Fw: If your interested, here is a free download of a GPL for use in developing community driven websites.Known as Drupal.........increase the span of communication and free the world community from the Media Pappagalli !

http://drupal.org/about

About Drupal

Drupal is a free software package that allows an individual or a community of users to easily publish, manage and organize a wide variety of content on a website. Tens of thousands of people and organizations have used Drupal to power scores of different web sites, including;

Community web portals
Discussion sites
Corporate web sites
Intranet applications
Personal web sites or blogs
Aficionado sites
E-commerce applications
Resource directories

Social Networking sites Drupal is ready to go from the moment you download it. It even has an easy-to-use web installer!

The built-in functionality, combined with dozens of freely available add-on modules, will enable features such as:

Content Management Systems
Blogs
Collaborative authoring environments
Forums
Peer-to-peer networking
Newsletters
Podcasting
Picture galleries

File uploads and downloads and much more. Drupal is open-source software distributed under the GPL ("General Public License") and is maintained and developed by a community of thousands of users and developers. Drupal is free to download and use. If you like what Drupal promises for you, please work with us to expand and refine Drupal to suit your specific needs.

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=139&art_id=nw20070502113843164C727166

Could SA have a/the Jack the Ripper?

May 02 2007 at 02:28PMBy Celean Jacobson

An eminent South African historian believes he has stumbled on Jack the Ripper.Charles van Onselen said at first he wasn't sure he wanted to publicise the conclusions he drew when he noticed parallels in the century-old, unsolved Jack the Ripper case and the background of Joseph Silver, a feared international criminal who terrorised women as "King of the Pimps" in Johannesburg.

He expected resistance, especially from the United Kingdom where, he said, there is a "whole cottage industry" devoted to the 1888 murders of streetwalkers in London's Whitechapel.'These were horrific sexual attacks'"These were horrific sexual attacks, probably the most notorious in the Anglophone world's history and it certainly leaves a psychological scar in the English-speaking world that no other set of serial killings ever do, partly because it is unsolved," he said in a recent interview.

Indeed, the publicity around van Onselen's "The Fox and The Flies: The World of Joseph Silver, Racketeer and Psychopath", published in April, has made much of Silver being Jack the Ripper. But van Onselen, who took nearly three decades to research the book, only makes his Ripper case in the final 25th chapter, written in the last 36 months.And while the book has been well-received as a great work of "historical detection," reaction from "Ripperologists" has been sceptical."Skip the Ripper," said one British reviewer.

A reader on a Web site dedicated to the elusive Jack found that the book "from the Ripperological perspective is fairly weak" and that there were probably dozens of men who could have fitted the profile of the crazed killer that van Onselen describes.

To his doubters the author said: "It is infuriating because no one of these things is definitive. I haven't got a knife with blood on it, nor will you ever get that. But my question then is: How many coincidences do you want to mount up in your mind simultaneously until you start saying this is a real possibility? It is in fact not a possibility, it's a probability."'Johannesburg was spectacularly unlawful'"I was left with a choice: I have got intelligent speculation which I think is pretty long way down the track to proving that this guy was the Ripper. Do I include or exclude it? If I include it, it buggers up the book and people get excited for the wrong reasons. If I exclude it and a really sharp professional spots it... I had to explore this possibility," he said.

Van Onselen, an acclaimed biographer, started out, though, exploring South Africa's criminal history, one of his areas of speciality. He was researching the white slave trade when he encountered Silver, the head of Johannesburg's pimps and "the most dangerous man" in the country.Detailed and fast-paced, the book paints a vivid "Gangs of New York"-like picture of Johannesburg as a young mining town, which the author describes as "hell's playground.""Johannesburg was spectacularly unlawful.

It was my exploring Johannesburg with its madness that first drew him (Silver) to my attention," the author said, sitting in his tree-filled garden, about five kilometers (three miles) from where Silver reigned, in a city still regarded as one of the most crime-ridden in the world.

Silver, born in Kielce, Poland in 1868, arrived in Johannesburg in 1898 fresh from a stint in Sing Sing for burglary and a stay in London a decade earlier, which he spent the rest of his life trying to conceal.The evidence that Silver was in Whitechapel at the time of the Ripper murders includes the birth of his daughter there, van Onselen said.

Scores of people have been accused of the Ripper murders, but no one has ever been proven guilty and London police put the number of most likely suspects at just four, among them a poor Whitechapel resident named Kosminski who, like Silver, was a Polish Jew.

At the time, Londoners speculated the killer was Jewish, leading to fears of an anti-Jewish backlash.

Shortly after arriving in Johannesburg, Silver set up a string of cafes, cigar shops and police-protected brothels. He was backed by a gang of Russo-Polish Jews from New York.

Silver was litigious, wrote bold letters to newspapers and had an array of mocking aliases. Jack the Ripper is believed to have taunted police with brazen letters to the papers, including one signed by the name by which he has come to be known.While incarcerated in Johannesburg's Fort prison, Silver, who served as pimp and police informer, perpetrated a sexual assault that has left its chilling imprint on South African prison slang.Informers, especially hated during the years of the repressive apartheid regime, are to this day known as "impimpi," while one prison gang designates those responsible for procuring their 'boy-wives' as AmaSilva.

Van Onselen, the son of a detective, tracked Silver across four continents."I was staggered by how mobile this guy was," the author says.Aided by cheap steamship travel, Silver made his way among the demimonde of the Atlantic world from South Africa to Buenos Aires, Santiago, Paris and Brussels before being executed as a spy in Poland in 1918.

Van Onselen points to similarities between the subject of his book and the Whitechapel murderer, both psychopaths with a deep hatred of women. Silver had bitter, violent relationships with women all his life."In terms of a template for this person, in terms of age, personality, mental illness, pattern for rest of life, this is the best fit there has ever been," he says.Van Onselen also believes, with a touch of pride, that he has made an important connection.

The Ripper murderer carved up women's bodies, removed their cheap rings and cut off their noses and ears. In one case, a heart was reportedly missing, possibly thrown into a fire.Van Onselen believes the Ripper drew his inspiration from the Book of Ezekiel, which calls for the purging of whores:

"And I will set my jealously against thee, and they shall deal furiously with thee: they shall take away thy nose and thine ears... thy residue shall be devoured by fire."

They shall also strip thee out of thy clothes, and take away thy fair jewels.... Thus will I make thy lewdness to cease from thee...."

Most people at the time were more familiar with the Bible than they are today.

But van Onselen believes that specific text would have been of interest to the syphilitic Silver, who was obsessed with Jewish ritual cleansing and saw women as "vendors of sexual pollution."

On the Net:Scotland Yard:

http://www.met.police.uk/history/ripper.htm

The authors and primary beneficiaries of 'race hate' laws

The thrust of the story would seem to be that Finland has just enacted laws against "incitement to race hatred" in order to protect its Muslim population.

The line taken is very simplistic and I suggest the following background be taken into account:The extract quoted from Finland's law against "race-hate" quoted in the story bears very close similarity to Britain's "Public Order Act (As Amended by the Race Relations Act)". The Act has probably been amended (yet again!) since I last had to study it, but the relevant part was Section 19 in which it was a criminal offence to: "....... publish any matter intended or likely in all the circumstances to incite racial hatred......"

I was convicted at Kingston Crown Court in 1978 for publishing in two issues of 'National Front News' (the NF's broadsheet which I edited) material held to be in contravention of that law. I received two 6 month jail terms (suspended for two years); an £800 fine, plus court costs.The articles in NF News were equally against the permanent settlement in Britain of ALL aliens and against alien influence over British affairs.

More coverage was given to the Coloured aliens, as they were the more visible intruders. NF News was tabloid-style was aimed at the man-in-the-street.

Britain's race laws have been replicated in White nations the world over, except in the USA where the First Amendment protects free speech except in cases of direct incitement to criminal violence.

You and your Finnish bloggers should be aware that Britain's law against "race hate" was first drafted and promoted by the Board of Deputies of British Jews during the later 1940s/early 1950s. Their name for this law at that time was "The Group Libel Bill". It was substantially adopted and put into law (amending the Public Order Act) in 1967 by the then Labour Government, but with the support of most Conservative Party MPs.

Since then the "race hate" component of the Public Order Act has been revised several times. On every occasion the revision has been floated by.....guess who?.......the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

The most notorious and pernicious of these amendments, which was urged on Lord Justice Scarman when he was conducting in 1975 the Public Judicial Inquiry into the Disturbances at Red Lion Square in London of 1974, and adopted by him in his Report to the Home Secretary.

It urged the removal of the obligation on the Prosecution to prove that an alleged incitement to racial hatred had been "INTENDED" and replacing that with the far easier (and very ambiguous) obligation to prove that incitement to racial hatred was "LIKELY in all the circumstances".I summarised the circumstances in another posting as follows:"In 1974 I organised a march in London from Westminster to the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, to protest against a Labour government amnesty to all illegal immigrants. A vast crowd of Reds attacked the Police who were guarding the hall which the NF had booked for a meeting. In the riot a student supporter of the International Marxist Group was killed, it is thought by a mounted Police officer."

A public judicial inquiry conducted by Lord Scarman accepted the NF was a mile away at the time of the riot.

Even so, he urged oppressive amendments to the 'Racial Incitement' section of the Public Order Act.Thus Scarman (a friend of Home Secretary Roy Jenkins who had appointed him to conduct the Inquiry, and who had granted the amnesty!) rewarded the rioters and penalised their intended victims by proposing changes to the Act restricting the right to protest against immigration in the future."Scarman's recommendations were accepted by Jenkins with undisguised delight -- and duly enacted, with the help of many Conservative MPs (who were desperate not to be dubbed as 'racists'.)"

The Jews, therefore, not the Muslims, were the authors of laws designed to criminalise expressions of opposition to the concept of multi-racialism; and the Jews, not the Muslims, were the intended beneficiaries of such laws.

The Jews pushed for these laws not merely for the obvious reason that they wanted to put themselves above criticism, but because Jewry thrives (and casts a lower profile) in multi-racial societies. I had a frank admission of the latter aspect from a senior journalist of the Jewish Chronicle, Gerald Smith, in 1970.But the Jews have an even deeper and more sinister reason for promoting multi-racialism (among gentiles).Because Jewry is protected by the religious (de facto racialist) code which is imposed on its membership, it becomes relatively stronger as other peoples descend into racial chaos.

This is an "evolutionary/natural selection" strategy which has been well described in the academic work of Professor Kevin MacDonald of California State University (Long Beach), against whom U.S. Jewry has launched a campaign in recent weeks.

Are you familiar with Prof. MacDonald's work?

I have plenty on file if you would like to see some samples.The only problem for the Jews in encouraging Coloured Immigration into Britain and the rest of Europe is that their policy has introduced the Muslims into the mix. The Muslims, unlike all other varieties of Coloured Immigrant, are politically and religiously organised and motivated against Jewry and Zionism, for obvious reasons: Palestine, Iraq, etc.It is because Jewry has woken up to the Muslim threat (to them as well as to us) inherent in their promotion of Coloured Immigration into Europe that we see so much anti-Muslim propaganda in the mainstream media these days -- which kind of stuff would attract prosecution were it to be directed against any other kind of ethnic minority group (especially the Jews!).

It is for this reason that the "Mohammed as terrorist-bomber" cartoons were tolerated and left unprosecuted anywhere. Your Finnish bloggers either do not know -- or chose to suppress -- the fact that the person responsible for those 'Danish' cartoons which they mention was a Jew called Flemming Rose. You will be charmed by his Levantine smirk. [See my attached Jpg.]Rose produced those cartoon with the deliberate intention of stirring-up Muslim outrage and violent protests, knowing that such protests would attract bad publicity (for the Muslims). How's that for an example of "....intended or likely in all the circumstances to incite racial hatred...."??

Rose's cartoons were not an exercise in "free speech" but a cunningly calculated coat-trailing operation. [See my attached Jpg cartoon lampooning the "Free Speech" humbug.]His cartoons were quickly picked up by the anti-Muslim, pro-Jewish British National Party and made the basis for a widely-distributed leaflet which attracted no prosecution. [See the attached Pdf file of the BNP leaflet.]

It is with all these facts in mind that I find the material from Finland simplistic, disingenuous and ill-informed.I do not not want any significant body -- let alone a multiplicity -- of any variety of ethnic aliens to be settled permanently in Britain, be they Muslim or Jew, African, Indian or whatever. In that matter I have no special favourites or prejudice.You should not be such a sucker and conduit for Jew-inspired anti-Muslim propaganda.

Best regards,

Martin.

=============================================
From: Robert Reis Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 06:14:06 -0700 (PDT)To: John Bryant
Subject: Finland - bad NewsWednesday, May 02, 2007

Finland Cracks Down by Baron Bodissey

A followup to yesterday¹s report: I just got a note from Vasarahammer, with his summary of Mikko Ellilä¹s situation. Mr. Ellilä is a Finnish writer and blogger who has been summoned by the police for a hearing under Finland¹s ³incitement against groups² law.Several commenters have expressed the opinion that this whole business is likely to amount to nothing, and that Mr. Ellilä¹s case will be dismissed when he goes in for his hearing on Monday.But we¹re not going to take that for granted. A little international pressure will help concentrate the mind of the Finnish government and make it realize its mistake in harassing Mikko Ellilä.

I suggest a two-pronged plan:1. If you are a blogger, publicize this on your blog. If you are Finnish, and have additional information on Mikko Ellilä, send it in to us or to other blogs to add to the publicity. In particular, a photo would help ‹ I couldn¹t find one.2. Contact the Finnish authorities.

For our American readers, the Finnish embassy has a handy US map with state-by-state contact information here.

Here¹s the main contact info for their embassy in Washington:Embassy of Finland 3301 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Washington D.C. 20008 U.S.A Tel. +1-202-298 5800 Fax: +1-202-298 6030 E-mail: sanomat.was@formin.fi

Homepage: http://www.finland.org/

Don¹t be shy: remind the Finnish authorities how highly-regarded free speech is in their country. It seems that they may have forgotten that.Here are the details on the case as sent by Vasarahammer:

Dear Baron,A little bit of background information related to Mikko Ellilä¹s case.Finnish penal code contains a law that criminalizes incitement against a group of people. Here¹s an inadequate translation of that law (Criminal code section 11 paragraph 8):"Whoever publicly distributes statements or other information that threatens or abuses some national, racial, ethnic or religious group or group of people that can be regarded as such, shall be sentenced for incitement against a group of people to pay a fine or imprisoned with maximum penalty of two years."The law is very vague and leaves a lot of room for creative interpretation. Basically you can say that it is illegal in Finland to state your honest opinion about Islam in public. There are similar laws in other Nordic countries and I suspect that this law has been almost directly copied from Swedish penal code.---------------When the organization called Suomen Sisu published the Mohammad cartoons on their website, a police investigation was conducted based on the above-mentioned law. However, the case never went to court, since the public prosecutor decided against pursuing the case.Here is the account of one person who saw what happened in the Suomen Sisu case. It is in Finnish, so I will translate the most important parts.I followed from a close distance the Mohammad cartoon furore in Finland. We tried to contact various organizations that advocate freedom of speech, various institutions, newspapers and other media.

The reply was a deafening silence. I first thought that this was due to the reputation of Suomen Sisu, but after the Kaltio scandal broke, the silence of the media in defending the rights of Suomen Sisu could no longer be explained by anything else than fear.Based on those experiences I am completely sure that if the case had went to court and the Finnish publishers of the cartoons had been prosecuted, the media would have accepted this without questioning the merits of the case.The Kaltio case was about a small cultural newspaper that published a cartoon strip drawn by Ville Ranta. The comic strip featured a masked figure of prophet Muhammad and it criticized the gutless behaviour of Finnish leading politicians during the cartoon controversy. The editor of Kaltio was fired after several advertisers withdrew their ads from the paper. The mainstream media did not regard this as an important freedom of speech issue.Mikko Ellilä is not a politically correct writer. He is however very brave in writing under his own name and not using a pseudonym. This also makes him an easy target for the authorities.

Now you should understand why Fjordman uses a pseudonym.

Recently, Government Minority Ombudsman Mikko Puumalainen threatened that Government would crack down against internet sites considered as racist. I suspect that Mikko Ellilä¹s questioning by the police has something to do with Puumalainen¹s statement, though it cannot be verified at this stage. By making the issue public you are helping Mikko and maybe in some way help Finland get rid of that restrictive law.

BNP votes - good or bad tomorrow ?

With a record number of candidates standing in tomorrows local elections, we hope for the best number of nationalist votes possible to shock the Establishment.

What do you predict ?

This site expects the best votes to come from the North of England again, as these are the heartlands of nationalist support.Hopefully we will gauge a reasonable percentage nationwide too.

We also hope all nationalist candidates do well - and take care, the red filth will be around !

Finally cleared up...........

For centuries, Hindu women have worn a spot on their foreheads.

We have always naively thought that it had something to do with their religion.

However, the Indian Embassy has recently revealed the true story.

When a Hindu woman gets married, she brings a dowry into the union.

On her wedding night, the husband scratches off the spot to see whether he has won a corner shop, a video store, a curry house or a petrol station.

If not, he must take a job in India answering telephones providing Computer technical support.

Jack ............

An influx of immigrants from violent countries is contributing to gang warfare, police have warned.

Scotland Yard said that asylum seekers and other migrants who had witnessed violence in their home countries were having a "disproportionate negative impact" on other youngsters here.
The report is the first official acknowledgment that refugees from war-torn and often lawless countries are at least partly responsible for an upsurge in gang violence.

Police have identified at least 171 gangs operating in London alone.

An influx of young immigrants who have experienced extreme violence abroad may be fuelling gang violence
Criminologists have long argued that youngsters who were forced to act violently to survive in their homeland need help adjusting to a new life in Britain.

But the authorities have shown a reluctance to tackle the issue for fear of stereotyping or appearing racist. However, they already target British-born youngsters at risk of criminal behaviour from birth.

For more read...................
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23394677-details/Immigrants+from+war-torn+countries+

SPEARHEAD article by John Tyndall (2005) bears a re-read

As can be seen from the report on page 4 of Spearhead magazine(2005), last month I was expelled from the British National Party for the second time in 16 months. The charges were as ludicrous this time as they were the previous time.
Then I took legal action to obtain reinstatement, and I was successful: to avoid the matter going to court and very big costs being incurred, party chairman Nick Griffin agreed to an out-of-court settlement whereby the expulsion was annulled and my membership restored. As it was, the action was expensive: due to a procedural error by my solicitors in notifying Mr. Griffin of the application for judicial review of the case, the judge hearing the costs application ruled that each party to the dispute pay its own costs. A total bill of over £12,000 resulted from this fiasco, which was split roughly equally. The cause of Nationalism in Britain, never abounding in affluence, was that much the poorer for Mr. Griffin's folly.

Just what the costs will amount to in the new action which I have been forced to institute over this latest expulsion remains to be seen, but the affair will not be dealt with cheaply. No one regrets more than I do the fact that loyal nationalists will again be asked to dig into their pockets to pay, but the dispute has not been of my making. I never had Mr. Griffin expelled; he has had me expelled – twice!

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.


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