The Guardian’s definition of “far right”, and mine, differ considerably, which is the reason why I have not rushed to its web site to read a two-page article published a few of days ago about “the threat of the far right in Europe” ( ) which, I am told, made no mention of the BNP or the state of race relations in Britain.
The Financial Times simultaneously published a similar one-page survey, but this included a brief post-script item (pasted below) about the failure of the BNP to mobilise the full potential of anti-immigration sentiment persisting amongst the British electorate.
The impression I have gained in recent years is that the only “far right” parties in Europe who have been able (allowed) to flutter near to the flame of power are those that have been able to convince the Establishment, the media and Jewry that they are most definitely not anti-Jewish, not “racist”, not against all coloured immigration (but only against the immigration of Muslims!) and not against the multi-racial society (just so long as it doesn’t include Muslims!) The Jobbik Party in Hungary may be the only notable exception to this.
This “far right” anti-Muslim/anti-Islam rhetoric is designed, of course, to make these “kosher fascists” more appealing to Jewry and, hence, the mass media. Whether that line of ingratiation really impresses Jewry’s learned elders — as distinct from their lesser brethren — is a matter I will touch on in due course.
The first of these post-WW2 “kosher fascists” was Gianfranco Fini, who started out his political career in Italy as an arm-in-the-air, Mussolini-admiring, Giovinezza-singing, MSI Blackshirt in the late 1970s, but within a decade or so was grovelling at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem begging forgiveness. Since then his career zoomed upwards.
Until recently Fini occupied the post of Speaker of parliament in Bercusconi’s (“right wing”) government, but now that Bercusconi’s administration is on the skids (due to old roué’s extra curricular activities) Fini has resigned and is now positioning himself to become Prime Minister after the next general election.
It is no doubt a mere happenstance that the period of Fini’s conversion and rise to high office and the period when Italy became the No. 1 target for endless boatloads of illegal immigrants from Africa coincided.
FOLLOWING FINI INTO THE WILDERNESS OF “SUCCESS”
The Dutch “far right” politician Geert Wilders is currently building a political career by means of a strenuous anti-Muslim/anti-Islam agitation which he promotes in tandem with a strident pro-Jewish/pro-Israel campaign. The one is part-and-parcel of the other.
On Sunday 14th December 2008, just as Israel was preparing to drop white phosphorous bombs on the crammed civilian areas in the Gaza concentration camp, Wilders was at the Begin Memorial Hall, Jerusalem, sharing the platform with some of the most rabid Arab-hating Jewish racists in the Zionist fold, including Arieh Eldad, a “far right” member of Israel’s parliament. You can find Eldad’s post-conference press statement here: ( ). If it has been taken down and you would like a copy, let me know.
Wilders knew well that the Begin Memorial Hall was built in honour of Menachem Begin who in the late 1940s was the leader of the Irgun Zvai Leumi terrorist gang. Among many other atrocities, Begin instigated and personally participated in the massacre of Palestinian villagers at Dir Yassein, the bombing of the King David Hotel and the kidnapping and slow-hanging with piano wire British Army Sergeants Mervyn Paice and Clifford Martin. In the foreword to his autobiography The Revolt he insists: “Yes....I would do at all again”. The Israeli public were so grateful to Begin that they elected him prime minister in 1977.
Wilders is clearly hell-bent on out-grovelling Fini. But are his ‘brown nose’ snufflings doing him any good with the people who really count?
At the recent general election in Holland his party obtained, so it was reported, sufficient votes to influence which of the major parties formed the government. He has been given the additional advantage of being prosecuted under Holland’s version of the UK’s “Incitement to Racial Hatred” laws. I may not have been paying close attention, but I haven’t heard the final outcome of those two situations. Perhaps a reader can update me.
But is Wilders getting the backing of Zionist-Jewry’s Establishment — or just the support of chancers, mavericks and opportunists like himself?
Prof. Kevin MacDonald (Professor of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach) whose commentaries on Jewish supremacist strategies appear on The Occidental Observer web site, wrote a commentary on Wilders (and, by implication, other Populist grovellers) which you can read here: .
MacDonald’s final two paragraphs read:
The reality is that this is what the entire Jewish political spectrum wants, from the far left to the neoconservative right. Again we see that despite the well-oiled myth ( http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=3547 ) that Jews are beset by fundamental disagreements about policy, Jewish power is pushing in one direction throughout the West: Multiculturalism and the end of racially and culturally homogeneous White societies.
And it should be obvious that White advocates who attempt to recruit Jewish support in opposition to multiculturalism are engaging in a futile undertaking. The fact that the organized Jewish community favors Muslim immigration throughout the West even when so many Muslims are hostile to Israel and to Jews (to the point that Jews have been forced to vacate Muslim areas in many places, including Sweden) shows how committed they are to their campaign against the people and the culture of the West.
This explanation is probably broadly correct, but I venture to suggest that there may be exceptions, if temporary, to this global Jewish drive to destroy white-gentile ethnic homogeneity: most notably here in Britain.
The size of the Muslim population in many British towns and cities — especially in the north of England and the east of London — both in terms of overall numbers and as a proportion of the population, puts anything to be seen in Sweden in the shade.
From the point of view of Jewry in the UK, the issue is not the number of indigenous white gentiles resorting to ‘White Flight’ from the home towns of their youth, but the increasing number of parliamentary constituencies which are electing Muslims to Parliament; constituencies which will never welcome Jewish candidates of any political party — even those which, two or three decades ago, were represented by frequently re-elected Jewish (usually Labour Party) MPs.
On top of this demographically charged political change there is the rise of Muslim business empires in Britain. These are increasingly able to bestow financial patronage to the major Establishment political parties, and do so.
These developments indicate that a power base is evolving which could have the potential to challenge the Jewish money-and-media dominance over the British body politic and this is making UK Jewry jittery, no matter what may be world Jewry’s overall strategy of encouraging white European nations to dissolve themselves into a multi-racial stew.
Hence, in the Jewish-owned sections of the UK media, there is a flood of anti-Muslim, anti-Islam stories. This barrage is so relentless that for the average Briton the words “Muslim” and “Islam” have become hardwired to the word “terrorist”. In the long run this campaign and the associated activities of the Jewish-backed English Defence League might be intensified to the point that Muslims return to their homelands — no bad thing, providing other varieties of immigrant followed in their footsteps!
At the moment, however, the campaign seems designed simply to put all but the most fanatical Islamists among the Muslim population on the back foot and, in particular, to scare Muslim religious, political and business leaders away from any thought of challenging the current status quo for fear of being depicted by media character assassins as “extremists” and “promoters of terrorism” — allegations which terminate careers, destroy businesses and ruin lives.
No similar such mainstream media campaign has ever been mounted in the UK against Afro-Caribbeans, who perpetrate more homicides and maimings per year in our country than have ever been inflicted by Islamic terrorists. Were any such campaign to be launched the “hatemongers” responsible would soon find themselves facing “Incitement to Racial Hatred” charges. The difference is that the Afro-Caribbeans do not represent a threat to Jewry’s scruff-of-the-neck grip on Britain’s Establishment.
Prof. MacDonald’s description of Jewry’s global strategy of promoting alien immigration to white European lands could well be a large part of the explanation why British National Party chairman Nick Gri££in failed so signally with his decade-long charm offensive with Jewry.
The other parts of the explanation must surely also include:
•Gri££in’s long earlier career as an anti-semite — including in the mid-1990s his claimed authorship of a factual magazine exposing Jewish media ownership and influence (in fact written by Dr. Mark Deavin) — before he adopted what the more perceptive among the Jews recognised was a cynical, careerist-opportunist volte face. Why should the Jews take a chance with Gri££in? There are plenty genuinely philo-semitic gentiles on the “far right” to pick from, as the media-backed progress of the so-called English Defence League (with its Jewish Division, its rabbinical advisers and its pro-Israel demonstrations outside the Israeli Embassy) makes all too clear.
•Gri££in’s long career as a swindler (concerning which I have ample evidence) during which he has manifested signs of mental instability. Yes, there are plenty of Jewish crooks and nutters, but why should Jewry, whose leaders like to present themselves as respectable, reputable and stable members of society, want to associate themselves with a man who looks headed for a sequence of train crashes in the civil and criminal courts and who may be only a few steps ahead of burly men with flapping white coats?
Thus the terms in which the Financial Times discusses Gri££in’s “failure” are inaccurate and unfair.
The long and the short of it is that it was the Jews who let Gri££in down! .... If only they had grasped the hand of friendship that he extended for so long .... if only they had rewarded his conversion to philo-semitism .... If only they had got the media a bit more on his side .... then by now they would have had a firm and obedient ally not only in the European Parliament but in the House of Commons and all his/the BNP’s financial problems would now be a forgotten nightmare!
Now read what the Financial Times had to say — and then see why I want the the Equalities and Human Right Commission to lose its case against the BNP, judgment in which is pending:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fd54377c-f104-11df-bb17-00144feab49a.html#ixzz15XBoGt9v Financial Times - Tuesday 16th November 2010
Britain: The far right’s strategic failures leave anti-migrant feeling untapped Before the 2009 European parliamentary elections, the head of the far-right British National Party acknowledged that the UK public would never accept “jackboots marching down Whitehall”, writes James Boxell.
In a pub garden in Birkenhead, a blighted post-industrial suburb in England’s north-west, Nick Griffin told the Financial Times that his party had a “once in a lifetime” chance to escape its white supremacist roots and emerge as an alternative for millions scorned by the London elite.
Less than 18 months later – following this year’s disastrous national election campaign, a savage internal power struggle and a court battle with the country’s equality watchdog that threatens to bankrupt the party – his dream is over.
The failure is largely of Mr Griffin’s making. The Cambridge-educated son of a Tory councillor believed he had the intellect and electoral savvy to transform the BNP’s image. But his performances – notably on the BBC current affairs programme Question Time last year – bolstered the impression of an extremist unable to give up links with the Ku Klux Klan.
Strategic errors, such as concentrating much of the party’s firepower on the all but unwinnable seat of Barking in England’s south-east and taking on the equality watchdog rather than allowing non-whites to join the party, compounded the crisis.
Some observers ascribe the BNP’s failure to a UK strain of anti-extremism harking back to the second world war fight against fascism. But James Bethell of Nothing British, a group campaigning against the BNP, says a large section of society still feels its fears on immigration and Islam are being ignored. “These are people left behind by globalisation,” he says. “They don’t understand the country any more. All the things they love and champion have been vilified.”
The BNP won about 1m votes in last year’s European vote. If you add this to 2.5m votes for the europhobic UK Independence party, it means British populists won more than a fifth of the European election votes.
Even allowing for the fact that voters often use such elections to protest, that is still a big group. Should Ukip decide to branch out from its heartlands in the Conservative shires to pursue an explicit anti-immigration agenda, that rump of discontent may yet be exploited.
A political party has the right to regulate its membership recruitment to accordance with its lawful political objectives.
However low my opinion is of Gri££in, I want the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to lose its current litigation against the BNP so that a matter of principle may be upheld, i.e.:
That in a democracy, the government and its agencies have no right to dictate the terms of the constitutions of a political parties, and thereby to dictate their policies. The sole judge on those kinds of matters should be the electorate.
I fear the EHRC may win because the BNP has not fought the case on this matter of principle. It surrendered that principle at an early stage, as Gri££in admitted in a bulletin to members deploring the EHRC’s continuation with the case, in which he said: “We’ve given them everything they demanded....”
Gri££in has only fought the case on a sequence of technical issues and not on the issue that in a democracy a political party has the right to regulate its membership recruitment to accordance with its lawful political objectives.
I hope that their Lordships in the High Court will not hold against the BNP the unprincipled tactics which Gri££in has, thus far, deployed to advanced its defence and will see that a great issue of freedom is involved here, not merely for the BNP but for the British public at large and will give a ruling that neither the state nor any other official or private body may prescribe what may or may not be adopted by free associations, such as political parties, in their constitutions and statements of policy.
In connection swith this case, Dr. Andrew Emerson, a BNP member and frequent BNP candidate issued a statement on his blog ( ) last week which included the following claim:
“....Back in 2004, he [BNP chairman Nick Gri££in] sought to open up the party to ethnic aliens, before it was necessary to do so. On seeing the strength of the opposition to this move from within the party, led by genuine nationalists like John Tyndall, Richard Edmonds, and Chris Jackson, he hastily rowed back from this, and in order to try to cover his tracks, fabricated a fictitious letter (which he has naturally never seen fit to publish) from the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), as it was known at the time, in which the CRE supposedly demanded that the party change its constitution in order to enable the admission of ethnic aliens. If I am wrong in this surmise, I challenge Mr Griffin to publish the alleged 2004 letter from the CRE.”
If true — and I have no reason to doubt Dr. Emerson’s veracity, unless I can be provided one — then the claim that Gri££in “fabricated a fictitious letter from the CRE” (the EHRC’s predecessor) demanding that the BNP change its constitution so as to eliminate its “racist” membership recruitment rules has huge implications.
If the letter was “fabricated” by Gri££in then it could well be that it provoked the EHRC into action. Who likes to have letters attributed to them which they never wrote? The forgery — if it was a forgery — put ideas into the EHRC’s head. What better way could there be to inflict revenge and hoist Gri££in with his own petard than by issuing a genuine letter making demands very similar to those contained in his forgery and then issuing court proceedings to enforce them?
If what Dr. Emerson claims is true, and if the case goes in favour of the EHRC — which I hope it does not — then Gri££in is the author of his own and the BNP’s misfortune!
P.S. Just as I’ve finished this, a reader has sent me a posting from Gri££in on the BNP web site stating that his lawyers have applied for a further two days of pleadings and applications in court and that, as a result, a judgment cannot be expected until December.
Its contents need to be verified, bearing in mind it comes from an “anti-fascist” source, but from other information recently received from various sources, it would appear to be substantially true. I think it’s worth a read.
I have also been sent copies of the letter from the BNP offering its creditors “20p in the £1 for full and final settlement” of what they are owed. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that some small(ish) firms existing on a knife edge of credit in this current recession — like a printer in the North-East who is owed £16,000+ — could be put out of business and many decent people made redundant.
So much for integrity and “British Jobs for British Workers”!
Those who still need proof that BNP chairman Nick Gri££in is a common criminal — specifically, a financial confidence-trickster, a swindler — should consider the following:
At the time that Gri££in and his business manager Jim Dow$on was sending out what they thought was a confidential letter to the party’s creditors offering them one-fifth of what they are owed — which is an admission that the party is insolvent and unlikely to be able to continue in existence — they was also frantically pumping out e-mails to party members and supporters offering them “Life Membership” at the never-to-be-repeated reduced rate of £350 instead of £500.
How can it be honest to induce patriots to part with hundreds of pounds for “Life Membership” of a party without giving them essential information about whether the party is likely to survive the next few months, let alone for the rest of their lives?
Political parties are not categorised in law as companies but as “unincorporated associations”. This does not, I am advised by a barrister, make all members of the BNP “jointly and severally liable” for the party debts (alleged to be £600,000+ and rising), but it does put Gri££in and other senior party officials who concluded contracts on behalf of the party in the frame for bankruptcy proceedings.
Whatever is finally decided by M’Learned Friends concerning who, in addition to Gri££in, is liable for these huge debts, all members — especially those who have been or are in process of being conned into buying “Life Membership” — should have been advised immediately the party became insolvent and sent copies of the letter to creditors offering the “20p in the £” to settle party debts now in excess of £600,000 (and rising!). So please circulate this bulletin to all your contacts in the BNP as soon as you have read it.
THE “BNP” AND THE “BNP2010” SWINDLE
As I have already pointed out in two widely-circulated recent bulletins, the appeals to members of the “British National Party” (“BNP”) to sign up for £350 “Life Memberships” and to remit advance payments for accommodation at the “BNP” annual conference, were issued by an entity proclaiming itself to be “British National Party 2010” (BNP2010). This was specified in small print at the very bottom of those documents.
Unless I am very much mistaken, any money received in respect of memberships, products and services advertised in documents issued by “BNP2010” will be lodged in bank accounts quite separate from those operated by the “BNP”.
Thus if, as and when the “BNP” is declared insolvent and is dissolved and/or when Gri££in and his immediate associates are required to settle its debts or be made bankrupt, (the 2nd time for Gri££in!) creditors of the “BNP” will not (so Gri££in hopes) be able to lay their hands of funds raised by the “separate” entity “BNP2010”.
If that is another of Gri££in’s “cunning plans”, and if he does appear before a bankruptcy court, then it is a circumstance which will outrage creditors and also, I think, the presiding judge when it is drawn to his attention. The judges have a discretion as to how theycategorise bankrupts (in terms of their culpability and intent) and how harsh their bankruptcy orders will be. We can only hope that all creditors will be made aware of this “BNP”/“BNP2010” issue in advance of any bankruptcy proceedings.
And what will happen to the money raised in the name of “BNP2010”? We are entitled to presume that it will be used to keep Gri££in’s nose above the water because, if he were to be declared bankrupt, then the European Parliament would cease to pay him his substantial salary, his considerable expenses and would cease to pay the salaries of the various party officials who act as his assistants.
The damage all this is doing to the credibility of the cause of British nationalism is immense. This is why Gri££in has had so much help and protection from the media and sundry law enforcement departments. The Establishment knew exactly what kind of creature he is and what he is capable of. Can we imagine the smug smiles of satisfaction which are now lighting up their faces?
I hope that BNP members and supporters who receive my bulletins are not surprised by all this. I have been warning them what kind of a political and financial crook, spiv and liar Gri££in is for the past decade. Many of them allowed desperation and hope to suppress their common sense, have said to me: “Oh, that’s just your personal sour grapes!”
Well now those grapes are now being harvested and pressed. Those people who dismissed my warnings will soon have to drink deeply of that sour vintage. Will they exclaim, in true wine-pseud’s style: “He’s a saucy fellow — his presumption will amuse you!”
No sooner had I completed the above, when into my In Box popped Gri££in’s latest toe-curling begging letter dated 2 November 2010 17:34, concerning his “David and Goliath battle” in the High Court against the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, due to take place in a couple of days.
I hope any who receive the hysterical screed remember (or if newcomers to the Cause, are made aware) that it comes from the man who....
(a) Told the BBC Radio 4’s World at One in 2003: “Repatriation is unfeasible and inhumane ..... Britain can take a little ‘salt in the soup’.” (Since he said that London and many another major city in London have achieved the ‘tipping point’ of having a population of which more than 50% are not indigenous Britons. What indigenous Britons are now facing is not a matter of mere population ‘seasoning’, but the deliberate infliction of a policy of genocide against them.)
(b) Allowed the BNP’s Voice of Freedom paper (Editor: Martin Wingfield) to run a story about a BNP local official saying how proud he was to have an African as a son-in-law. The report was accompanied by a photo showing the silly old fool hugging the coal black, dreadlock-decorated Zimbabwean tribesman who was going to sire his grandchildren.
(c) Cultivated contacts with the Sikh community (N.B.: They’ve got loads of dosh!).
(d) Ditto the Jewish community. BNP officials to attend Holocaust Day wreath-layings; grovelling letters were sent to the Jewish Chronicle; cringing articles appeared in party publications, and much more besides.
All this was designed to ingratiate Gri££in and the BNP into the good books of the media and the Establishment by showing that he had “modernised” the party which now accepted the multi-racial society, racial integration, the production of mixed-race children (the ‘salt’ in our ‘soup’!) and was desperately keen to get on good terms with Jewry.
In the face of all that BNP ‘modernising’ propaganda, how can the ‘Equalities’ people be blamed for taking him seriously in wanting to create a multi-racial BNP? After all, leaders of the ‘Modernist’ faction which propelled Gri££in into the leadership of the BNP in 1999 — people like Eddy Butler — had long urged on him the need for the party to ‘take the plunge’ on multi-racial membership, along with a cuddle-up to Zionist-Jewry.
If ever Butler becomes BNP chairman, he will continue with Gri££in’s multi-racial pro-Jewish policies. Let Butler deny this if he will. But he won’t. He’ll keep quiet and let Gri££in be the lightening-conductor for members’ rage.
It is feasible that the Commission launched the law case to make the BNP change its “racist” membership admission rules as a method both of testing Gri££in’s sincerity and providing him with a device to spare his blushes and confound any remaining “racist diehards” in the party by being able to say: “This is not my decision. It was imposed by a court order”.
But instead of picking up the Commission’s ball and running with it (directly to a cheap touchdown settlement before a costly legal scrum commenced), he fumbled and dropped the ball — just as he has fumbled and bungled the management of a whole raft of other legal actions brought by companies (for copyright theft or unpaid debts) and sundry party ex-employees who he had sacked contrary to employment law.
To this day we cannot be certain whether Gri££in....
1.sincerely bought into Butler’s ‘Modernist’ multi-racial, pro-Jewish transformation of the BNP; or 2.regarded it as “a cunning plan” to sneak into power by means of a trick; or 3.has become so cynical that he regards policies and strategies as things to distract fools while he concentrates on the really important job of relieving them of their money.
Guess where I am inclined to place my bet!
Whatever — he is in the place where he is. It is the place where all unprincipled opportunist-careerist criminals should end up.
I do not take Gri££in’s situation as evidence that there is, after all, a God. Let’s keep a sense of proportion! But if I were to live to see Tony Blair in the same situation ..... well that might be another thing!