y Gribin, Llanerfyl, Welshpool SY21 0JQ, which is Griffin home address!
Everything must be run from his home now?
darby & carmichall where drafted in from thee national demecrats both had helped griFFin mess up the nf. in fact griFFin tried to change the national front name to national demecrats untill told to fuck off.
carmichall was a mi5 agent darby was suspected of being. they both joined the nat. dems. to split the nf votes. then they moved to the bnp!
as for gri££in stacking shelves he is not fit to clean shit houes.
Griffin was also helped by Dr.Mark Deavin in taking over the BNP.
The trademark "BNP" is damaged in the eyes of the British voter, many millions have been spent to ensure this.
To any Nationalists who are aware of what has happened during the last five years, Griffin has become an impediment to progress.
In my opinion the only way forward is a new and uncontaminated party. This also means uncontaminated by current BNP office holders, many of whom hold their positions through stepping into the shoes of those purged by griffin.
Of course the longer this can be delayed, the less likely it is to succeed. With respect to the man and his contribution - Mr Tyndall's arguments are obsolete.
We have a brief window of opportunity while the internet is relatively uncensored, to build our movement again - without historical baggage.
One has also to take account of the fact that anyone with any real talent has been pushed out of the BNP. Simce Griffin hijacked the BNP, there is no talent coming through !
He has effectively changed it from a radical revolutionary pary into a dungheap that is as incompetent as he is.
It used to be a threat - under Griffin it has become a laughing stock !
The average age now at BNP meetngs is about 70.
There are no young people coming through, this spells the 'death knell' for the BNP in itself.
Read Simon Jenkins' article in the Guardian of January 11.
The operation against the Greens appears to have been controlled by a private company ACPO. Thus ensuring a lack of accountability even greater than MI5 which could claim (and did) that it had stopped infiltrating political groups. Labour just set up a private secret police to do the same!
Labour decided to sub out the work to bypass controls. Truly sinister!
The average age now at BNP meetngs is about 70.
Too true i remember 4 new lads turning up to a meeting some years ago aged about 25, very bright and intellegent and willing to become activists with immediate effect.The then organiser who we had doubts about started accusing them of being reds or NF trying to disrupt the party and eventually they faded off into oblivion which seems to be a common tactic used in zanu BNP to get rid of decent people.
Watch her soften up the policies now!
Marine Le Pen 'chosen to lead France's National Front'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12198370
Latest bullshit from Gri££in!
" Disappointed with the vote in Oldham......The new database system, that we are working on to mirror what Labour and the LibDems have behind the scenes, is going to take more time and money to get really up to speed than we had in the run-up to Oldham and a data base is only as good as the data we put into it and we did not have that data from Oldham. Barnsley is a different matter as we ran a major national canvassing campaign there as well as having more people on the ground there locally "
An example from the recent past.
On October 8th, a hearing took place before Germany's Supreme Court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVG), to clarify whether to continue the government's proceedings to ban the right-wing extremist NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany).
This legal action had ground to a halt following revelations that the German state had massively infiltrated the NPD.
When the government initiated its court action two years ago, virtually every German politician joined the chorus of those demanding a ban on the NPD. Today a deafening silence prevails.
Initially, none of the three plaintiffs - Bundestag (the parliament), Bundesrat (the upper house) and Bundesregierung (the federal government) - wanted to send a prominent representative to the hearing. Barely a week before the hearing began, Interior Minister Otto Schily (Social Democratic Party) announced be would appear.
The BVG hearing became necessary after it emerged that a number of high-ranking NPD members due to give testimony in the court proceedings had worked as undercover agents for the secret service.
Marius Heuser - One in Seven a Government Agent! - Report from Germany
http://uruknet.info/?p=m73956&hd=&size=1&l=e
ITS THOSE NICE FOLKS AGAIN SPREADING THEIR KINDA LOVE?
Milton Keynes/Luton branch had at one time a really good group of supporters/activists/members,but the pompous pair who ran the branch Steve and Kay sherwood,aka Edward and Tubbs of Royston Vasey ,League of Gentlemen,thought they far too superior to the rest of the branch.
One time when hearing Nick Griffin was coming to do a speech at the local pub,the best group of activists /supporters the local football lads the Migs,were not invited to the meeting as Steve Sherwood ,aka Edward and Kay aka Tubbs,thought the Migs to be lacking refinement and too rough and not good enough to meet Nick.
Another time at the election in Luton,this is when things really came to a head ,no one was willing to stand as candidates,but two very young men came along and offered to stand,but the Sherwoods aka Edward and Tubbs,said they were too Scruffy and not itelligent,but no one else offered to stand,so the boys stood in their brand new suits bought out of their own pockets, getting really good results from the local working class Anglo/Irish voters.
Now how many BNP candidates can say they have University degrees,the thing is the Sherwoods slagged off the lads and the Migs ,BUT NEVER ONCE OFFERED TO STAND AS CANDIDATES THEMSELVES,NOTHING STOOD IN THEIR WAY ,BUT THEY ALWAYS SLAGGED OF OTHER GOOD NATIONALISTS WHO DID HAVE THE GUTS TO STAND.
Needless to say they totally destroyed the branch,one of the lads who stood in Luton,sold his soul to the state and searchlight.
I would say if anyone is STATE ,then it is the SHERWOODS,aka Edward and Tubbs,between them they totally destroyed the Luton/Milton Keynes branch,and scattered the good activists far and wide.
I would say if anyone is STATE ,then it is the SHERWOODS,aka Edward and Tubbs,between them they totally destroyed the Luton/Milton Keynes branch,and scattered the good activists far and wide.
Sounds like the Lumbys in Birmingham came on the scene at griffins trial in Leeds and were put in charge of Birmingham branch.Split it into three groups and robbed shed loads of money before leaving the party and groups in the shit.God if Joe Owens wasnt on the hard stuff he would have picked up all these searchlight spies out there placed there by griffin.
Anonymous said... I've just received a renewal membership letter yesterday, inside is a return envelope addressed : Administration Centre, Y Gribin, Llanerfyl, Welshpool SY21 0JQ, which is Griffin home address!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just address the envelope:
£ GRABBIN
SY21 OJQ
and it'll reach Gri££in - don't forget the pig shit filling - the greedy bastard needs regular refilling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIrAD8wxm_I
Gone to Gulag: Diary of a Soviet Schoolgirl could this be the E.U.
Regarding the post about MK and Luton.
I agree that these two caused a lot of problems - but look on the bright side. When they chose not invite the MIGs to the "VIP" meeting, the MIGs were so offended that they began an independent unit. This unit has grown into the EDL, presenting a new dynamic and approach to some of our problems. I am not the greatest fan of the EDL ethos.....but I love the way THEY GET THINGS DONE!
"Stampton a state stooge" - you fuckin retarded little prick. Put your name up instead of posting anonymously. Probably the Clapham coin-clipper (BOB ASHKENAZIM GERTNER)or one of the other cranks/plants attached to the Edmonds clique that like to strob off over the protocols or attend New Right meetings with all the other arty farty middle class cunts that do fuck all else but talk about what they should be doing - lol, they even have the front to refer to themselves as the officer core! The only "state" you need to worry about is the state you will be in if I find out who you are.
"Operating behind the scenes" - I operate right out in the open - as a National Socialist. You tossers want to try it some time.
"Barry"? Barry Taylor I presume. The bloke that has a problem with Mosques but has none with his race-mixing pal Anna seymour. LOL, what a fuckin joker.
ES said...- you fuckin retarded little prick - arty farty middle class cunts that do fuck all else but talk about what they should be doing - The only "state" you need to worry about is the state you will be in if I find out who you are.
"Barry"? Barry Taylor I presume. The bloke that has a problem with Mosques but has none with his race-mixing pal Anna seymour.
17 January 2011 15:11
................
Sherwood, you need to calm down before you burst one of your strangulated piles your mrs told me about. BYW, you got the wrong Barry. Re: Anna Seymour, whatever mistakes she may have done as a young woman, as a mature adult she's been a staunch nationalist, unlike you Sherwoods who well and truly fucked-up the Milton Keynes BNP branch, and mounted smear campaign against Taylor. In turn Taylor issued a pamphlet totally destroying all of your lies.
Steve, I've gotta ask - 1) are you and Kay still kissing and sticking your heads in Gri££ins arsehole? 2) is there any truth in the rumour than when Kay went walkabouts a few years ago, it was with a big Nigerian ?
Stampton, aka Turd In A Puddle, how's that mickey mouse nationalist fairy tale comic book you're co-writing with that fucking retarded stool pigeon, Pog Mahone, coming along ? Remember when, without you knowing, someone slipped a cosh into the bag of BPP junk your were trying to flog off, and you were still holding when Old Bill raided the pub we were holding the meeting ? What a cunt, talk about a stooge left holding the baby. Steve your problem is you never play with a full deck, preferring instead of using brawn rather than brain power. and that's what Griffin always liked about you, no intellectual opposition what so ever.
"NWN Admin said...
One has also to take account of the fact that anyone with any real talent has been pushed out of the BNP. Simce Griffin hijacked the BNP, there is no talent coming through !"
What about Dave Howard and Tommy Williams? There are still dedicated supporters arent they?
I know these posts were made a long time ago but I have just come across them. I think you are all pathetic people who do not understand people have different charactoristics and beliefs. Some of these belief lap over others are totally different.
You should not put people down publicly because your opinion of them. It is nasty, immature and slanderous! Do you really know these people??? I think not!
You feel that you can call someone pompous when you come across pomous yourselves. this is the only thing I will ever post on one of thse mindless, timewasting sites. Get a life!
People have thier own reasons for not standing for thse kind of things and that should be enough.
Get off your pedistalls and shut up!!!
Post a Comment