New leadership

The Daily Mail and its love affair with Hitler

2012-02-10T13:13:00.005Z

Acknowledgements to the http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.com/ web site for the following excerpt

Hurrah for the Daily Mail!

Rothermere's newspapers continued to increase their circulation. By 1926 the daily sales of the Daily Mail had reached 2,000,000. Rothermere's personal wealth was now £25 million and he was estimated to be the third richest man in Britain.

Rothermere became increasingly nationalistic in his political views and in 1929 joined with Lord Beaverbrook to form the United Empire Party. Rothermere urged the Conservative Party to remove its leader, Stanley Baldwin, and replace him with Beaverbrook. He also argued for a reform of the House of Lords to make it possible for peers to be elected to the House of Commons. This dispute divided conservative voters and this enabled the Labour Party to win the 1929 General Election.

Lord Rothermere disposed of his shares in the Daily Mirror in 1931. He now concentrated on the Evening News and the Daily Mail. In the 1930s Rothermere moved further to the right and gave support to Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists. He wrote an article, 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts', in January, 1934, in which he praised Mosley for his "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine".

Proprietor of the Daily Mail, Lord Rothermere, with rising star, Adolf Hitler

Rothermere also had several meetings with Adolf Hitler and argued that the Nazi leader desired peace. In one article, written in March 1934, he called for Hitler [sic, Germany] to be given back land in Africa that had been taken as a result of the Versailles Treaty.

Rothermere and his newspapers supported Neville Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement. He was therefore devastated when war broke out between Britain and Germany in 1939.

Lord Rothermere died on 27th November, 1940.

Gavin Hopley: murdered because he was English

2012-02-10T11:03:00.000Z

A cause célèbre for the 'anti-racists'?

John Tyndall

Since the murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence, seemingly by Whites, in a street in Eltham, South East London, back in 1993, the British public has never been allowed to forget about the incident. With the encouragement of his politically militant mother, Lawrence has become a cult figure for 'anti-racists' everywhere - although a racial motive in his killing is still far from certain, least of all proven. The Lawrence affair has been milked for all it is worth by the political left - and not only the left but 'liberals' right across the spectrum. There have been marches, demonstrations, public meetings, political speeches, never-ending TV documentaries, and even TV plays on the Lawrence theme.

Part of the element of cause célèbre surrounding the Lawrence episode was the failure of the authorities to bring a successful prosecution against anyone for the killing. This was blamed on the local police for the allegedly casual way they handled the investigation; and - wait for it! - yes, police 'racism' was named as a factor in all this. Indeed, the very fact that Lawrence's killer, whoever he or she may be, is probably still at large has been a boon to the leftist and anti-racist grudge industry in Britain: the whole saga makes so much better propaganda in consequence.

But now let us shift the scene to a street in Oldham, Lancashire, one night in February 2002, where 19-year-old Gavin Hopley was walking with two friends away from a night-club. They strayed into the Glodwick area, which many members of the local Asian community regard as their own exclusive territory. The three were set upon by a gang of young Asians, and Gavin was brutally beaten. He died six days later in hospital. Gavin and his two mates were white.

Eight Asians were later arrested and charged with the murder but the charges were then dropped because of lack of evidence. Then the case was reopened in March 2003, when two of the Asian gang agreed to testify against one of their number, Mohsin Raza, who they claimed delivered the crucial kick which led to Gavin's death.

But Raza walked from court free last month when a jury - including some Asian members - accepted an alibi that he had been working at an Indian restaurant at the time of the murder.

An alibi supplied by others working at the restaurant, needless to say - in other words, by Asians!

Gavin's parents issued a public condemnation of certain members of the Asian community for protecting the culprits. "With their evidence the outcome could have be different," they said.

The killers of Gavin Hopley got off, just as those of Stephen Lawrence did.

But will we now see the murder of Gavin Hopley turned into a decade-long political circus, with rent-a-mob marching in the city in protest against the 'racism' that caused this and led to the culprit not being brought to justice? Will we hear politicians making impassioned speeches about it? Will there be years of TV documentaries and plays devoted to Gavin's memory and the ghastly 'racism' of those who killed him and those who protected the killers? Will Gavin Hopley become a cult figure of the 'anti-racist' cause?

Something tells us that pigs growing wings and taking to the sky is more likely!

From Spearhead, January 2004

Justice for Gavin Hopley

Acknowledgements to the Altermedia.com web site

February 16th, 2004

This Sunday 15th February marks the second anniversary of the death of white teenager, Gavin Hopley. Gavin was brutally murdered in an unprovoked racist attack by a gang of Asians after he unwittingly walked into the infamous “no-go for whites” zone of Glodwick, Oldham. He was repeatedly beaten for 20 minutes with wooden staves and received a ‘kung-fu’ style kick to the head that put him in a coma. While he lay unconscious his attackers stole his jewellery and mobile phone. He died six days later, aged just 19.

No one has ever been brought to account for Gavin’s murder. In 2003 eight Asian men were sentenced to between six and 9 months for violent disorder as a result of the attack. Then in December, the last suspect to stand trial was acquitted, after a ‘witness’ came forward at the last minute after having remembered that the “suspect” was working in his Indian restaurant that night. Now Greater Manchester Police have announced that the investigation into the murder of Gavin Hopley “is now closed.”

Police and media bias

Both the police and the media have shown nothing but utter contempt for Gavin and his family. Even though it is unheard of in English law to close a murder investigation the police have done just that. The media have totally ignored the whole affair, with Gavin’s murder receiving just two articles in the same national daily and a short commentary in the local press in Oldham.

The whole thing smacks of institutional racism. When black teenager Stephen Lawrence was killed in south-east London in 1993 there was a universal condemnation of the Metropolitan Police force for failing to secure a conviction. This led to the infamous Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence and “the lessons learned for the investigation and prosecution of racially motivated crimes”.

Thousands of column inches of newspaper space has been dedicated to the Lawrence murder, along with hundreds of hours of television and radio time. The murder of Gavin Hopley has hardly been mentioned, even though the circumstances fit hand in glove with those of the Stephen Lawrence murder. This is nothing other than a politically correct media blackout. Neither the police nor their bosses at the Home Office have learned anything other than how to “avoid raising tensions” by ignoring the majority of victims of racist attacks. This is a clear-cut case of blatant police institutional racism.

Public inquiry now

The British National Party has organised a demonstration for this Monday in London, outside the Commission for Racial Equality HQ and later outside the London HQ of the National Union of Journalists, to call on the government and the media to stop their self-imposed silence and give white racial attack victims the attention they deserve.

WE ARE DEMANDING an official inquiry into the murder of Gavin Hopley and the circumstances surrounding the subsequent failure of the police to secure a conviction. We are also demanding that the media publicise the Gavin Hopley affair in the same way they do when the victim is non-White.

We are urging all people to join us in our campaign to achieve equality for the majority of racial attack victims in Britain. Remember, the next time this happens it could be one of your friends, your brother or your own son. Don’t let them get away with it!

Going down slowly

2012-02-09T13:41:00.000Z

Andrew Brons remains on the bridge

Reports of My Resignation Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

By Andrew Brons MEP

Posted by admin02, on 8 February, 2012, to the BNP Ideas web site

My only motive for writing is to save Brother Leader from some of the confusion that seems to be bothering him.

I have not left the Party, nor established a rival political party which has since been ‘still born’. I have repeatedly and consistently explained to people who have urged me to form a new political party that break-away parties never succeed while the parent party is still seen to be alive.

Indeed, I have quoted examples of well-established break-away parties, with prominent and talented personnel, that have nevertheless failed.

Perhaps I should explain that stillbirth cannot precede conception.

The British National Party claims still to have between 3,000 and 4,000 members, including 1,000 life members—from a total of 14,500 members in 2010.

However, the 2,000 non-life members include many members whose membership expired at the end of 2011 and are in their three months' ‘period of grace’ before they cease to be members on 31st March 2012.

We have already lost 80% of our membership and we have prospects of losing more in the next month and a half. Furthermore, nearly all of the 1,000 plus activists have left the Party or stopped being active.

How is the Party surviving? Continued registration with the Electoral Commission does not cost money. Brother Leader has his Euro-staff but we do not have to dwell on them.

It is also rumoured that a sizeable bequest left to fund the development of the Party will, instead, be used to enable Brother Leader and his chums to maintain a pretence that the BNP – a Party without activists – is still in business. Indeed its objective is no longer to thrive but to prevent a rival from emerging.

In the words of BL’s ventriloquist:

“No other Nationalist party can make any progress while the BNP survives. This is because the BNP is associated in the public mind with the cause and vice versa. It is not necessary for the BNP to be large or even viable. It only has to be there in some shape or form.”

Brother leader has also said my election was a waste and that I was not fulfilling my role. I am still sitting as a British National Party MEP and speaking in both the Parliament and in my committees. I am sending letters and press statements to newspapers and the broadcasting media to complain about anti-BNP smears and to advance our message.

However, when the BNP disappears from public view as it inevitably will, there will have to be a replacement.

My preference would be for the replacement to inherit the name but I suspect that BL and his ventriloquist intend to take that household name to the grave with them. There are some who would say that the name is toxic but it still attracts more votes than those who would replace it.

Replacement parties might well be less hated than the BNP but they are also less recognised and less well-supported.

Our children are not halal meat

2012-02-09T12:51:00.000Z

Paras to support police

2012-02-09T01:17:00.007Z

Sunday Telegraph - Sunday 29th January 2012

UK riots: paratroopers are trained in riot control

British troops are being trained in riot control
tactics amid fears that violence and looting will
return to Britain's streets this summer

by Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent

Hundreds of soldiers from 3rd battalion The Parachute Regiment spent last week learning how to contain and arrest "rioters" in a series of exercises mirroring last summer's violence.

Defence sources have confirmed that if violence were to return to British cities, especially during the Olympic Games, the Paras would be "ideally placed" to provide "short-term" support to police forces around the UK.

Such a request would have to be made by the Home Office and would have to have Prime Ministerial approval, according to the source.

During the exercises at the Lydd training base in Kent, the elite troops were pelted with petrol bombs and missiles and "fought" running battles with gangs of protesters as part of the battalion's "public order training".

The battalion is the lead unit in the Airborne Task Force - the Army's premier rapid response unit and can be called on to deal with a wide range of emergency situations - from hostage rescue to riot control - around the world.

Sources have stressed however that being riot-trained does not necessarily mean the Paras will be deployed onto British street in the event of future wide-scale public disorder; instead the move was described as "prudent contingency planning".

There is not understood to have been a specific request from the Home Office or police for the training to be carried out.

The riot training could be used if soldiers were called in to evacuate British nationals or embassies in the face of public disorder in a foreign country.

In the past, riot training was carried out by all troops deploying to Northern Ireland where public disturbances were commonplace. But those skills have been lost following the withdrawal of troops from the streets of the province.

But it is understood that commanders of units likely to be deployed into public order environments have been told they must have troops ready to be able to deal with all military and civil emergencies.

As well as 3 Para, the Army has another unit known as the "Public Order Battalion", also trained to deal with rioting, bringing the total number of troops to around 1500.

During last week's training package soldiers were taught how to use body-length riot shields, protect themselves from missiles and how to identify and arrest "ring leaders' using specially trained "snatch squads".

Troops were trained in how to work as teams, armed with body-length shields, driving back hostile crowds. The exercise culminated in a full scale riot with fellow soldiers acting as aggressors.

Major Richard Todd, the officer commanding A Coy 3 Para, said: "Learning how to deal with public order situations is a new skill for us on a challenging and extremely realistic course.

"Many of the drills are no different to what the Roman Army used to do, with highly disciplined soldiers advancing forward under the protection of shields.

"The key to dealing with large, hostile crowds is control and knowing when and how to react to what is happening in front of you.

"This training is about getting soldiers used to facing a high pressure situation so they don't overreact if they have to face it for real."

Private Peter Harrington, 19, who was also taking part in the exercise added: "It is scary to have petrol bombs thrown at you and really gets the adrenaline going.

"I've had the experience of it now and learnt that dealing with public order incidents is all about looking out for each other and keeping a cool head."

Last summer's rioting was sparked by the police shooting of Mark Duggan in Tottenham. The violence quickly spread across London and to other cities where police were attacked with fire bombs, shops were looted and businesses burnt to the ground.

The violence, which saw home owners being forced to jump from burning buildings, led to calls for the Army to be deployed on to the streets to support the police.

One senior source said: "The police couldn't cope with last year's riots and the Army came very close to being deployed.

"All of the Army's riot equipment was in Scotland at the time and that created a time delay but lessons from that have been learnt. The Army could have deployed but it would have been only marginally quicker than the police.

"Soldiers would have powers of arrest and would be entitled to defend themselves using minimum [sic, reasonable] force. It is unlikely they would be armed but that would be an option if the situation deteriorated.

"They would almost certainly deploy with baton rounds, which are discriminate and, if used correctly, non-lethal."

The riots were the were the worst for a generation and caused over £300m of damage. Hundreds of shops and warehouses were looted as gangs of [mainly black and mixed race] youths organized attacks via twitter and other social media sites.

The number and spontaneity of the riots often meant that police from forces across the country, but especially in London, were stretched to the limit and in some cases unable to cope.

Local residents were forced to form vigilante groups to protect their communities after confidence in the police evaporated.

Unity in action for a just cause

2012-02-08T22:37:00.001Z

Nationalists from several parties co-operate in order to mount an impressive demonstration outside Liverpool Crown Court, as the trial the 'mainstream' media dare not mention continues.

The flim-flam never ends

2012-02-08T16:10:00.005Z

In his closing address to the British National Party Organizers' Conference, last Saturday, Mr Griffin finally admits what his many internal critics, including myself, have long suspected: that the party's Accounts for 2010, when they are finally published towards the end of this month, will show the largest deficit in the history of the BNP - some £850,000.

And yet, Mr Griffin, even at the eleventh hour, cannot quite bring himself to be on the level with his deluded supporters. He claims that the debts owed at the end of 2010 have been largely cleared and that the party's current financial position is much healthier than it was then.

How can this miracle have been achieved, against the backdrop of a plummeting membership and consequent decline in subscription income? Have a number of substantial bequests materialized? They would need to have been very substantial indeed to have made much of a dent in a deficit of £850,000. Then again, perhaps certain of the debts have been written off by the party's creditors as bad debts. Even so, new debts, particularly in relation to the growing legal costs of unsuccessfully contesting civil actions in the courts, would surely have more than outweighed any reductions achieved as a result of creditors' giving up their efforts to recover what they were owed.

No doubt all will become clear in due course. In the meantime, let's all continue to have faith in the quality of Mr Griffin's leadership. Or not, as the case may be.

Justice must be seen to be done

2012-02-08T01:01:00.003Z

The trial of a number of Asian Muslims, accused of raping English children, got under way at Liverpool Crown Court on Monday.

Following instructions from the Establishment not a single major news outlet reported the opening of the trial.

The reason: the Establishment's double standards where race is concerned. Where, unusually, the victim of a crime is black or Asian and the perpetrator English, the police treat the crime as racially-motivated as a matter of course and comprehensive media coverage is guaranteed. But where, much more commonly, the victim is English and the perpetrator black or Asian, the police will rarely treat the crime as racially-motivated and the media are simply not interested and will not publicize the crime, "in the interests of community cohesion" to quote their hypocritical cant.

We, the English, demand equal treatment under the law.

Nationalist Unity

2012-02-02T12:26:00.003Z

Andrew Brons MEP, Richard Edmonds and Ken Booth: working for Nationalist Unity

Where is Mr Griffin?

Notice of a meeting of the Centre for Democratic Nationalism (CDN)

Venue: The Salthorn Working Mens' Club, Armitage Road, Oakenshaw, Bradford BD12 7AR

Date: Saturday, 4th February 2012

Time: 2pm - 6pm. The club is open before and after these hours, so if you would like a drink either before or after the meeting (or both!), as well as during the meeting: no problem

Speakers:

Andrew Brons MEP

Peter Rushton

Richard Edmonds

Ken Booth (or another person speaking on behalf of 'NE Patriots')

At least half the meeting will be open for comments/short speeches from the floor - this format worked well at the meeting the other month in Queensborough.

Directions. Approaching Bradford from M62 Westbound, ie from Leeds M1, A1 etc, use exit Junction 26 (called 'Chain Bar'). Take slip road to roundabout. Take 5th exit signposted 'Low Moor Oakenshaw' If you get to M606 slip road you have gone too far and have to go around the roundabout again!

Approaching Bradford from M62 Eastbound ie from Manchester etc use exit Junction 26 (called 'Chain Bar'). Take slip road. After approx 150 yards take left hand slip road off the slip road DO NOT REMAIN ON THE M606 SLIP ROAD WHICH CONTINUES AT HIGH LEVEL. At roundabout take 2nd exit signposted 'Low Moor Oakenshaw' If you get to M606 slip road you have gone too far and have to go around the roundabout again!

On Low Moor Road road runs approx 1/4 mile into Oakenshaw village and bears left by a church - starts running uphill. After approx 1/4 mile, just after a zebra crossing there is a road on left called 'Cross Road' just before a public park. Turn left onto Cross Road, Armitage Road is on left. Look for parking.

No Car? Take train to Bradford Interchange, go into bus station in the same building and board 268 bus (runs every 30 minutes) Ask driver for stop by 'public park in Oakenshaw'. Cross the road. Cross Road is visible at the end of the park. Alternatively phone a taxi - we recommend CJ's 01274 606999/602305 - ask for 'Salthorn Club, Oakenshaw'.

If you arrive at Bradford Forster Square either walk to Bradford Interchange (approx 6 minutes) to get the 268 bus or call CJ's Taxis.

There is additional parking available. Drive a further 200 yards uphill past Cross Road, immediately after hump backed bridge there are two pubs on your right. One is the George. This pub is run by Neil Craig Chairman of the Democratic Nationalists Party. Parking, beer including real ale and also coffee is available.

Food? On the road through Oakenshaw immediately after the left hand bend there is a cafe on your left, Charlie's Cafe open untill Saturday lunchtime with a wide range of food including veggie option. Or drive 100 yards past the George pub there is a fish & chip shop on the right of the road. Open till at least 1.00 - excellent quality.

These animals can talk

2012-02-02T11:28:00.003Z

Acknowledgements to aesopsfables.com

The Lion and the Three Bulls

Aesop (Sixth century BC)

THREE BULLS for a long time pastured together. A Lion lay in ambush in the hope of making them his prey, but was afraid to attack them while they kept together. Having at last by guileful speeches succeeded in separating them, he attacked them without fear as they fed alone, and feasted on them one by one at his own leisure.

Unity is strength.

Tie up the faggot

2012-02-01T12:09:00.003Z

Acknowledgements to the http://www.bartleby.com/ web site

Æsop (Sixth century BC) Fables

The Bundle of Sticks

AN OLD man on the point of death summoned his sons around him to give them some parting advice. He ordered his servants to bring in a faggot of sticks, and said to his eldest son: “Break it.” The son strained and strained, but with all his efforts was unable to break the bundle. The other sons also tried, but none of them was successful. “Untie the faggot,” said the father, “and each of you take a stick.” When they had done so, he called out to them: “Now, break,” and each stick was easily broken. “You see my meaning,” said their father.

“UNION GIVES STRENGTH.”

A movement divided against itself shall fail

2012-02-01T11:47:00.002Z

A house divided against itself cannot stand

The article 'Divided We Fall' (see below), recently published on the BNP Ideas site, makes some excellent points, which we would all do well to bear in mind.

Further to its author's proposal for a pathfinder survey of nationalist opinion, I should like to propose seven key policies as common ground on which the vast majority of intelligent nationalists might rally.

1) An immediate five-year moratorium on immigration by foreign nationals. Any British citizens wishing to return to the UK would, of course, be welcome to do so.

2) Withdrawal from the European Union, without a referendum, within the life-time of a single parliament.

3) The immediate deportation of all illegal immigrants, bogus (ie, the vast majority of) asylum seekers and foreign nationals who have been convicted of a serious criminal offence either within the UK or overseas.

4) A massive expansion of government’s existing scheme of voluntary, financially assisted repatriation of ethnically alien immigrants and their descendants to their countries of ethnic origin, to include much more generous financial incentives and the effective promotion of the scheme via the mass media.

5) The strengthening of the UK’s inadequate border controls, including the establishment of a dedicated Border Protection Force with full police powers.

6) The restoration of capital punishment for murder.

7) The immediate repeal of the Human Rights Act, 1998.

A time to gather together

2012-02-01T08:06:00.002Z

Divided We Fall!

By William Spearshake

Posted on 31 Jan, 2012, to the BNP Ideas web site

As at the end of January 2012, the Nationalist Cause in Britain lies in tatters and shreds like a beaten army strewn across a battlefield through which the enemy marches and ravages as he pleases.

Splinter groups have sprung up all over the place; the Judaean People’s Front here, the People’s Front of Judaea there, the Judaean Popular People’s Front over the next hill, the Popular People’s Front of Judaea behind the hedge, the Popular Front of Judaean People in next door’s garden shed… British Nationalism is now both the living proof and the dying victim of the fundamental military stratagem, Divide and Conquer!

The single greatest weapon of our proper enemies is the unfortunate fact that Nationalists are their own greatest enemies! We are too busy sub-dividing, bitching and arguing bitterly amongst ourselves to represent any kind of a threat to the organized political establishments who dictate to the country from Westminster, and from Brussels and from God-knows-where-else next – possibly Addis Ababa or Istanbul…

Without fail, whenever Nationalists express their views, there are as many different views as there are Nationalists. Even worse, nearly all of this hotch-potch collection of different views and opinions demonstrates nothing except the political naivety of the person expounding upon it.

As a perfect example of this monumentally stupid lack of comprehension of realities, let me cite just one single issue which seems to continually crop up whenever the Judaean People’s Front comments about the People’s Front of Judaea and vice-versa – Civic Nationalism versus Ethnic Nationalism.

Civic Nationalism, put very simply, proposes that a “British Person” is anybody who has British nationality and who supports British culture and acts like a true Briton, regardless of the colour of their skin or the country their immediate forebears came from. This can also be called “Cultural Nationalism”

Ethnic Nationalism proposes that one cannot be a proper British person unless one is white Caucasian, with British ancestry going back at least several generations.

This difference of opinion is seen as important by some Nationalists. Indeed, it is viewed by more than a few as grounds for division. “We don’t want Cultural Nationalism!” spit the Ethnic Nationalists. “It’s not genuine Nationalism and betrays our Cause!”

“We don’t want Ethnic Nationalism!” fume the Cultural Nationalists. “It’s against the law and brings Nationalism into disrepute!”

To anyone who subscribes to either of these illusions, or to any other point of difference between “My Idea of Nationalism” and “Their Idea of Nationalism,” I would like to ask one single question:-

“How many mainstream politicians have kept every single promise they have made to the people?”

Wikipedia contains an excellent item about broken election promises, which includes: the Liberal’s election promise to cut military spending made just before starting an arms race with Germany; the Labour Party’s election promise in 1945 to set up a Ministry of Housing; Australian politician Bob Hawke’s 1987 election promise that “…by 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty”; George W. Bush’s 1988 election promise “…Read my lips! No new taxes!” before increasing taxes after being elected; Silvio Berlusconi’s 1994 election promise that, if elected, he would sell his shares in Finivest (a company that controls nearly all private TV stations in Italy as well as publishing houses and magazines) in order not to hold an unfair advantage of media-control as prime minister: to this day, 15 years later, he still retains ownership of the group; the Liberal Democrats promise not to support an increase in tuition fees, shortly before supporting the Conservatives and voting for an increase in tuition fees; and so-on and so-on. In fact, this list could be extended indefinitely.

My point, then, is simply this seemingly obvious one – in politics there is a world of difference between what is promised in pre-election statements, manifestos and party constitutions, and what is actually done through lawful legislation once a party has gained power!

Put simply, the law-making begins AFTER a party has become a government, not before! This is not a cynical view, it is a simple statement of absolute proven fact.

Today, the law states that publicly advocating what is generally (and euphemistically) termed “Ethnic Nationalism” is a form of racial prejudice and is therefore illegal [sic]. But startlingly, this seems to blind many Nationalists to the simple plain fact that it is the party who can become a government that makes or changes our laws as they see fit.

Everybody else does it, as the previous paragraph amply demonstrates – is it so hard to believe that Nationalists can do as every other politician does?

In short, it matters not one jot what policies a Nationalist party places in its manifesto or its shop window before an election – the winning party will be making its own laws in a perfectly legal manner. It seems that a great many Nationalists fail to grasp this essential point of politics.

With this in mind, I want to strongly suggest that British Nationalism gets its act together – THIS MEANS YOU! – because it is obvious to everyone that time is running out.

For God’s sake – for Britain’s sake – let us unify all the many different Judaean Peoples Parties into a single central political thrust, so that Nationalism in Britain becomes a strong political presence that can once again fight a general election, and fight it with more than just a faint hope of beating the Monster Raving Loony Party!

The best possible way of accomplishing this is something that this particular website might be able to arrange, and so I appeal here directly to Andrew Brons and ask him if he would consider advocating this plan and giving space to it on the website.

I also appeal TO YOU – YOU who are reading this article – because, like any proposal, it requires a display of support and the posting here of as many messages of general support and agreement as possible.

The plan I put to you is this. In order to advance the prospect of Nationalist Unity, without which nothing on a national political front can ever be accomplished, I propose that a simple petition, or plebiscite to use an old term, of ALL Nationalists and supporters of Nationalism is undertaken.

Every individual would submit their name and some address detail to distinguish them (if not a home address, an email perhaps) and – this is the really important bit – each person would include a brief summary of what THEY consider to be the most vital pieces of policy and constitutional requirements that a single, united, nationwide major Nationalist Party ought to have.

To make it simpler to handle, this might be done in the form of a list of all those ideas that are being bandied about by the various Judaean Peoples Parties, with this list being put onto a website page as a form that readers could tick according to their inclinations, then click on “submit”.

Over time (hopefully not a very long time either) a detailed picture would then emerge of the general overall common requirements of – as it were – “the perfect Nationalist party”, and this opinion poll amongst Nationalists – for that is what it would amount to – would unarguably demonstrate to everyone what direction we should be going in: Fragmented or unified? Civil or ethnic? Democratic or hierarchical? Two sugars or three? You get the idea?

A possibly less popular addition to this proposal, which I think is absolutely necessary – indeed vital – is that everyone who sends in their requirements, or submits such an e-form if it is done that way, to outline what they define as their idea of a “perfect” Nationalist party, must also agree that it will be the majority trends which everyone will accept, and that they will abide by the majority and not go stomping off into a corner to sulk if their own cherished ideas are not shared by the majority.

And of course, while this is being done, never forgetting the lesson repeatedly given to us by “upright and honest mainstream politicians” that “election promises” are not, in fact, actual promises at all, but are recognized by all mainstream politicians, seemingly without exception, as consisting of whatever lies and flim-flam are deemed necessary to get them into power!

It would thus be as perfectly valid and as perfectly honest for a Nationalist Party to state in its manifesto: “If elected, we shall regard all ethnic groups as genuine British citizens, we shall never adopt compulsory deportations, we shall refuse to impose any limits upon immigration into Britain, we shall always remain within the European Union” as it is for the Liberal Democrats to state “We shall not support an increase in tuition fees” and for George W. Bush to categorically announce “Watch my lips! No more taxes! And for Silvio Berlusconi to say 15 years ago “If I am elected as prime minister I shall sell all my media shares!”

And nobody can expect Andrew Brons or anybody else to consider adopting this proposal of a mass Nationalist online “pathfinding” poll unless there is a sufficient response from readers showing general agreement with what I have said here. If you think there is any merit in the suggestion, get posting your reply right away.

I hope you get my drift! Otherwise all Nationalists may as well vote for the Judaean People’s Front and abandon politics in any meaningful way!

Free the Eltham Two!

2012-01-30T19:44:00.002Z

Gary Dobson launches appeal over conviction for killing Steven [sic] Lawrence

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 6:19 PM on 30th January 2012

Gary Dobson is to launch an appeal over his conviction for the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Court of Appeal confirmed today

Gary Dobson, one of the two men jailed for the racist murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence, has lodged an appeal against conviction, it was confirmed today.

The move was confirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Dobson, 36, was sentenced to at least 15 years and two months at the Old Bailey in January.

It is understood that co-accused David Norris will also seek to appeal, but papers have not yet been lodged at the Court of Appeal.

Norris, 35, was given a minimum of 14 years and three months for the murder, which the trial judge, Mr Justice Treacy, said was a 'terrible and evil crime'.

He urged police not to 'close the file' on catching the rest of the killers after the court heard that a gang of five or six white youths set upon A-level student Stephen in Eltham, south east London, in 1993.

Mr Justice Treacy said the murder was committed 'for no other reason than racial hatred'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093955/Gary-Dobson-launches-appeal-conviction-killing-Steven-Lawrence.html#ixzz1kyDr9nJi

RESPONSE

As nationalists it is our duty to draw attention to the double standards applied by the Establishment whenever race is involved. An excellent example of these double standards is the way in which the five suspects in the Lawrence case have been unjustly persecuted by the media over the last eighteen years.

So pervasive and sustained has been the vilification of these men (who were denied their right to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty) that it is highly questionable whether it was in fact possible for any of them any longer to have received a fair trial for the alleged murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Not only that, but the necessary protection of the ancient common law of 'no double jeopardy' was abolished and the new 1984 style tyranny was made to apply retrospectively, specifically with a view to continue to try the Eltham Martyrs until a jury produced the desired result. And what was the racial composition of the jury in the latest trial? It has been kept a closely guarded secret by the Establishment. There has been no mention of it in the media that I have been able to locate. I wonder why the Establishment, including the media, want to keep this information from the public.

This case should be a cause celebre for British nationalists everywhere.

Nationalist Unity Meeting

2012-01-27T16:48:00.003Z

Notice of a meeting of the Centre for Democratic Nationalism (CDN)

Venue: The Salthorn Working Mens' Club, Armitage Road, Oakenshaw, Bradford BD12 7AR

Date: Saturday, 4th February 2012

Time: 2pm - 6pm. The club is open before and after these hours, so if you would like a drink either before or after the meeting (or both!), as well as during the meeting: no problem

Speakers:

Andrew Brons MEP

Peter Rushton

Richard Edmonds

Ken Booth (or another person speaking on behalf of 'NE Patriots')

At least half the meeting will be open for comments/short speeches from the floor - this format worked well at the meeting the other month in Queensborough.

Directions. Approaching Bradford from M62 Westbound, ie from Leeds M1, A1 etc, use exit Junction 26 (called 'Chain Bar'). Take slip road to roundabout. Take 5th exit signposted 'Low Moor Oakenshaw' If you get to M606 slip road you have gone too far and have to go around the roundabout again!

Approaching Bradford from M62 Eastbound ie from Manchester etc use exit Junction 26 (called 'Chain Bar'). Take slip road. After approx 150 yards take left hand slip road off the slip road DO NOT REMAIN ON THE M606 SLIP ROAD WHICH CONTINUES AT HIGH LEVEL. At roundabout take 2nd exit signposted 'Low Moor Oakenshaw' If you get to M606 slip road you have gone too far and have to go around the roundabout again!

On Low Moor Road road runs approx 1/4 mile into Oakenshaw village and bears left by a church - starts running uphill. After approx 1/4 mile, just after a zebra crossing there is a road on left called 'Cross Road' just before a public park. Turn left onto Cross Road, Armitage Road is on left. Look for parking.

No Car? Take train to Bradford Interchange, go into bus station in the same building and board 268 bus (runs every 30 minutes) Ask driver for stop by 'public park in Oakenshaw'. Cross the road. Cross Road is visible at the end of the park. Alternatively phone a taxi - we recommend CJ's 01274 606999/602305 - ask for 'Salthorn Club, Oakenshaw'.

If you arrive at Bradford Forster Square either walk to Bradford Interchange (approx 6 minutes) to get the 268 bus or call CJ's Taxis.

There is additional parking available. Drive a further 200 yards uphill past Cross Road, immediately after hump backed bridge there are two pubs on your right. One is the George. This pub is run by Neil Craig Chairman of the Democratic Nationalists Party. Parking, beer including real ale and also coffee is available.

Food? On the road through Oakenshaw immediately after the left hand bend there is a cafe on your left, Charlie's Cafe open untill Saturday lunchtime with a wide range of food including veggie option. Or drive 100 yards past the George pub there is a fish & chip shop on the right of the road. Open till at least 1.00 - excellent quality.

Revolt in the Desert

2012-01-26T16:55:00.001Z

Lawrence Of Arabia (1962)

2012-01-26T16:40:00.000Z

A leadership of all the talents

2012-01-26T12:15:00.000Z

"...and some have greatness thrust upon 'em"

Andrew Brons is self-evidently the man to reunite the shattered nationalist movement and to lead it on to the glory it deserves.

No-one else has a record of political activity in the nationalist interest that can remotely compare to his.

Furthermore, Andrew's record, which speaks for itself to anyone not blinded by selfish motives, is one of consistent opposition to fragmentation, the bane of any political movement, and promotion of unity, the key to long term success.

Andrew believes in a collective and democratic form of leadership. A leadership of all the talents. A broad church and big tent policy. A movement, not of petty, squabbling dwarfs but of magnanimous, gentle giants. A movement big enough for all of our people. A movement worthy of the name British.

Who will pledge their support for Andrew?

Don't run away from race

2012-01-25T20:33:00.003Z

Acknowledgements to the BNP Ideas web site for this splendid comment

Brigadier

says:

January 25, 2012 at 5:43 pm

The British Freedom website says that it's about “space not race” and “culture not colour”.

For me personally, I don’t see how race cannot be an issue for anybody claiming to be a Nationalist. Groups of people create societies which are reflective of them. Nationalists would like to see all such groups survive and our own group advance. It is an understanding that the nation-state is the best form of organisation and that each unique group of people has a fundamental right to live among their own kind and determine their own destiny. It is quite obviously about race, not only space. Race is a fundamentally important issue for Nationalists.

In my humble opinion a party which claims to be Nationalist yet seeks to deny race is either:

1) Dishonest, to the point of presenting a platform that they believe to appear “moderate” and be “easier to sell”, which for their sins makes them much like the old parties in terms of their deceit of the voters.

2) Genuine, in their assertions that race isn’t important, which puts them outside the sphere of Nationalism.

or,

3) Naive, about how the system works. British Freedom website in particular makes reference to “winning media support”. The people who own the media, aside from their Zionist inspired foreign policy clash with Nationalist ideals, tend to be businessmen with companies in any number of nations, and with links to many other businessmen and companies. Nationalism means erecting borders not just to immigration but also economic borders. This will set the alarm bells ringing to any Globalist, Capitalist businessman. (UKIP, with their liberal, open border economic policies receive much fairer treatment as they aren’t a particular threat to the powers that be in terms of stopping multi-national companies from offshoring jobs and such like). These are the reasons for hostile press, not race or immigration.

Media attacks on Nationalist parties as being “too extreme” and somehow distasteful on the race issue are red herrings. You can moderate your immigration policies all you like, if you are a Nationalist you are a problem to them and they won’t ever be in your pocket. The reason race and/or immigration are commonly used is because the people who run the mass media understand that these are issues that the British public have been heavily conditioned on, and are therefore easy to attack us on.

This naivety is the belief that essentially, “the media is by and large run by honest people who don’t like parties like the BNP because they think they’re too hardline on race, therefore if we tone it down a bit, they’ll start being nice to us”. This, of course, is not the case because the people running the mass media really don’t care that much about our ideas on race, other than the fact that big business would find it harder to pick low wage foreign workers to exploit were immigration stopped.

Now I’m sure British Freedom has plenty of good people involved with it who will probably now offer a number of explanations as to why they adopt such a dishonest, naive or honest policy position, depending on your interpretation of it. The above is not to fall out with such people, but is a criticism of the futile tactic of “moderating” so that your policies are acceptable to your enemies, thus allowing them to set your agenda.

Just to add, this debate is about belief and ideology. Please don’t confuse this with advertising and marketing. Of course, our ideas and policies need to be marketed in an effective manner (for example, ‘voluntary repatriation’ is discussed in terms of ‘a solution to our over-population problem’ and so on) but while this is the case, what we are dealing with here is the actual stated ideological belief itself, that race doesn’t matter, that it’s, to paraphrase the British Freedom party website, “not about race”.

The theme from the movie

2012-01-25T19:03:00.000Z

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

2012-01-25T16:03:00.000Z

We're there because we're there because...

2012-01-25T09:44:00.004Z

Acknowledgements to the BNP Ideas web site for the following perspicacious comment on its recent article about the role of an MEP

David M

says:

January 24, 2012

An interesting insight into the actual role of an MEP and what goes on in the EU ‘Parliament’. However, I think we may be in danger of losing sight of why we, as British Nationalists, took part in the process of EU electoral politics in the first place. Why did we, in ‘the BNP’, mount a nationwide campaign to get members elected in the eight [sic, twelve] UK regions (as designated by our masters in Brussels)? Because, like it or not, they exist. The EU and its various institutions exist, although we would wish it otherwise because of the diminution of sovereignty that EU membership represents. Until such times as we as a nation can extricate ourselves from the EU, it is a choice between taking what some might regard as a principled stand in completely boycotting EU elections, or recognising that the process presented an unmissable national electoral opportunity for our party to promote itself and its ideology and obtain more coverage even than in a UK General Election! I recall that the first leader of the UKIP, Prof. Alan Sked, was totally opposed to taking part – ‘on principle’ – and thus departed leaving them to it. As we have seen, they progressed from 3 MEP’s in 1999 to 12 in 2004 and 13 in 2009 (coming 3rd overall). Whatever we may think of them, they demonstrated what could be achieved by a ‘third party’ political force on an anti-EU ticket in an election fought on a PR list system (The d’Hondt electoral method). As the article above points out, many of the UKIPPERS have been seemingly ineffective actually ‘doing the job’. From 1999 they have had their problems with splits and MEP resignations, (Holmes, Kilroy, Mote, Sinclaire). None of that has stopped them from being re-elected because in a sense, the election itself is a form of referendum on the EU every five years and just winning a seat means ‘job done’, whatever happens thereafter – until the next Euro election! However, in the meantime, what is important and useful to a party such as UKIP, or the BNP or any future manifestation of a nationalist party, is the status the role brings in the context of national politics and the building and nurturing of that party as a strong and credible entity in the eyes of the electorate, whose support needs to be won over in the much more important struggle for seats at Westminster. If such a party no longer exists (in any meaningful sense), then having seats in Brussels ceases to serve any meaningful purpose. [Emphasis mine].

I am not suggesting that Andrew Brons is not doing his job as an MEP very well. On the contrary. However, at the time of his election he was representing a party that had a relatively strong public profile, that was cohesive and to all intent, was on the “up”.

What I am saying essentially is that the ‘worth’ of having an MEP is now being squandered by the lack of a party for him to represent. Yes, Andrew is certainly true to the principles and beliefs on which he stood for election and bravo to that. It is he who has been betrayed by the Party leader, as indeed we all have. But in 2014 when Andrew’s term ends – and he has said he will retire – what then? Similarly, with all our Councillors (now ‘Ex’ Councillors). No doubt most of them were partly driven by a desire to serve their local community for its own sake, but their over-riding motivation was to be a part of something bigger – a machinery whose principle purpose was to progress and advance the cause of British Nationalism. Without that, the desire to sit on committees discussing drains and cracked pavements was probably less than appealing!

In other articles on this site, Andrew has discussed all the various splinter groups and embryo parties that now exist in the wake of the BNP’s implosion. He has opined that they will all fail and there is no point in adding a further one to their number. Without unity we will fail etc etc. Indeed, but to have a hope of succeeding you have to have some credibility to start with emanating from having the best and most talented people and…. having existing political representation would be something none of the other factions could compete with. The BNP Ideas ‘faction’ [sic, group] (if I can get away with calling it that) have all the best and most talented people and….they have an MEP! Failing to use that advantage in the next 2 1/2 years (until the next Euro election) would in my view be a terrible wasted opportunity. [Emphasis mine].

Muslim threats trump free speech?

2012-01-24T15:32:00.001Z

Acknowledgements to the web site of the Journal.ie

UCC society withdraws Nick Griffin invite to ‘free speech’ debate

Yesterday, 1:30 PM

A STUDENT SOCIETY in University College Cork has withdrawn its invitation to British National Party leader Nick Griffin to attend a debate there next month.

In a statement this afternoon, the UCC Government and Politics Society said it had withdrawn the invitation as a result of submissions from University staff and Gardaí, who had outlined a “potential threat to the safety and welfare of our students and the general public”.

“The Government and Politics Society fully accept its responsibility to put the welfare of the student body and its members first and are not prepared to compromise them at any cost,” the statement said.

While the society says it remains committed to open debate, and it will still host the planned debate later in the year, the BNP leader and MEP will not be featured a speaker.

Society auditor Ben English told TheJournal.ie that the circumstances of the withdrawal were “unfortunate, but the main thing is that as a student society our main priority is students and their safety.

It wasn’t pressure from the left or anything, it’s not about politics – there are bigger things than politics and student safety is one of them.

The proposed visit had been opposed by a number of political societies on campus, including its branch of the Labour party.

“We hope the society can continue to provide a platform for political debate through the many events we plan to hold this year,” the society’s statement said.

“Whilst we make this decision with regret, we are no longer in a capacity to invite Mr Griffin but now look forward to moving on and hosting many more events for UCC students and the general public in the coming year.”

University authorities had previously pledged security support for the event, but English explained that the threat to student safety from “members of a minority community” meant it was no longer viable. ”You have to know what your costs are,” English said. [Emphasis mine].

A debate on inviting Griffin had been held at the college’s Philosophical Society last week, with a majority of students reportedly backing the plans to invite the BNP leader.

The withdrawal of the invitation marks the second time that an invitation for Griffin to participate in an Irish university debate has been withdrawn this year.

Trinity College’s Philosophical Society had invited him to participate in a debate on immigration in October, but the college and society later withdrew the invite citing ‘safety considerations’.

The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)

2012-01-24T14:53:00.000Z

The view from the Gravy train

2012-01-24T14:09:00.001Z

The Purpose, Function, Routine and Value of an MEP

Posted by admin02 on 24, January 2012 to the BNP Ideas web site

To many, the role of an MEP is somewhat obscure. What does such an MEP do in Brussels? How does he fight the nation’s corner? How does he represent his constituents? What functions does he attend?

These and allied questions are pertinent because they relate to an MEP’s function and purpose.

It is first necessary to understand the role of the Parliament. In essence the Parliament oversees the legislative proposals that have emanated from the thousands of unelected bureaucrats who run the European Commission. The Parliament scrutinises such legislation via 20 Committees, consisting of MEPs and during Plenary (Parliamentary) sessions.

The committees draw up, amend and adopt legislative proposals and reports. They consider Commission and Council proposals and, where necessary, draw up reports to be presented to the Plenary.

Ordinary legislative procedure gives the same weight to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on such areas as, for example, economic governance, immigration, energy, transport, the environment and consumer protection. The majority of European laws are adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council.

The Commission sends its proposals to both Parliament and the Council. They consider and discuss these via two readings. In the event of no agreement being reached, the proposals are brought before a Conciliation Committee comprising an equal number of representatives from the Council and Parliament. Representatives of the Commission also attend these discussions. Once an agreement has been reached, the wording is sent to Parliament and the Council for a third reading, to adopt the legislative text. The final agreement of the two institutions is required for the text to become adopted as a law.

Parliament may still reject the proposed law by a majority of the votes cast. In practice, however, Parliament rarely rejects a proposal and it should be noted that the vast majority of MEPs believe in and enthusiastically support the existence of the European Union, its aims and ambitions.

It should also be noted that something in the order of 75% of the national legislation of the member states originates from the EU.

An MEP’s responsibility encompasses three distinctive spheres:

1 Plenary (Parliament): By far the most strenuous task involves the scrutiny of legislation prior to daily voting at Plenary. Generally, there are two Plenary sessions per month: one at Strasbourg and, usually, a slightly smaller session at Brussels.

Legislative resolutions are normally completed, with their various tabled amendments, a day or so before voting occurs at mid-day.

Debates also occur in advance of voting. An MEP is usually entitled to a one or two minute speech, depending upon whether the speech has been tabled in advance of the debate.

Diligent MEPs and their advisors will take breakfast at 7.30pm and then head for the Parliament, usually not returning to their hotels or rented accommodation until well after 8pm but often considerably later.

A mountain of legislation awaits them: a weekly session in Strasbourg will usually encompass several thousand pages of legislative documents, which must be read, absorbed and understood before a decision on voting intentions can be determined.

Often, over a thousand votes are held at each weekly session. On occasion, over a thousand votes can be held in one daily voting session.

For the most part, Andrew Brons votes against legislation but often there occur occasions when neither a ‘for’ nor an ‘against’ and nor even an ‘abstention’ may simply be determined. Recently, for example, a vote occurred on a trade measure relating to Georgia. Whilst this measure was of benefit to EU manufacturers and EU branded goods, it was deemed to be a measure that facilitated the ultimate ambition of the Europhiles to secure Georgia as another member state within the European Union. We voted against the measure.

Occasionally, too, Andrew Brons supports legislation. A recent example related to a measure designed to reduce the volume and expense of red tape.

Diligence must be done in Plenary. Our MEP’s office keeps a careful note of our Member’s voting record at each session, with the reasons for his decision recorded. On occasion, enquiring constituents have been provided with that record and the reasoning behind it. How a member has voted is also maintained on the public register at the Parliament – unless a show of hands or a simple electronic vote has been employed.

Some MEPs are less diligent than others. The attendance of some MEPs is appalling and their voting intentions are determined by their party whip. It is doubtful whether many MEPs will know for what they have voted, after the event. Without membership of a trans-national grouping (such as the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D Group)), our MEP must carry out his research using his own resources.

The day or so that precedes voting is also an occasion to ‘catch the eye’ of the speaker and contribute to the debate. Our MEP uses these opportunities to inject satire but also philosophical and ideological viewpoints which, often, provide the only fundamental opposition to the thrust of the debate in hand, and within a public forum that may be accessed by the electorate. Andrew Brons’ speeches may be viewed on his Parliamentary website – http://andrewbrons.eu/

2 Committee: Each MEP belongs to one Committee and shadows another, at which he may also vote in the absence of his opposite number on that Committee. The Member may make verbal contributions to both.

Andrew Brons is a full Member of the Constitutional Affairs’ Committee and a shadow Member of the Civil Liberties’ Committee.

The Constitutional Committee is where all new proposals to diminish the sovereignty of nation states are channeled and it is a matter of significance that, until very recently, no Member from Ukip bothered to sit on this most important of all Committees.

The Civil Liberties’ Committee oversees what are deemed to be the liberties of the citizen but such terms must be understood in their widest context. Such liberties often concern those of the minorities imposed upon the majority and rarely the true interests of the latter.

Committee meetings, debates and votes are an ongoing feature of an MEP’s work.

3 Constituency Work: An MEP’s postbag is usually filled with representations from lobby groups, relating to legislation but also from constituents. Most of this is dealt with at the local office of the MEP.

Occasionally, however, delegations visit the MEP in his Parliamentary offices in Strasbourg or Brussels in order to seek assistance. An example, recently, was a delegation from an animal welfare charity, which sought to highlight the mistreatment of dogs on the Continent. Andrew Brons, who is also a dog owner, at once raised the matter in a Parliamentary Question to the Commission.

Occasionally, also, there will be an opportunity to raise constituents’ problems on the floor of the Parliament.

Such matters may be considered to be of questionable merit. On the other hand, they can be well recorded in the literature of the charity concerned.

Gravy Train?

It has long been stated by some that an MEP has boarded an expensive and well-furnished gravy train. Is this statement accurate? The answer is both yes and no.

Many MEPs, including those from a Euro-sceptic UK party, treat the Parliament as though it were a gravy train. Certain of these elements rarely attend and their voting record is poor and sometimes, such is their negligence, they often vote in the opposite direction to that demanded by their Party’s policy.

For those who wish to enter a merry-go-round of drinks’ parties, cocktail functions, lunches and dinners, the opportunities exist. MEPs are subjected to invitations from hundreds of different lobbying groups and vested interests.

Do Andrew Brons and his staff attend these events? Were they to do so, they would be unable to find the considerable time required to attend to their responsibilities. Throughout the term of office, to date, they have probably briefly attended three drinks’ functions – considerably less than the opportunities that would appertain, often monthly, in the commercial sphere.

A Recognised Public Forum

Membership of the European Parliament brings with it several advantages:

a) Membership of a Parliament and, in our case, election to the highest Parliamentary chamber bar Westminster.

b) The public recognition that the above bestows.

c) Attendant media publicity resulting from the above.

d) Invitations to speak at functions, schools, civic institutions, etc.

e) An ability to represent constituents via a Parliamentary platform and to bring the Council and Commission to account via the spoken word and through the facility of tabling Parliamentary questions.

The single drawback is that high ranking members of the party may be abroad when they are required at home. The answer to this criticism is simple: a deep, broadly based organisation would promote its talent so that the presence of those elected to office – at Council, Westminster or European levels – would not be missed. Until we can find a leader that is not frightened to promote talent and ability, then we shall continue to rely unduly upon that leader and his immediate appointments, however unsuitable they may be for the task in hand.

The Value of Carrying Out the Elected Task

Elected representatives have, unsurprisingly, been elected to carry out the function for which they have been awarded a mandate.

Too often, elected nationalists have failed to perform in their elected capacity. Sometimes they have remained invisible in their council chamber whilst others have failed to attend or serve out their term of office, thereby abandoning their electorates and their own members, who sought and worked for their election.

Such conduct creates an untidy image of irresponsibility and incompetence, which does not go unremarked by the media. Not least, successor candidates have later wondered why they have failed to be elected by unimpressed voters.

Whilst readers of this article will wish to condemn the Liberal Democrats, they have at least gained a reputation as worthy constituency representatives. It is equally important that nationalist members attain the same or a better reputation for competence, hard work and diligence.

When our MEP’s term of office has been completed, his record will be one of the best in the European Parliament. It has already received plaudits from fellow nationalists.

When the opportunity arises to win a seat at Westminster, the accusation that nationalist representatives are unworthy of support because they do not carry out their purpose, hopefully, will hold no water.

The suggestion that an elected representative works too hard at the task for which he has received a mandate is one that would be difficult to make up. Such imbecilic and uninformed opinion descends from those whose stamp, for the most part, has weakened the patriotic cause in the UK. [Emphasis mine].