6 May, 2007

WEBSTER: The Authors and Prime Beneficiaries of Race Hate Laws

Posted by alex in 'hate' laws, Britain, Europe, Finland, Martin Webster at 6:15 am | Permanent Link

[following is from email from Martin Webster]

Dear Bob,

Thanks for this story……

> Finland Cracks Down
> by Baron Bodissey
> [snip]

……..which I run out in full below.

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.

Rose produced those cartoons 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.


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,


Wednesday, May 02, 2007

Finland Cracks Down
by Baron Bodissey

A followup to yesterday’s report: I just got a note from Vasarahammer, with his summary of Mikko Ellilä’s situation. Mr. Ellilä is a Finnish writer and blogger who has been summoned by the police for a hearing under Finland’s ‘incitement against groups’ law.

Several commenters have expressed the opinion that this whole business is likely to amount to nothing, and that Mr. Ellilä’s case will be dismissed when he goes in for his hearing on Monday.

But we’re 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
Tel. +1-202-298 5800
Fax: +1-202-298 6030
E-mail: [email protected]
Homepage: 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 Ellilä’s 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 Ellilä’s questioning by the police has something to do with Puumalainen’s 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.

  • 9 Responses to “WEBSTER: The Authors and Prime Beneficiaries of Race Hate Laws”

    1. Cormac Says:

      Finland , land of the white Mongols.


    2. alex Says:

      An excellent history of the jewing of free speech in Britain.

      Here’s more from Webster:


      Griffin attempts to censor Stormfront

      Below is an extract from a recent issue of the ‘Final Conflict’ bulletin, organ of the UK section of the International Third Position.

      [Background note: the ITP was co-founded in 1986/7 by Nick Griffin in association with the Italian Roberto Fiore after they had finished playing games with the National Front to the point of its destruction. Griffin was later forced to quit the ITP after a sequence of “financial maladministration” events and eventually wandered into the British National Party and the employ of its then Chairman, the late John Tyndall.]

      The ‘FC’ extract is a posting from a person who signs himself as “Tyndallite”. He claims to be a long-standing member of the BNP and asserts that he is being subjected to pressure from Griffin to delete postings on the ‘Stormfront’ site which:

      1) Criticise the failed “modernising” strategy of Le Pen in the recent French presidential elections and similar policies being imposed on the BNP by Griffin;
      2) Ventilite the possibility that their might be a body of opinion within the BNP which would seek to have Griffin replaced as party Chairman and his “Modernising” policy changes reversed. One Peter Jackson is mentioned in this connection

      If anybody knows to “Tyndallite” and knows his e-mail address, could they please forard this information to me in confidence.

      As to the contents of “Tyndallite’s” postings:

      I have heard from two sources recently concerning a rumour that Peter Jackson, a BNP member based in Preston, Lancs, intends to try and set in motion an election for the post of BNP Chairman with a view to deposing Griffin.

      I have been told that Mr. Jackson’s purpose is to restore the core policies of the BNP which Griffin has discarded in a bid to “modernise” the party (i.e. to make it acceptable to Jewry and, hence, the media) and thereby to join the political “mainstream”.

      I hope that Mr. Jackson and those who support him are familiar with what the BNP is pleased to call its ‘constitution’. If they study it with the necessary care they may come to realise that it is not just the policy statement of the party which needs attention, but also its constitutional structure.

      The party has a ‘constitution’ created for it by its founder, John Tyndall. The creation was to serve his convenience. It is a “führerprinzip” contrivance similar to that which Tyndall attempted in October 1980 to foist on the National Front when he was Chairman of that party. He required the support of two-thirds or more of the NF members voting to get his way. He did not get anywhere near even a simple majority.

      Among those who queued up around the hall to denounce Tyndall’s proposals as “a tyranny” was Nick Griffin. (How right he was! But how ready he now is to use its provvisions to his own personal advantage!) It was as result of Tyndall’s failure to get his ‘constitution’ accepted that he split from the NF and formed the BNP.

      The crucial thing to bear in mind is that under the BNP ‘constitution’, the current Chairman can only be obliged to face an electoral challenge if he agrees to submit himself to such a challenge.

      I do not know all of the details exactly, but essentially a prospective candidate has to be, at the time of seeking nomination, a member of the party with an unbroken record of at least 5 years membership AND be an officer of the party. A nomination paper must be signed by several other members who must either have a specified membership record and/or be an officer of the party.

      The ‘constitution’ also specifies that members may only hold office, however lowly, with the consent of the party Chairman. The Chairman may dismiss from office any party official without needing to give any reason.

      Thus a party Chairman can block any attempt to trigger an election for his job simply by exercising his power to dismiss from office a contender and/or dismissing from office those who sign the contender’s nomination paper.

      Tyndall did not avail himself of these powers to protect his position when Griffin sought to trigger an election for the party Chairmanship in 1999 not because he was any democrat but because he imagined he was sufficiently popular with a majority of the membership to see off any challenge. But as he was to discover to his cost: party members are fickle — and party memberships lists change over time.

      I do not think that Griffin, faced with a similar challenge, will suffer from a similar fit of hubris. He will avail himself of all of the powers available to him under Tyndall’s ‘constitution’ (some of which, I am advised, are inherently illegal and eminently open to challenge at the High Court) to render any prospective challenger disqualified.

      Since Tyndall was ousted, Griffin as systematically ‘tweaked’ the already tyrannous terms of the ‘constitution’ to yet further protect his Robert Mugabe-style “Chairman-for-Life” position. BNP bulletins during recent months have heralded the introduction of a new category of membership: “Voting Members”.

      A Voting Member is able to vote at so-called “Annual General Meetings” (which may be ‘annual’, but which are far from ‘general’) and, presumably, also able to vote in an election for the post of party Chairman.

      Voting Members must pay a £20 a month subscription and also maintain a record of work for the party which is reviewed annually by local officials. These local officials — who hold their offices by grace and favour of Griffin! — are spared the £20 a month subscription, another venal reason for them to be grateful to Griffin.

      In this regard the Voting Member set-up is rather like the Advisory Council, the senior assembly within the BNP (whenever Griffin deems to convene it). All of the members of the Advisory Council are appointed by Griffin. Most of the members of the body are also members of the full-time or part-time PAID STAFF of the party — appointed by Griffin and who may be dismissed by him at his sole discretion, as if he owned the BNP like he might own one of his ‘busines’ scams such as the late unlamented “Affordable Cars”.

      So far as the Voting Membersh category is concerned, one can sympathise with the regular work qualification. However, the financial subscription — with, as I understand, no discounts available to pensioners who may have devoted their lives to working for the Nationalist cause (they may be ‘backward-looking’ and unhappy with “modernism”!!) — is obviously set to restrict the size of the electoral college.

      This makes it harder for an aspirant party Chairman to become qualified to challenge for that job and harder to secure a base of voting support within the electoral college.

      This is a corrupt and unlawful tangle of rules which would discredit a Banana Republic and which brings disgrace upon and fosters a culture of corruption within the organisation which poses as Britain’s premier ‘Nationalist’ party.

      Can we imagine any other political party of significance operating with such a ‘constitution’ and not earning the sustained inquisition of the media? The fact that the media has been silent in the face of this scandal (as in the face of so many other even more unsavoury scandals within the BNP) is something which should given experienced Nationalists cause for contemplation.

      Mr. Jackson — or whoever seeks to challenge Griffin and his paid clique of chancers political ignorami and enemy infiltrators — must look into the constitutional structures of their party as well as its policies.

      Martin Webster.

      From: “Final Conflict”
      Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:39 PM

      Subject: FC 2869. Freedom of Speech?


      [This was posted on Stormfront. It’s amusing to see those who claim to
      believe in ‘Freedom and Democracy’ using highly Blairite control
      freakery tactics to silence intelligent debate. When Blair or Cameron
      use such tactics, the BNP leadership crow about ‘British Freedom’ —
      but Freedom cuts both ways]:

      Originally Posted by “Tyndallite”.

      I don’t know if someone can help me as I’m having a spot of computer
      bother, and am not very computer literate.

      I have, essentially, two problems:

      (1) On page 9 of this thread I wrote a post entitled:


      and on another thread, wrote a post entitled:


      Unfortunately, I have received this morning, a letter from BNP head office
      threatening to expel me if I don’t remove these two posts. The Chris
      Jackson post has already been removed by the S/F moderators (in collusion
      with Lee Barnes, I suspect), but I can’t seem to remove the Le Pen one as I
      don’t know how to. It seems as if the”Edit” button is not available once the
      post has been up for a few days.

      Can anyone advise me as to how to remove this freedom of expression and
      freedom of thought from this internet site?

      (2) Also, as freedom of expression is clearly not liked in some quarters
      within the party, can anybody give me some advice as to what to say when
      dealing with a hostile media concerning freedom of thought. As I had always
      previously assumed the moral high ground when arguing the BNP’s case
      against journalists oppressing expression concerning immigration, I am now
      unsure as to who has the moral high ground now that freedom of expression
      is being denied by some within the party?

      I can hardly argue with a journalist on the lack of expression concept if I
      myself have to ban others from using that same freedom.

      Advice on these two issues would be much appreciated so that I can help the
      party to move forward and win.

      Other examples of “Tyndallite’s” posts:


      * Le Pen only gets 11% (half the vote that he expected)

      * Trails in a dismal 4th place.

      * 90% of the French electorate vote (which is almost everybody), thus
      giving a much truer indication of the French voters’ opinions, and thus
      showing that Le Pen only has about a 10% core vote of the electorate to
      count on.

      Perhaps the reason for this dismal showing is contained in his statement to
      immigrant youths living in ghettos:

      “You are the branches of the French tree. You are as French as can be.”,
      and also by his watering down of his policies in general (remember the
      black female on one of his election campaigns?).

      This should be a lesson to be learnt for the Griffin camp and their liberal
      limpdick ‘thinkers’, who constantly like to tell us how clever they are
      with their “we want immigrants in the party” type claptrap (and other such
      silly ‘ideas’).

      Le Pen’s watering down of his rhetoric and policies, and his arsekissing to
      the immigrants, obviously didn’t cut the mustard with the electorate.

      Although the people are fed up with the immigrants, they have chosen to
      side with the equivalent of the Tories (perhaps a ‘better the devil you
      know’ feeling), rather than go with Le Pen, who they may now see as a man
      who doesn’t have any clear ideals, a man who just says whatever he thinks
      the electorate want to hear.

      This shows the danger in adopting such a mercenary tactic. Obviously,
      extremist type comments should not be used by Nationalists, but by trying
      to be all things to all men, a party could simply be seen as ‘just like the
      others’. If this becomes the case, and Nationalists do appear to be just
      like the rest, then why would the electorate bother taking a chance on
      Nationalists in the first place?

      Better the devil you know, is a principle that should not be overlooked by
      the BNP ‘intellectuals’ (the same ‘intellectuals’ you may remember who were
      calling for immigrants to be let into the party).

      No. Nationalism should always show itself as different to the opposition.
      The myriad opposition parties, should all be shown to be one and the same
      ideology, Internationalism. Nationalists should always distance themselves
      from this Internationalist paradigm, and ALWAYS be crystal clear about
      immigration. Le Pen muddied this clarity with his own waffle ……
      and paid the price.

      Originally Posted by “Tyndallite”

      (1) Marine is the main person responsible for Le Pen’s watering down of his
      policies, so I don’t personally have much faith in her ‘judgment of the
      situation’ abilities.

      (2) This election reminds me of the Thatcher lies of the 79 general
      election. France seems to have regressed 30 years.

      (3) Sarkozy and his Tory types will not be able to solve this issue.

      (4) I predict a riot. I predict that the immigrants will now go on even
      more extreme burning sprees in order to humiliate Sarkozy.

      We should not water down our BNP policies any more. Ignore the sawdust
      Caesars of the BNP with their silly limpdick liberalism. We should educate
      the present incoming party members. They need to be educated to understand
      that the political classes are not letting all these immigrants in out of a
      mistake of policy (as Tory types wrongly believe). The political classes
      are letting them in because they wish to deliberately exterminate the white

      The difference between a Nationalist, and a know-nothing tory type pratt
      (and the majority of the British public), is the conspiracy theory that we
      whites have been marked down for eradication (whether Jews are behind this
      conspiracy is a secondary question, and not the important fundamental

      The fundamental issue is that our members understand this deliberate
      extermination policy, for if they don’t, they may drift back into lib/lab/con
      if those parties begin promising to crack down on immigration etc (like the
      public did in 79 when Thatcher started peddling her bull**** about how we
      were being swamped by alien cultures).

      The present bunch of party members seem to be airhead (although well
      intentioned) naive Tory types, without a clue as to the big picture.
      They’re easy-come-easy-go (and easy to manipulate, just how Griffin likes
      them I suspect).

      The present party leadership strike me as similar to the liberals in their
      denial of information to others. For example, Lib/Lab/Con politicians have
      all had a grounding in Classical civilisation, but deny such knowledge to
      our young people (by ensuring a study of Antiquity is kept off the school
      curriculum). By the same token, Griffin and co are well aware of the real
      issue of white extermination being a deliberate policy by the establishment
      (the conspiracy theory), but deny such knowledge to the members.

      We can learn a lot from Le Pen’s recent dismal performance.

    3. alex Says:

      The Times boosts Griffin/BNP (again)

      Below is the text downloaded from The Times web site of the boost given to the BNP generally, but to Griffin in particular, in its issue of 19th April.

      Compare the balanced tone, the friendly intimate family life observations, given in this Times article with the kind of pre-election publicity accorded to the National Front by that paper and the rest of the British media when the NF was on the boil in the 1970s. A radical difference in treatment will become apparent immediately.

      There HAS to be a reason for the difference. Either the media has changed, or the nationalist movement (whatever its name) has changed.

      It’s worth remembering that that The Times is part of the global media empire of Rupert Murdoch, every element of which sustains an unremitting pro-Jewish, pro-Israel, pro Neo-Con, pro war in Iraq agenda. In that context, it’s also well to remember that the very first big lump of good personal publicity awarded to Griffin was in The Times in (I think) 2000.

      The author of that item was Michael Gove, an ardent pro-Zionist, who along with Daily Mail columnist Melanie Phillips, used to bully Palestinian witnesses on BBC Radio 4’s “The Moral Maze”.

      Gove and his immediate boss on The Times, deputy-editor Danny Finkelstein, ran David Cameron’s campaign to become leader of the Conservative Party, currently in opposition. Finkelstein is also a regular Jewish Chronicle columnist, often alternating with Melanie Phillips.

      These people work in tandem with the Neo-Con clique in the Telegraph group, including Matthew D’Ancona, Charles Moore, Con Coughlin & Co., who tend to be philo-semitic Roman Catholics rather than Jews (though several have Jewish wives or other Jewish connections).

      At the last general election Gove was successful in getting elected to Parliament. He and Finkelstein are still reported to be leading lights in Cameron’s strategy department.

      In my view, Gove, Finkelstein & Co are using — one might almost say running — Griffin/the BNP for the joint benefit of Jewry and the Conservative Party. It’s a kind of double-whammy:

      Firstly, Jewry’s promotion of Coloured Immigration into Britain produced, by The Law of Unintended Consequences, a challenger to its monopoly position of influence over Britain’s venal body politic: the Muslims.

      The Jews want an anti-Muslim, anti-Islamic atmosphere whipped up in Britain so as to limit the size and influence of the Muslim component of the multi-racial population, but need to keep a distance from any such campaign.

      So they used their media patronage to induce the opportunist, careerist, cash-mad crook Nick Griffin to dump the BNP’s opposition to multi-racialism and Jewish power and to adopt instead an anti-Muslim focus. By this means the BNP “joins the mainstream”.

      Having been thus “modernised”, Griffin/the BNP are now being used by Jewry as mercenaries, in just the same way that it deployed the Lebanese ‘Christian’ Phalangists to massacre Palestinian refugees in 1982; in just the same way that it is now deploying the American and British military to suppress potentially anti-Israel regimes in the Middle East.

      Secondly, the Conservative Party obviously hopes to win the next general election. Parties wins elections not just by a attracting votes to themselves but by denying votes to their opponents.

      It is not in dispute that so far the BNP has done best electorally in working class areas where for generations the Labour Party has dominated the scene to such an extent that the Conservative Party puts up only a token campaign.

      If in these local elections (with help from media headlines) the BNP can break the Labour Party’s virtual monopoly grip on Town Halls within its heartland areas, then the attitude of a significant portion of the local electorate towards their “traditional” voting loyalty is also likely to fracture.

      This will demoralise local Labour Party organisations and provide the Conservative Party with a great opportunity at the subsequent Parliamentary general election.

      In a national election many of those who voted BNP in the local elections may continue to do so — that’s fine by the Tories; at least those votes are denied to Labour.

      But other voters, having once experimented with a new political partner, may become politically promiscuous. They may perceive the Conservatives as the more credible party of government (“a better provider”) and so jump into bed with the Tories.

      In sum: the BNP is being used. Griffin knows it. He revels in the good fortune this brings his personal finances. When he talks about “joining the mainstream” he is talking about a personal income stream, a money stream.

      The vast majority of BNP members and voters (good at heart, but naive political dunces) cannot see what’s going on behind the Union Jack bunting.



      P.S. I note that Griffin told the Times reporter that he takes £1,800 from BNP funds as his salary. I am quite sure that this is not an accurate sum. It will not include “expenses” — which will certainly double his monthly take — to say nothing of his cut from sundry BNP “commercial” enterprises.

      The Times (supplement) – 19th April 2007

      The British National Party gains strength

      As a Government minister warns of the dangers of immigration, Martin Fletcher finds a swath of middle England ready to vote for BNP leader Nick Griffin — a convicted racist who favours birching delinquent teenagers and paying immigrants to leave

      It is, at first sight, a vision of rural bliss — a cream-coloured cottage high in the hills of Mid Wales and two miles from the nearest road. The daffodils are out. Lambs gambol in the fields. Chickens peck around the yard. In the side garden, beyond the rabbit hutch and fishpond, two blonde girls are playing in the sun. Look closer, however, and you spot the incongruities: the two rottweilers in their caged kennel, security cameras, the burglar alarm. You begin to suspect that the owner has chosen this house precisely for its inaccessibility. He has reason to.

      Nick Griffin is leader of the whites-only British National Party and one of the most hated — and, to his many detractors, hateful — men in the country. He is a former National Front member, convicted of inciting racial hatred against Jews in 1998 and acquitted of similar charges against Muslims in two high-profile trials last year. He is a man who has called Britain a ³multi-racial hellhole², Islam a ³wicked, vicious faith², British Muslims ³the most appalling, insufferable people to have to live with², overt homosexuality ³repulsive² and the Holocaust ³the hoax of the 20th century². He has declared that ³nonwhites have no place here at all and [we] will not rest until every last one has left our land².

      I am about to spend two days with Griffin before next month¹s local elections. Anti-fascist groups insist that the BNP should be denied the proverbial oxygen of publicity, but as the party gains strength with each successive election that stance becomes increasingly untenable. Nearly a quarter of a million people voted BNP in last May¹s local elections and elected 49 councillors. The party is putting up 750 candidates on May 3, double last year¹s tally, and may gain dozens more seats. The BNP is Britain¹s fastest-growing party and it is absurd to hope that it will go away if ignored.

      The self-styled champion of indigenous Britons greets me in a T-shirt and green wellies. He is a youthful-looking 48 with a plastic left eye (he lost the real one when a shotgun cartridge exploded in a fire) who has spent the morning working on his two acres. As he goes inside to change, I chat to his wife Jackie, a specialist nurse in Powys.

      She and their four children — three daughters and a son, ages 14 to 21 — are BNP members, but she makes clear that she does not share all her husband¹s views. ³There¹s some things you have common ground on and others you don¹t agree on,² she says, refusing to elaborate. She clearly adores him, however. She frets about his safety. She calls him a ³hopeless romantic² but merely giggles when I ask for examples.

      Griffin reappears in a purple shirt and suit — he disapproves of politicians dressing down, though he does wear a gold ear-stud. He poses for pictures in his tiny office. The wallpaper on his computer screen reads: ³Haha, Dad you don¹t know how to change this back!!² There are trophies from his days as a Cambridge boxing Blue. There is also a framed Kipling poem which starts: ³It was not part of their blood/ It came to them very late/ With long arrears to make good/ When the English began to hate.²

      Griffin kisses Jackie goodbye, reminds her to water his newly planted aubretia, and we head off in his Ford Mondeo estate for the fertile BNP territory of West Yorkshire, with its immigrant populations of 10, 20 or even 30 per cent. In the back is a book recording the Scottish National Party¹s transformation from an extreme to a mainstream party.

      Griffin¹s inspiration, however, is Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of France¹s far-right National Front, who turned ³a bunch of crazies into a serious political force².

      ³You¹re all lying scum,² he replies when I ask why he is letting a journalist accompany him. ³It¹s part of your job. But you can¹t say you¹re a normal party, then hide yourself away. There¹s nothing to hide.²

      That, of course, is the question.

      He tells me about a life spent mostly on the extreme right of British politics. His parents met while heckling a Communist Party meeting in North London in 1948. During the 1964 general election campaign, Griffin pedalled up and down the street outside his home in Barnet with Conservative posters on his tricycle. By 1974 his father, a Tory councillor and member of the right-wing Monday Club, was so dismayed by Britain¹s leftward drift that he took his family to a National Front meeting. Griffin, then 15, joined immediately.

      After graduating in law from Cambridge he worked for the NF in London, living on the dole. The party imploded during the Thatcher years. He quit in 1989. In the mid1990s John Tyndall, the neo-Nazi demagogue who founded the BNP in 1982, lured him back into Far-Right politics.
      Griffin made statements condoning street violence. He received a nine-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, for alleging the existence of a Jewish conspiracy to brainwash the British people. In 1999, however, he ousted Tyndall as BNP leader and set about turning a bunch of neo-Nazi skinheads into an electable party. The rhetoric was tempered, some of the worst rowdies left and suits replaced bomber jackets.

      Griffin has earned his £1,800-a-month BNP salary. The party won three council seats in Burnley in 2002. It now has 49 nationwide, and on May 3 Griffin expects to win many more in what he sarcastically calls ³enriched² areas such as inner Essex, the Black Country, West Yorkshire and Lancashire.

      The party will also be contesting seats in blue-rinse towns such as Harrogate, Bath, Windsor and Torbay. One recent poll suggested that 7 per cent of the electorate would consider voting for it.

      Griffin says that membership has risen from 1,300 in 1999 to 10,500, boosted by home-grown Islamic terrorist plots, globalisation and his dramatic acquittal in last year¹s race-hate trials. Critics insist that the BNP¹s move towards respectability is purely cosmetic. Griffin retorts, as we join the motorway, that it is ³deep and sincere². He admits ³past stupidities², and says that he regrets the way that the BNP used to provoke confrontations or to discuss race in a way that was ³frankly crude, or cruelly and inaccurately supremacist².

      He is not racist, he argues. He does not believe that whites are superior. He believes that races are different and that multiculturalism is a recipe for disaster. He opposes miscegenation ³because most people want their grandchildren to look basically like them². If the liberal elite had its way, the world would become ³a giant melting pot turning out coffee-coloured citizens by the million².

      The BNP no longer demands the recriminalisation of homosexuality, but Griffin still expresses disgust at the idea of two men ³snogging in public². His revised views on the Holocaust are striking, too. He says that he derided the Holocaust only because the Left used it as ³a huge moral club² with which to beat opponents of multiculturalism. He now accepts that millions of Jews were killed, but claims that some historians (he cites David Irving) still question whether it was deliberate genocide.

      The rules of warfare on the Eastern Front allowed 50 civilian hostages to be shot for each soldier killed in a partisan attack, Griffin states without trace of irony. ³When you consider that the communists claim the partisans killed at least 10,000 German soldiers, that would account for five million people being shot to death.² Near Halifax we pick up Martin — Griffin¹s hulking, 21st, shaven-headed bodyguard who bench-presses 500lb (227kg) but assures me that he is a ³nice pussycat really². Martin drives us to an evening meeting in Ripon. As we pass through Bradford he points to a mosque which, he claims, has a firing range beneath it. ³That¹s why we have a car with tinted windows,² Griffin adds. The BNP leader says that he can no longer visit Indian restaurants because ³I wouldn¹t know what¹s in the curry² and within 15 minutes there would be a crowd outside ³with iron bars and knives².

      In pockets of Britain the BNP is almost a mainstream party now, with ever more people daring to run for office or to put posters in windows. But it still prints its newspaper in Eastern Europe because British plants refuse to, has trouble renting halls and cannot advertise its meetings because they would be picketed. Potential supporters are instead instructed to gather at ³redirection points² and told where to go.

      In Ripon the meeting point is the town square, where the local BBC radio station interviews Griffin. Ripon and Harrogate are ³lovely English towns and we believe they should stay that way. They can¹t if there are high levels of immigration,² he says. On our way to the meeting we pass a painting of a black inmate outside the Workhouse Museum. Griffin splutters. It was poor whites who suffered in workhouses, he says.

      About 70 people are packed into a back room of the Golden Lion pub, with not a skinhead or pair of Doc Martens in sight and more tweeds than T-shirts. They are male and female, young and old, working class and middle class, ex-Labour and ex-Tory, several of them Daily Telegraph readers. They are mostly solid Yorkshire folk who have watched immigrants transform areas in which they grew up and believe — rightly or wrongly — that their way of life is under threat. They are bewildered more than hate-filled. They are fearful more than fear-inspiring, and feel gagged by political correctness. They do not come from sink estates. They are stakeholders, people with something to lose.

      ³We¹re being overwhelmed,² laments a retired Latin teacher. ³I¹ve nothing against other races. It¹s just that they keep flooding into the country to breaking point,² says a lorry driver. ³We can¹t invite the whole world to live in England,² says a former merchant marine officer. Few will give their names.

      Griffin and his fellow speakers do nothing to calm their fears. Quite the opposite. In a promotional video he decries the alleged banning of the cross of St George, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and even Piglet because the character offends Muslims. Against a background of soft music and beautiful scenery, a woman¹s voice decries the millions of foreigners of all races settling in Britain: ³The one thing they have in common is there are too many of them.²

      Michelle Shrubb, a candidate who lived in South Africa, says that a black crimewave is coming to Britain. Nick Cass, the BNP¹s Yorkshire organiser, declares that ³decent British people are fed up to the back teeth with seeing the country fall apart and being called racist when they want to do something about it². The merchandise table offers ³It¹s Cool to be White² T-shirts and ³I vote BNP because they look after me² bumper stickers. BNP candidates are presented with rosettes for daring to stand up and be counted. Griffin humorously coaxes about £500 in donations from the audience, then answers questions for an hour. He puts on no airs and graces. He has a pint on the table beside him. He presents himself as an ordinary bloke, like his audience, who is fighting a corrupt elite that bleeds taxpayers for its disastrous social engineering projects and treats them with contempt.

      He is a shameless populist. He calls the rise of the BNP ³a peasants¹ revolt². He talks of ³our people², meaning whites. He mocks those who regard criminals as victims, advocates ³damn good thrashings² for wayward teenagers, and says of drug-dealers: ³Hang the bastards.²
      The audience loves it, but this is more than knockabout political rhetoric. Griffin firmly believes all this. Party policy — which he sets — is draconian and xenophobic. The BNP would deport all illegal immigrants, asylum-seekers and subversive foreigners, and offer existing immigrants money to return home. ³It¹s clearly worth talking in terms of six-figure sums to persuade families to go,² Griffin says.

      He would create civilian anti-crime patrols. Anyone who has done National Service would be allowed to keep guns to shoot burglars, and as ³a last resort against a tyrannical government². He would restore hanging for the worst murderers, paedophiles, rapists and drug-dealers, and bring back the birch.

      He would abolish affirmative action programmes and hate-crime legislation, ban the promotion of homosexuality, prevent the NHS from recruiting foreign workers and stop women soldiers serving on the front line. State schools would restore mandatory (nonhalal) lunches and morning assemblies with Christian worship (minorities should ³either accept our ways or go somewhere else²). A BNP government would take Britain out of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights.
      Remove the BNP label, Griffin claims, and most Brits would support these policies.

      The next day we go to Dewsbury (³It¹s like living in Rorke¹s Drift,² says a local BNP councillor), where The Dewsbury Reporter refuses to interview Griffin. Some people greet him on the street but no one heckles. ³The English are very polite. If they don¹t like you they walk away,² he says.
      From a studio in Leeds he does a phone-in show for BBC Radio Wales, on which successive callers denounce him as a racist and fascist and he snarls back (³the usual Searchlight ambush², he says later, referring to an antifascist group). We visit Heckmondwike, where David Exley, a soft-spoken and rather impressive BNP Councillor, has persuaded Kirklees council to restore a run-down park (wards that vote BNP find shocked councils suddenly chucking money at them).

      We then visit an old factory near Leeds that houses the BNP¹s recording studio, Great White Records. Griffin has written the lyrics for its first in-house album, The West Wind. One song begins: ³I wandered through my native land/ And stood aghast at what I saw/ As she wept under foreign hands/ No justice, truth or rule of law.²

      I suggest that Griffin¹s one good eye sees only the worst aspects of Britain. ³It¹s already a divided, sad, overtaxed, fearful place,² he replies. ³And it¹s going to be too unpleasant to put into words.²

      Between umpteen calls on his mobile phone — one is about ways to use Simone Clarke, the ballet dancer identified as a BNP member — I ask if Griffin sees any advantages to multiculturalism. Chicken tikka masala, he replies. And some good sportsmen, though he thinks that England¹s all-white 1966 World Cup footballers outperformed today¹s team because they had ³common values and identity².

      Then he lists the downsides — a catastrophic loss of social cohesion, racial harassment and violence, spreading knife and gun cultures and old folk dying in nursing homes surrounded by staff who do not speak their language and feeling ³totally alone, alienated and in a foreign place².
      He warms to the theme, claiming that some Muslims deliberately use heroin — ³Paki poison² — to undermine nonMuslim communities around them. ³It¹s narco-terrorism.² Even worse, he says, is the way that hardline Muslim males deliberately seduce and corrupt ³thousands² of young white girls in a practice called ³grooming² that the authorities downplay for fear of being labelled racist.

      But surely the vast majority of Muslims in this country are good, law-abiding citizens? Griffin disagrees: ³The vast majority are entirely decent Muslims, but the better Muslims they are, the less good they are as British citizens.² The Koran orders them to obey the word of God, he says, not infidel governments: ³Democracy and Islam are absolutely incompatible.² A Gallup poll this week suggested that 81 per cent of London-Muslims were ³loyal to Britain² compared with just 45 per cent of non-Muslims.

      In public Griffin appears personable and plausible. Talking in his car, he verges on the paranoid. Many British Muslims subscribe to a form of Islam that preaches a ³ruthless, aggressive imperialism², he says. Its goal is a world-wide caliphate. ³It¹s a takeover attempt,² he says, and it will end — literally — in civil war. Wherever an Islamic population establishes itself ³you get all sorts of bloodshed and horrors and there¹s no reason to think that this little part of the world will buck the trends of world history².
      I ask, mischievously, if Griffin can see himself as Prime Minister. It¹s possible, he replies, though he says that he and Jackie have agreed that they don¹t want to live in London. He then spells out how: the US economy collapses, decades of Western economic growth come to ³a grinding, shuddering halt² and the people turn on the liberal elite. The only question, he says, is what will replace it — a ³nativist backlash² or Islam. If the crash comes later than 2030 or 2040 ³the likely winners will be the Islamists purely because of demographics².

      The 60 people at that night¹s BNP meeting in a Batley pub are not thinking in such apocalyptic terms. They have more immediate and prosaic fears about the consequences of immigration — their children being squeezed out of jobs and council housing, the emergence of no-go areas, the undermining of their rights and culture.

      ³We¹re frightened to be British,² says Ann Nailor, who runs five Age Concern shops. ³I feel alienated in my own community,² says Neil Feeney, a water company employee. ³People who read your paper have no idea about places like this,² said Marjorie Shaw, a former policewoman now in a wheelchair. ³The BNP are the only ones standing up for this country,² adds Lynn Winfield, a pub dishwasher. Griffin fans the flames. He calls the English ³one of the most oppressed peoples on earth². He says that when people like him try to speak out about real problems ³they try to throw them in jail². He says that bad laws should be broken. He calls global warming ³an excuse to say that we, the international elite, have to interfere with every sovereign state in the world, and if we don¹t you will sink by Thursday².

      When I take my leave, Griffin asks what I will write. That he is both the BNP¹s greatest asset and its greatest liability, I reply. He does not protest. He recalls something that he said earlier: ³I perhaps have too much baggage that won¹t be allowed to stay in the lost baggage office. I can take the BNP to a certain level, but to make the final push someone else may have to take over . . . I can go back to Wales and keep pigs.


    4. alex Says:

      Last Wednesday (25th April) I sent you a bulletin with the Subject line: “The Times boosts Griffin/BNP (again)”.

      In this I discussed the promotion being given to the British National Party leader Nick Griffin by certain elements within the British media, especially The Times and the Telegraph group, which relentlessly promote Jewry’s interests in all fields, at home and abroad.

      I singled out for special attention the former assistant editor of The Times, Michael Gove (now a Conservative Party MP) who accorded Griffin his first substantial and respectful coverage in the mainstream media, and commented on Gove’s association with The Times’ deputy-editor Danny Finkelstein who also writes regular columns for the Jewish Chronicle.

      If any of you felt that my interpretation of the Jewish promotion of Griffin was ‘over-the-top’, then I invite you to read the following information which appeared in today’s (27th April) issue of the Jewish Chronicle. I run out below the relevant text of that report and explanatory comments.

      This additional material should be pasted into my 25th April posting in-between the paragraph which read:

      “At the last general election Gove was successful in getting elected to Parliament. He and Finkelstein are still reported to be leading lights in Cameron’s strategy department…”

      and the paragraph which read:

      “In my view, Gove, Finkelstein & Co are using — one might almost say running — Griffin/the BNP for the joint benefit of Jewry and the Conservative Party. It’s a kind of double-whammy…”



      Additional Material:

      Stop Press! — The Michael Gove, Danny Finkelstein, David Cameron, Conservative Party and Jewry link-up (and their joint interest in manipulating the BNP) became all the more obvious in today’s (27th April) issue of the Jewish Chronicle, which on page 16 runs a report headed: “Janner’s son is a Cameron donor”.

      Readers should be aware that the “Janner” in the headline is ‘Lord’ (Greville) Janner, former Chairman of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and former Labour Member of Parliament for Leicester North-West, who on his elevation to the House of Lords became head of the Holocaust Education Trust, in which role he was one of the leading players in the Zionist ‘Holocaust’ shake-down of Switzerland a decade ago.

      The JC report reads:

      “The son of veteran Labour peer Lord Janner was named this week in the House of Commons Register of Members’ Interests as a donor to Tory leader David Cameron’s private office.

      “Daniel Janner, QC, declined to say how much he had given, but said that he had been influenced by his friendship with former ‘Times’ journalist and Surrey Heath Tory MP Michael Gove ‘for whom I have the highest regard’.

      “Mr. Janner, who once stood as a Labour candidate in Bosworth, said that although he had been a Conservative for years, the clash of politics had not harmed his relationship with his father…..

      “….Other donors to the Tory leader included Jewish philanthropist Trevor Pears, who gave an undisclosed personal donation to Mr. Camereon’s campaign.

      “Mr. Cameron also declared a flight from London to Manchester provided by the Community Security Trust when he addressed a CST function in the North….”

      The CST is the ‘spook’ and security organisation of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. The CST president is ‘Lord’ Michael Levy, currently at the centre of the “Loans for Peerages” scandal currently rocking the Labour Party. A Metropolitan Police report on the matter is now pending with the Crown Prosecution Service. Levy is Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair’s principal fund-raiser and his “Personal Envoy” in the Middle East.

    5. TrendtoEnd Says:

      I’ve heard Gove is (part) Jewish. He’s certainly slimy enough. I hope tho that the kikes are playing a dangerous game. Someone persuaded to vote BNP out of “Islamophobia” may go on to embrace ideas not so helpful to the kikish cause.

    6. alex Says:

      Libs get frantic when Whites use their free association to rope off areas in private, but not the slightest concern when their colored heroes create no-go areas in public.

    7. Americafirst. Says:

      The FINLANDER’s were united in the fight against Stalin, and Molotov’s charging White prisoner Soldiers led to their slaughter by the Finnish peoples Army.

      Intersesting at the time only Sweeden and Germany smuggled a little supply to Finland in a very stalwart fight to the Finnish. The negoiated settlement was they gave up their Warm water ports some of their best forests and promised never the try and kick Marxist ass again.

    8. pagan and proud Says:

      well fellers, when the “norman’s” brought their kaballa foozebags (see 1000 years of black britions) maybe you’ll understand…..yep, dey be lub dat moses mofo…..by the way, which way was ole mossass going when he parted the red sea ? east into saudia arabia or west back into burrheadberg ?? ooohhh oooh gumbaya ……….

    9. scottsman Says:

      When those ELITE english screwballs quit brushing their teeth with COITUS LOVE JELLY and it’s EUPHORIC SPASMS they might decide to CHASE RAGHEAD Barron PATEL back to INDIA !!! UNTIL then, you peon white boys will have to eat TOFU …….