Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
It doesn't matter if our Prime Minister is 'Labour' Blair or 'Tory' Cameron, they always do as they are told.
Cameron blurted out today, that "the United Nations are the Worlds rulers" on the BBC news.
Cuts are being imposed on the British people with Councils 'laying off' many thousands. Services are being cut and more cuts are on the way and the Armed Forces have themselves come under constant defence spending cutbacks. But the likes of Cameron seem to love strutting the World stage, and issuing threats to leaders 'the World Government' do not like. There seems to be no cutbacks in their warmongering !
So there we have it.
Ceasefire As UK Tornados Head To Libya
The Libyan government has announced an immediate ceasefire, less than two hours after Prime Minister David Cameron said British fighter jets would be deployed to enforce a United Nations no-fly zone.
Foreign Minister Mousa Kousa said Libya was declaring a ceasefire and stopping all military operations against rebels.
Mr Kousa said the government would also "open dialogue channels" to ensure there was sustained peace in Libya.
But the Reuters news agency reported government troops were still shelling the rebel-held western city of Misratah, killing at least 25 people including children.
However, the Libyan government claimed its forces have not carried out any military operations today in Misratah or anywhere else in the country, and its forces are already implementing the ceasefire.
International relations experts said the Libyan announcement of a ceasefire gives the regime of dictator Muammar Gaddafi breathing space as the UN-backed states work on a response.
Oliver Miles, former British ambassador to Libya, told Sky News: "I think he has taken a step that no one foresaw.
"It is very difficult to read Gaddafi's mind but I think he sees this as a way of holding back the military attack."
Sky's Lisa Holland, reporting from Tripoli, said: "It is very, very interesting to hear this complete change in the regime's rhetoric.
"The language has changed dramatically and now they are talking about saving civilians - last night the regime was warning Benghazi residents they were coming to get them."
libyan foreign minister: we have declared a ceasefire
After the ceasefire was announced, Mr Cameron responded to the 11th-hour decision by Mr Gaddafi.
"We will judge him by his actions and not his words - he must stop what he is doing and brutalising his people."
And addressing an audience later in Perth, Scotland, he claimed that Libya would not become another Iraq and there would be no foreign occupation of the country."
Cameron: 'Libya Not Another Iraq'
Mr Cameron said: "The UN resolution - which we, with the Lebanese, the US and French helped draft - makes it quite clear there will be no foreign occupation of Libya.
"The people of Libya don't want that, and neither do the UK and its allies. It is not going to happen.
"And it is not just that this time, the action has the full and unambiguous legal authority of the United Nations.
Mr Cameron had earlier told the House of Commons: "Britain will deploy Tornados and Typhoons as well as air-to-air refuelling and surveillance aircraft.
"Our forces will join an international operation to enforce the resolution if Gaddafi fails to comply with its demand that he ends attacks on civilians.
"Preparations to deploy these aircraft have already started and in the coming hours they will move to bases from where they can start to take the necessary action."
What Does A No-Fly Zone Mean?
Mr Cameron made the announcement of Britain's involvement after Libya closed its air space to all traffic after the UN resolution was passed in New York on Thursday night.
Sky sources have said the name for the British participation in a no-fly mission over Libya is 'Operation Ellamy'.
Mr Gaddafi at first threatened to turn into "hell" the lives of anyone who attacks Libya.
"If the world goes crazy, so will we... We will respond - we will turn their lives into hell," he said.
But in an attempt at brinksmanship Mr Gaddafi then authorised the unexpected ceasefire announcement.
Col Gaddafi And Then Sky's Lisa Holland in Tripoli
French, British and US military planners had earlier discussed tactics to enforce the no-fly zone with the help of other nations.
Although the UN, EU and Nato members are involved, not all states in the alliances are willing to participate.
Others are only willing to provide logistical help and not offensive capabilities.
Sources told Sky News that the Royal Navy was prepared to send warships to the North African region, however the Ministry of Defence downplayed an enlarged naval role.
Reports indicated that Libyan forces carried out a sustained artillery and rocket bombardment on Misratah.
"There have been heavy bombardments... They are bombing everything, the houses, the centre of the city," a rebel named Saadoun said.
Five countries - listed in blue - abstained from the UN Security Council vote
Pre-ceasefire, the dictator's son Saif Gaddafi had said that troops would encircle the eastern city of Benghazi.
But the International Criminal Court's prosecutor warned that indiscriminately attacking civilians in Benghazi would be a war crime.
Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo says a Libyan Defence Ministry warning to civilians to leave the eastern rebel stronghold ahead of an attack would not absolve military commanders of blame if civilians are killed.
But Saif Gaddafi had said his family was "not afraid" of UN-backed action.
"We will not be afraid. I mean, you are not helping the people if you are going to bomb Libya, to kill Libyans. You destroy our country. Nobody is happy with that."
Armoured Libyan anti-aircraft tracked vehicles are considered as a no-fly threat
The 15-member UN Security Council voted on Thursday night to undertake the no-fly zone to protect the people of Libya.
But it was achieved with only 66% of the vote as five states abstained from voting.
Experts believe UN momentum must be maintained by a variety of states willing to be involved.
Former head of the British army General Lord Dannatt told Sky News: "There has to be a strategic objective and it is clear to get rid of the Gaddafi regime.
"This must be a very broad-based coalition of interests that removes Gaddafi."
Libyan troops have been told to retake Benghazi and other towns
The Arab League chief said the UN resolution was aimed at protecting civilians and did not back any invasion, but said he did not want any side "to go too far".
"The goal is to protect civilians first of all, and not to invade or occupy - the resolution is clear on that point," Amr Moussa said.
Yet few Arab states that urged the imposition of the no-fly zone showed little enthusiasm for joining any military action.
Qatar said it would take part in the international operation but it was unclear if military action would be included.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said her country would continue to explore the most effective measure to end the crisis.
Libyan rocket launchers may be considered legitimate UN targets
Numerous EU states have voiced support for the no-fly zone to prevent regime troops attacking rebels, however Germany has pointedly refused to be involved in any action.
"German soldiers will not take part in a military intervention in Libya," Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said in a statement.
"We remain eminently sceptical on the option of military intervention... anticipated in this resolution. We see in it considerable risks and dangers. That is why we could not approve this part of the text."
Turkey has called for an immediate ceasefire and said it opposes foreign intervention.
China, Australia and Russia indicated they will not take part but Poland offered logistical support.
The Wall Street Journal said that the Egyptian military, with US knowledge, was shipping arms and ammunition across its border to help rebels in neighbouring Libya.
former raf navigator: ground attacks could be key
UNHCR officials say 300,000 people have fled Libya but worry that reprisals by Gaddafi forces could worsen as the no-fly zone is imposed.
UN refugee agency spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said the numbers "remain steady" with about 1,500 to 2,500 people a day crossing the borders out of Libya.
Mr Cameron said the British Government would utilise "considerable resources" to help with any necessary humanitarian operations.
Sunday, March 06, 2011
EDL suffer some police brutality !
This video was taken at the EDL rally in Rochdale yesterday.
If you browse through the many vids of the day it is quite clear the Police showed their bias in favour of the immigrants. That isn't news to we British nationalists that have been in the business for a few years.
Greater Manchester Police (GMP) are disgraceful in their bias, but after all, they are the 'paid agents of the State'. GMP forever allow immigrants to do as they wish in places like Rochdale. For example; Rochdale Police drive past Asians parked on double yellow lines and pelican zigzags at takeaways on Spotland Road,Halifax Road and Whitworth Road. These are three of the main arterial roads in Rochdale. Never mind on the asian areas around Milkstone Road and Tweedale Street. They don't want to appear racist you see !
However, it will be news to the new people picked up by the EDL who probably thought the Police would be unbiased. Hopefully this might politicise a few in the EDL to join the nationalist ranks.
*** Have a look at the UAF rally chanting Allah u Aqbar;
Saturday, March 05, 2011
WAS TYNDALL RIGHT ABOUT GRIFFIN?
Or why Griffin must go.
A Special Guest Article by John Bean
*Read NWN's comments at the end of this essay.
Within the next few weeks the British National Party could well be subject to a winding up order as a growing number of creditors take us to the courts, each one hopefully expecting a slice of the half million pound debt that this party has accrued. One of the numerous printers (often small businesses that were sympathetic to us) who is still owed £49,000 for last May’s election leaflets rightfully draws attention to the fact that not paying a General Election bill after so long a period is against regulations, as is now being confirmed by the Electoral Commission.
In addition to this financial ineptitude at the head of the Party, over the last three years in particular we have seen a series of own goals that have added to the BNP’s fall in popularity. This was again shown in the Barnsley by-election where we had an excellent candidate in Enis Dalton, with no ‘racist’ baggage. In the current political crisis, and at a by-election where the voter so often switches his/her support from a traditional main party, we would have expected her to have done better than 6% of the poll with 1,463 votes, particularly as the UKIP candidate more than doubled Enis’s valiant effort. In the General Election last May the BNP candidate, Ian Sutton gained almost 9% of the poll with 3,307 votes with UKIP then on 1,727 votes.
Why has Nick Griffin allowed all this to happen? Some critics have claimed that his actions have all been centred on self-enrichment. But this has not been consistent by any means. Is it then because he lacks intelligence? Even in 1977 you had to have more than one wit to rub against another to get into Cambridge University, where he studied history and law at Downing College and gained a second-class degree. More up-to-date, the speech he gave to the EU on February 15th (shown on Simon Darby’s blog) demolishing the global warming scam was very effective and well delivered – although it is a pity about the twitching of his left arm which one cynic told me was rather reminiscent of another ‘failed fuehrer’ speaking in Berlin in 1945.
THE TYNDALL CORRESPONDENCE
If all his actions have not been motivated by monetary gain (heading a Party which peaked at 14,000 membership he was then entitled to a salary of at least £35,000) and he has obviously not ‘lost his marbles’, then I must now reluctantly give consideration to a view given to me by the late John Tyndall in correspondence and e-mails in 2000-2001.
I had known JT since 1957 and our relationship was often ‘friendly’ - including my family visiting him and his parents at their home - and at other times ‘hostilities’ raged between us, particularly where we disagreed on not only tactics but also JT’s beliefs at various times which had too much sympathy for Europe’s anti-Communist dictators of the 1930s. But even in those ‘hostile’ periods we still had respect for each other, which for me included his honesty, tenacity and courage of his convictions.
It has to be admitted that by 1999 the BNP’s progress had become static. (NWN: John Bean is talking nonsense here. But as Mr. Bean hadn't been involved in nationalism for around 30 years at that time, it was to be expected that he wouldn't know.)
As I had let it be known that I had joined the new BNP, for the first time, thinking that with younger people with energy in charge it could better exploit the growing dissatisfaction with the old parties in modern multicultural Britain (and I was also writing occasional articles for Spearhead), Tyndall began to write to me and e-mail me at length on why he considered Griffin was not the correct person to be leading our Party. I will admit that what he said in the sections I produce below could be said to be motivated by his desire to seek revenge upon Griffin, whom he had given a job to while unemployed only to see him take over his position as Party leader. For this reason, although I was concerned with some of the views he expressed, they were mainly views and few facts. It is because of the strange behaviour of Griffin within the past two years in particular, where he has taken so many actions that turned possible small victories into defeats, that I now think it is time for all to see what, according to John Tyndall, has motivated Nick Griffin. Whether JT was right I still do not know.
AGENTS AT CAMBRIDGE
In May 2001 I wrote to JT explaining why I was backing Griffin, despite a warning from a mutual acquaintance that he could be working for MI5. In a lengthy e-mail reply of May 22nd JT wrote of MI5 agents:
They may be paid or they may not depending on the nature of their work and their perceived motivation. It is well known that the state security services, with MI5 in the forefront, have scouts placed at key situs like, for instance, Cambridge, where young men (and possibly women) are found who are seen to be talented and destined for influential roles in the society of the future. They are befriended so as to ascertain what kind of characters they are, what makes them tick, and what – most importantly - are their personal weaknesses and vulnerable spots: strong sex drives (whether homo or hetero); a liking for drink; ditto for money; big egos and correspondingly big ambition; psychopathic tendencies, including total amorality and lack of scruple; not least, strong ideological motivation (of whatever kind).
In late 1999 in an Internal Discussion Paper No.7 John Tyndall wrote:
With the Combat 18 trouble behind us, it was always certain that a new offensive would be launched by the establishment to disrupt the BNP from the inside. As far back as the early 1990s certain personnel were in place to do this, though their ranks, I have no doubt, have been augmented by more recent recruits. In Defending the Realm (Andre Deutsch 1999), a book about MI5, the authors, Mark Hollingsworth and Nick Fielding, had this to say on page 62:
“More recently, as the National Front declined into 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…”
Returning to JT’s letter to me of May 22nd, 2001, he wrote:
When at Cambridge in the 1970s, Griffin got himself well-known as ‘Mr National Front’. I know this because a friend of mine in the BNP knew him there. He has told me that G was constantly striking provocative poses, with nazi-fringe gestures, just to get himself attention. From my friend’s description, the picture I have is of a young pup attracted to politics mainly because of the ‘buzz’ it gives him and because of his desire for self-publicity and aggrandisement. I am inclined to think that his choice of the ‘far right’ rather than the ‘far left’ could have been influence by his Tory family background – or simply by the fact that the former would have been more controversial, more ‘shocking’, more attention-grabbing and, not least, somewhere where there was less ‘competition’ from other egotists and attention-seekers. Remember, the NF was big news at the time, and anyone at place like Cambridge with half a brain and a persuasive tongue could quickly win notoriety – something Griffin loves.
NO BURNING CONVICTION
I have talked to Griffin at length and on many occasions, and one thing that has stuck out very forcibly has been the manifest lack of any really burning conviction in the ideals of race and nation. He understands our case intellectually and quite possibly embraces it from that standpoint, but I detect no passion in his exposition. I detect, on the other hand, that to him nationalist politics is a hugely enjoyable game.
On this theme, in a letter to me of April 9th 1999 Tyndall wrote:
I have flipped through Spearheads for the past three years during which he (NG) has been doing the editorial and production work. In only a very small number does he actually address himself to real national or world political issues and say anything meaningful on them. G is most at home in ‘house journal’ stuff – matters concerning the promotion and organisation of the BNP. Here he has made some quite useful contributions, but the imbalance betrays a certain mindset. He has never in my presence expressed an opinion about anything beyond internal party matters with any semblance of feeling, let alone passion.
Again returning to Tyndall’s letter of May 22nd 2001, he writes:
Not withstanding his well-known ‘Achilles heel’, (Martin) Webster is a very shrewd observer of the political scene. His main theory about Griffin is this: the establishment knows that as the multi-racial society collapses and other manifestations of globalism provoke more and more public anger, the emergence of some nationalist movement like the BNP is inevitable. The matter therefore becomes one of whether such a movement constitutes genuine opposition or ‘controlled’ opposition. It is obviously the policy of the powers that be that such a movement will be ‘controlled’ opposition. If there is going to be a movement like the BNP, Webster says, far better that it have someone like Griffin at the head of it than another type of person.
In a further e-mail to me Tyndall was of the opinion that the ‘talking up’ of the BNP by the media at that time fitted in with Webster’s view. The ‘talking up’ does not exist now, because the establishment’s objective has been achieved.
Still looking for more substantial evidence that Griffin was working for the establishment I asked JT to give me something more factual. He replied on May 25th:
You ask for concrete proof concerning my theory (and Webster’s) as to where Griffin is coming from and who his backers are. Well of course, John, in the nature of these things proof cannot possibly be available – not at least at this time. Conspirators in politics take care not to leave the evidence lying around. All ideas of political conspiracy have to rest on circumstantial evidence – or at least nearly all. The thing is to add up the facts we know, and then decide if they make sense against the background of ‘official’ explanations. One of these days when I have more time, I will produce something with documentation and detail explaining why I think there is overwhelming evidence that Griffin is being backed by the establishment. Certain things that have happened both before and after his takeover of the BNP permit no other interpretation.
Unfortunately, John Tyndall’s untimely death meant that I was not to see this documentation he referred to. If he were alive today he might say were not the following events circumstantial evidence?
• The Marmite fiasco that won no votes but cost £15K.
• The fake murder plot that he ensured was picked up by the media on the eve of last May’s Polling Day.
• The Buckingham Palace Queen’s Garden Party farce.
• The Question Time programme where Griffin, with numerous heavies, arrived at the Studio like the Godfather entering the Supreme Court but performed more like little boy lost - and looking for a surrogate mummy in the form of Bonny Greer. Of course the programme was a set-up and was an insult to the democracy it claimed to represent. But the point is that Griffin has shown on previous interviews that he had the wit to exploit several opportunities to score. Yet with at least eight million watching about all he managed to interject was that some of the Ku Klux Klan ‘were quite moderate’, and that he was ‘unable to give an opinion’ on whether or not he believed the holocaust took place.
It was this event that first caused me to starting thinking: ‘Was John Tyndall right about Griffin?’
If his case may lack, at present, the final evidence, plenty of evidence exists that Nick Griffin’s growing ineptitude is destroying the Party, of which the failure at Barnsley is one more example. If he does not stand down as Chairman within the next 30 days – by which time the numerous creditors’ court cases will render the Party insolvent - then we should immediately turn the BNP Reform 2011 movement into its active replacement.
NWN: John Bean was one of those that John Tyndall described as "appearing from nowhere" when Griffin hijacked the BNP in 1999.
Bean had disappeared from nationalism from the very early 1970's till 1999-2000. So how Bean can say the BNP were not advancing is nonsense. How would he know, he wasn't involved and hadn't been in nationalism for 30 years. He has been told about this in the past, but still decides to ignore that information today.
Eddy Butler was another who flitted about and supported Griffin in 1999 and remained a strong supporter of Griffin till very recently. Not too clever is Mr Butler it seems !
Both Butler and Bean had no time for John Tyndall, but now after both being 'fooled' for all this time, expect us to laud them and to place them both at the top of the nationalist leaders and hope we will stand on their every word .
NWN's Pete Barker used to argue with John Tyndall about the whether or not Griffin was a 'state agent' fairly regularly.
John Tyndall used to argue that he "didn't think Griffin was state, but did agree that people like Tony Lecomber and Simon Darby were working for the state ".
Pete Barker stuck with his hypothesis since 2001 that; "Nick Griffin was working for the state and there was planning in everything he did. He was working to destroy and decimate the cause of Brtish nationalism". This was as early as 2001.
'NorthWestNationalists' has since 2001 been at the vanguard of opposition to Griffin and his treacherous escapades, and received many threats and ostracism from a few who ought to have known better, in the early days of 2001 and since. It is far easier now to criticise 'Griffin & the Griffinites'.
Friday, March 04, 2011
The Zionist Agenda (Full Speech) David Kelly BBC Murdered for Truth
David Halpin gives a presentation on 'The Zionist agenda, Dr. David Kelly, The propaganda of the BBC'.
He talks about the roots of Zionism, the injustices forced upon the peoples of Palestine, the assassination of Dr. David Kelly and the propaganda arm of the government, the BBC.
Filmed by BBC5.tv at the Totnes Truth Festival, 2nd of May 2010.
Kevin MacDonald on March 1, 2011
Guardian caption: Large numbers’ would support a far-right party, if it was not linked to violence.
A poll sponsored by the far-left magazine Searchlight has found that nearly half of the voters of England would support “an anti-immigration English nationalist party if it was not associated with violence and fascist imagery.” (“Searchlight poll finds huge support for far right ‘if they gave up violence’“) Of course the idea that either the BNP or the English Defense League (pictured above) advocate violence is a creation of the media and the left. And since when is the Cross of St. George fascist imagery?
But the good news is that the English are waking up. Indeed, the Daily Mail article noted that 39 per cent preferred to call themselves English rather than British. Left-wing Labour MP Jon Cruddas said there was ‘very real threat of a new potent political constituency built around an assertive English nationalism’. 48% said they would support a party that ‘wants to defend the English, create an English parliament, control immigration and challenge Islamic extremism’. ‘They would also restrict the building of mosques and order the flag of St George or the Union Jack be flown on all public buildings’.
Of course the response of the left is to begin yet another PR campaign on the infinite value of immigration and a non-White England. The Searchlight’s Together project will “tackle extremism among white and Islamic -communities with the slogan: ‘A plague on both their houses’.” I will not comment on the use of the word ‘extremism’ for people who simply want to defend themselves and their way of life.
Despite the media campaign to associate a White ethnic identity and anti-immigration sentiment with “extremism,” violence, and fascism, the results confirm the view that political parties that combine anti-immigration appeals phrased within the boundaries of post-WWII rhetoric on race can be very successful in Europe (see The Wilders Syndrome: Jews, Israel, and the European Right). The results may go even further to suggest that messages framed in terms of English nationalism would have broad appeal.
The results confirm the wisdom of Enoch Powell when he warned that importing massive numbers of immigrants would lead to huge problems. (The 8-part BBC series on Powell is now being featured in the TOO video section.)
They also confirm the astonishing point, noted in Charles Dodgson’s current TOO article, where Minette Marrin points out that “there has not been an immigration debate in the chamber of the House of Commons within living memory.” Last year, without public debate, “in the 12 months to last September, 238,950 migrants were allowed into Britain, the highest figure since records began.”
There can be little doubt that, as Searchlight director Nick Lowles noted, ‘The harsh truth is we are in danger of losing touch with the public on race, immigration and multi-culturalism.’
Right. And not a moment too soon.
When the National Front and a handful of British Movement opposed a TUC march for multi racialism in Manchester city centre circa 1978 ...