At Last the 1948 Show (redux)

Posted by Captainchaos on January 28, 2010, 09:47 PM | #

I recall Linder once said something like this in reference to injured Black athletes who sit on the team bench during a basketball game:  ‘Look at me, I was ballin’.  But now I be in a suit.  I don’t just ball, I be a bidness man too.  Niggers are all about externals.’ But if we laugh along with Linder that makes us no better than Jew-killers, or at least some would have it.

Posted by Tanstaafl on January 28, 2010, 10:12 PM | #

“About time you let me in, you damn ray-siss.”

Posted by Guessedworker on January 29, 2010, 12:04 AM | #

Dan: According to the latter, even this new, ‘modernised’ and sanitised constitution is unlikely to meet with the approval of the EHRC, let alone the BNP membership.

It didn’t.

Posted by Dan Dare on January 29, 2010, 07:25 PM | #

Reading the runes (in the form of Lee John Barnes’ blog entry on the subject) I’m am anticipating that the new constitution will represent a complete capitulation to the EHRC’s demands. The only question that remains is whether the rank and file will toe the party line. Some may opt instead to go down with all guns blazing. It could be bloody.

[Lee John Barnes] ...Sometimes you have to lose the battle to win the war.

But you can only win the war by staying in the fight.

The EHRC and the maggots in the Whorehouses of Parliament want us to get angry and not think about our next step.

Logic is the answer.

We must give them the stupid and meaningless assurances they want us to give them and we must play the game they want us to play. As long as they are in charge they can make the rules of the game of course.

The aim of the game is therefore to stay in the fight and get into power.

We must give them all the guarantees they want in order to comply with their laws.

But they, and we know, that this is simply a game of legal chess.

The assurances we have to give to the scum that run this country, such as the unelected filth in the EHRC, has no meaning to us other than we have to obey it to comply with the law.

The same situation relates to expense expenses and election laws of course.

We have to abide by those laws as much as we have to abide by this law.

But the changing of the constitution is meaningless as to who we are, what we believe and what we will do when we get into power.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 29, 2010, 10:12 PM | #

What, are the pronouncements of this two-bit commission synonymous with the law?  Isn’t it the law as stated that an organization merely cannot deny membership to individuals based upon race/ethnicity, amongst other things, and says nothing about what the stated goals per organization documents can be?  If it has come to the point that this unelected commission may say what the law is then I should think that is worth fighting.

Posted by Dan Dare on January 29, 2010, 10:53 PM | #

Cap’n you are correct. That’s what the current law says (the 1976 RRA as amended), and the BNP is (or was) claiming exemption under section 26. The EHRC is basing its case on a recent House of Lords ruling which it claims has removed the exemption for registered political parties like the BNP but not for for ethnically-based members associations like the Association of Black Police Officers.

But that is simply the EHRC’s claim, it has never been tested in a court of law. The BNP conceded before the matter received a formal judicial hearing. There is probably a better than even chance that the BNP could have prevailed but might well have been bankrupted in doing so. The EHRC, it should be recalled, has essentially bottomless pockets with which to pursue any litigation it chooses.

It’s all rather moot anyway since the new Equalities Act which supersedes the RRA76 eliminates the s.26 exemption for political parties. The BNP would have had to confirm anyway when the Act comes into force in a few months, or wind itself up. This provision of the Act is specifically intended to nobble the BNP, as government ministers have confirmed at least twice in Parliament.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 29, 2010, 11:32 PM | #

Dare, this is pretty grim, and I do not mean mainly for the reason that Britain is transitioning into a banana republic before our eyes.  I mean in the capitulation of Englishmen, the originators of common law, to their enslavement by fiat rule.  This ties into what I have been harping on of late, if the people will not even rise up to contest the fiat ruling of a commission that has no legal power to decide the law, when that very law in question states explicitly that the party under scrutiny acts within the law and the commission outside of the law in ruling as it does, then those people have in effect accepted their own slavery.  Even the Founding Fathers did not think the right of the people to self government was a right absolute, but only proper if the people were moral and responsible actors fit for self rule.  Fight the Krauts to avoid ‘enslavement’, then willingly submit to just that from the likes of Trevor Phillips and Jack Straw.  What was it all for?

Posted by Dan Dare on January 29, 2010, 11:50 PM | #

It’s not fiat rule Cap’n. The EHRC was brought into existence by an Act of Parliament, and its powers of enforcement, harassment and inquisition were also approved by Parliament. It’s as democratically and constitutionally valid as the NSDAP’s capture of the Reichstag in 1932.

Certainly the Great British Public bear a large measure of blame for their apathy and complacency, but the real culprits are the managerial elites who have been the chief architects of the Crusade against Discrimination.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 30, 2010, 12:54 AM | #

It’s not fiat rule Cap’n. The EHRC was brought into existence by an Act of Parliament, and its powers of enforcement, harassment and inquisition were also approved by Parliament.

In America we have a legal precedent which militates against ”prior restraint,” which is “a legal term related to censorship in the United States referring to government actions that prevent communications from reaching the public. Its main use is to keep materials from being published. Censorship that requires a person to seek governmental permission in the form of a license or imprimatur before publishing anything constitutes prior restraint every time permission is denied.” What is in play here extends beyond the letter of the law and precedent to legal theory.  If, as a legally created arm of government, the EHRC engages in activity via ”vexatious litigation” that has the impact of a ”chilling effect” which amounts to “prior restraint” in keeping the BNP from acting to the maximum degree that is not proscribed by law then the commission itself my well be acting in a criminal manner.  If not violating the letter of the law, the commission certainly seems to be violating the spirit of the law.  You no doubt are more privy to the letter of that law than I.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 30, 2010, 01:23 AM | #

The element of fiat on the part of Trevor Phillips lies, theoretically, in his abusing his legally appointed powers in illegally constraining the BNP from stating in the charter document of purpose for their organization that they are an organization committed to advocating for and representing the interests of indigenous Britons.  But for Phillips’ vexatious litigation the party could do what Phillips is preventing them from doing, according to the law.  Equality before the law is denied due to the effectively unlimited amounts of cash at Phillips’ disposal as contrasted with the war chest of the BNP.  Phillips, by his fiat, is obstructing BNP members from exercising their legal rights.  From his fiefdom Phillips is acting as a tyrant.

Posted by Dan Dare on January 30, 2010, 02:26 AM | #

Tyrannical posturing on the part of litigants is an everyday occurence, cudgel-brandishing and chest-beating often proving sufficient to intimidate a weaker-willed and financially less well-endowed adversary into submission. It is no surprise that the EHRC with unlimited access to public funds would pursue that route.

But what happens when the case actually comes before a judge is another matter entirely. Had the BNP defended the suit who knows what might have happened. Certainly, at the very least the EHRC’s claim would have come under searching examination and, if found wanting, Trev could have been facing a very substantial bill for punitive damages.

As it happens the BNP, in its original letter of response to the EHRC did indicate an intention to defend the suit on a number of grounds besides the s.26 exemption, including whether or not the EHRC was exceeding its legal powers, and whether or not it was taking advantage of an ‘Inequality of Arms’ in initiating a frivolous and unneccessary action against the BNP.

However, after that initial saber-rattling episode the BNP leadership, for reasons best known to themselves, elected not to contest the action leaving the way open for the EHRC to press for the maximum possible concessions. 

Some people (including yours truly) still believe that it would have been better for the cause in the long run for the BNP to directly confront the Gorgon, and to slay it if possible, even though defeat would have caused the party’s demise. Why such a course of action was not followed in the end is a matter of much conjecture.

Posted by FB on January 30, 2010, 02:45 AM | #

How bad is the antipathy of the Scots for the English? Pretty bad if the comments section is representative.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article7007950.ece

Posted by Captainchaos on January 30, 2010, 03:42 AM | #

There is a way to fight the illegal stance of the commission indirectly from the BNP and thereby avoid direct harm to the BNP.  Individuals of sufficient wit and will need to be found, or step forward, to form their own group according to the mode of the BNP which conforms to the letter of the law, publicize this widely enough to get the commission to take the same actions against them as taken against the BNP.  Then fight the commission through the legal process to the end.  How much money does it really take to fill out the requisite forms, do the requisite research, file the requisite motions, and make the requisite arguments when it is glaringly obvious that the law is on one’s side, cut and dried?  All that is lacking is courage.  Why doesn’t the National Front make some real use of themselves and do it?  Or are they merely satisfied with posturing about carrying the ‘sacred flame of the race’ whilst being harassed by Dave Howard and crew aka C.U.N.T.?  In other words, is the accusation that the ‘leadership’ of the NF is only in it for what amounts to ‘beer money’ accurate?  Trevor Phillips’ black ass is waiting there, ripe to be nailed to the cross, isn’t there one Englishman with the stones to oblige him?  I’m not a British citizen so I"m not exactly in a position to do it myself.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 30, 2010, 04:16 AM | #

“Some people (including yours truly) still believe that it would have been better for the cause in the long run for the BNP to directly confront the Gorgon, and to slay it if possible, even though defeat would have caused the party’s demise.  Why such a course of action was not followed in the end is a matter of much conjecture.” (—Dan Dare)

“Much conjecture”?  I thought they were quite open about their reasons:  the problem was they didn’t have the funds to both contest the Wadhamite offensive in the courts AND campaign in the general election.

Posted by Dan Dare on January 30, 2010, 06:12 AM | #

Yes indeed.

But given that the chances of the BNP gaining a Parliamentary seat in the best of circumstances tends towards zero, what might have had the more galvanising effect amongst the unawakened? Yet another underwhelming performance in the polls or going down, all guns blazing yet valiant and unbowed, in a principled stand against against the forces of darkness?

I know which stance would be more likely to invoke the Spirit of Dunkirk amongst the general popoulace and it is not one of trimming your sail according to the prevailing wind, trusting that the victor will be as magnanimous towards the vanquished as we would be ourselves.

No. The correct approach would have been to stand up against the aggressors just as our forebears did in 1940.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 30, 2010, 07:43 AM | #

Um, I think the BNP kinda is following the example set at Dunkirk, instead of standing and fighting to the last man, slither away and declare victory in the full knowledge that the only reason they got away at all is their opponent let them.  And then let Russia and Amerikwa gain the victory for them? 

On the topic of Phillips acting the tyrant:  It’s a tad different than your run-of-the-mill David and Goliath litigation, Phillips is knowingly disenfranchising the million or so voters that pulled the lever for the BNP in contravention of the law.  What, I’m the only one who sees that?  But that doesn’t fit well with the face-saving narrative.

On the topic of my plan to fight the commission sans BNP involvement:  It damn well could work, and without a boatload of cash, just not without balls.

On the topic of not cutting a deal with the Krauts:  That was really dumb.

On the topic of geography:  Apparently de Nile ain’t just a river in Egypt.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 30, 2010, 08:17 AM | #

Okay, so I"m fairly confident that I’ve made the Phillips as tyrant-in-effect argument.  And, once having done that, and with the characterization that Britons accept their enslavement with either indifference or quivery following therefrom, the observation that they have then given up the moral right (and remember this is what the American Founding Fathers thought too, not just Krautic barbarians) to self rule and assumed the position of being cattle per what should not seem such of a “strangely Jewish teleology” at this point follows also.  If the cattle are not herded for their own benefit then they can expect to be slaughtered, not rocket science.  But...but...their human dignity, what they need is philosophy, not to be herded like cattle.  Fine, but just what kind of material do you actually have to work with here?  What did the guys in the Agora say when old Socrates asked them a question, “Moooooo?” That the truth offends one’s pride, moral sensibilities etc. does not make it any less true.  Here’s something that shouldn’t offend any-one’s moral sensibilities (to hell with pride): life is better than death, any day of the week.

Posted by Desmond Jones on January 30, 2010, 08:18 AM | #

The correct approach would have been to stand up against the aggressors just as our forebears did in 1940.

Unless of course, this is the result desired. Unable to convince the party faithful, a number of years ago, to move in this direction, the revision can be accomplished by leaving the party leadership untarnished.

Posted by John on January 30, 2010, 09:03 AM | #

The correct approach would have been to stand up against the aggressors just as our forebears did in 1940.

I started to formulate a witty response to your utterly fallaceous association but then remembered that this political cartoon dose a better job of it than I could:

Posted by Captainchaos on January 30, 2010, 09:05 AM | #

Unless of course, this is the result desired. Unable to convince the party faithful, a number of years ago, to move in this direction, the revision can be accomplished by leaving the party leadership untarnished.

Translation (although it doesn’t sound quite as clever if not put as cryptically): The BNP let that wog in as one of their elected representatives a few years back.  Big compromise one.  This is just big compromise two.  Why?  Because when push comes to shove the leadership are self-interested sacks of shit.  But the lemmings went along.  Hell, even one of their most committed members, the guy who took that hammer to the skull from UAF, I forget his name, has a half Chinese wife and a quarter Chinese kid.  And if the Master Plan ("we will do whatever we must") were implemented it would be adios to wifey and junior.  Why so dumb, why so gullible?  Cattle (yeah, when it comes down to it, the Jews have a point, sad but true, luckily the Krauts were smart enough to use what works though). 

The Wisdom of Wintermute boiled down:

1.) Yup, it pretty much is all the Jews’ fault.

2.) Go with NS, it actually works.

3.) Spirit of the race, get in touch with it through highfalutin literature.

Okay, I think three is bullshit, there is no spirit of the race, when we die, the lights go out.  But one and two are obviously true.  And three can be read as good propaganda and demagogy goes a long way, which it does.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 30, 2010, 09:47 AM | #

Questions, questions.  Why was it that I so easily ran a sword through O’Meara and Johnson recently, and why is it that respond with such tight-lipped, nose-in-the-air spite or outright cattiness?  Why was it that Wintermute and JWH left here, and the latter exhorted MacDonald to censor his blog when confronted with an obvious Jewish troll?  Why was it that Hunter Wallace leapt into near hysteria when grilled by Giles?  Why is it that some would rather be killed than accept National Socialism and when exhorted to courage in battle talk of the cruelty of it all as some may “shit their pants and run away?” In the former three cases, prissiness and vanity, which amounts to cowardice.  The latter being more honest and putting up no pretenses.  Why?  It is an instinctive strategy to protect and enhance their reproductive fitness, it is exhorting a situation in a particular instance that would enhance their reproductive fitness generally.  Now, when I laid down the Nazi rap on the aforementioned Jewish troll at MacDonald’s blog he visible began to crack, no slick answers did he have then.  Even the mention of NS is kryptonite for kikes.  Lesson:  The pussy route will not work, Giles is correct in that respect, although obviously some finesse is need too (in the form of good propaganda and demagogy to make the cattle think there are greener pastures in this direction over here).  Also, the lemmings are too dumb to get philosophy, shit, even apparently O’Meara and Johnson are, and they have PhDs.  So who does that leave, a few monks on a mountain top?  I get the basics of philosophy, I have an intuitive access to it, but then the real exigencies of life crowd in and I’m left with the NS.

Better to be brutally honest with ourselves and live, than to delude ourselves and die.

Posted by Nog Nig on January 30, 2010, 10:01 AM | #

Dan Dare,
The BEF had somewhere to run after the rout of Dunkirk.The BNP has nowhere to run.All that matters is the continued existence of the BNP.

Posted by Guessedworker on January 30, 2010, 04:24 PM | #

Some responses to CC, in no particular order:

Why was it that Wintermute and JWH left here

JWH strongly disagreed with my editorial policy at the time, and continues to disagree with the concept of public access via the threads.  Wintermute was only ever a thread commenter, of course - though I did ask him to do more.  He is one of those who suspected that there was something more going on here than met the eye, and even considered that I was playing a game of some sort.  But part of that might be because, latterly, I eschewed the opportunity to debate his criticisms or his Weltanschauung.

My personal relations with both gentlemen are fine.  JWH is open to discussion in private about matters of mutual interest.  The possibility remains that he will have a greater influence over future work here than many suspect.

I think the BNP kinda is following the example set at Dunkirk, instead of standing and fighting to the last man, slither away and declare victory in the full knowledge that the only reason they got away at all is their opponent let them.

Wikipedia on Hitler’s stop order:

On 24 May, Adolf Hitler had visited General von Rundstedt’s headquarters at Charleville. Von Rundstedt advised him the infantry should attack the British forces at Arras, where they had proved capable of significant action, while Kleist’s armour held the line west and south of Dunkirk in order to pounce on the Allied forces retreating before Army Group B.[1] This order allowed the Germans to consolidate their gains and prepare for a southward advance against the remaining French forces. The terrain around Dunkirk was considered unsuitable for armour,[10] so the Allied forces’ destruction was initially assigned to the Luftwaffe and the German infantry organised in Army Group B. Von Rundstedt later called this “one of the great turning points of the war."[11]

The true reason for Hitler’s decision to halt the German armour is a matter of debate. One theory is that Von Rundstedt and Hitler agreed to conserve the armour for Fall Rot, an operation to the south.[12] [13] Another theory, which has recently been disputed, was that Hitler was still trying to establish diplomatic peace with Britain before Operation Barbarossa. Brian Bond stated:

Few historians now accept the view that Hitler’s behaviour was influenced by the desire to let the British off lightly in hope that they would then accept a compromise peace. True, in his political testament dated 26 February 1945 Hitler lamented that Churchill was “quite unable to appreciate the sporting spirit” in which he had refrained from annihilating the BEF at Dunkirk, but this hardly squares with the contemporary record. Directive No. 13, issued by the Supreme Headquarters on 24 May called specifically for the annihaltion of the French, English and Belgian forces in the pocket, while the Luftwaffe was ordered to prevent the escape of the English forces across the channel.[14]

Whatever the reasons for Hitler’s decision, he did not rescind it until the evening of 26 May. The three days thus gained gave a vital breathing space to the Royal Navy to arrange to evacuate the British and Allied troops. (Although the majority of the 338,000 men saved in about eleven days were British, 123,000 were French—of whom 102,250 escaped in British ships.)[15]

I don’t doubt that if the German High Command had for one moment credited the possibility of an armada of little ships the stop order would have been rescinded earlier.  The “victory”, incidentally, consists in the spiritual victory of the British nation in that regard.  The impossible, when it happens, is always a victory.

On the topic of not cutting a deal with the Krauts:  That was really dumb.

The miracle of Dunkirk gave the nation the self-belief and determination to fight on, and to repair the costs of the years of military disinvestment in ground forces.  The RN was still battle-worthy, and we knew we had a coming weapon in Bomber Command that the Luftwaffe could not match (the first four-engined bomber was specified by the Air Ministry as far as back as 1936).  Bomber Command, under the Trenchard Doctrine, was equipping itself with the ability to inflict far greater damage to the fabric of German cities and German industry than the Luftwaffe had managed during the Blitz.  There were also constant hopes of persuading the Americans to enter the fight - on which, let it be said, German policy should have been to consistently oppose British efforts in that respect.  Instead, they allied with Japan and declared war on America themselves.

Posted by danielj on January 30, 2010, 05:25 PM | #

So who does that leave, a few monks on a mountain top?

It has always been that way.

Posted by Dan Dare on January 30, 2010, 06:42 PM | #

Chairman Griffin’s summarisation of Thursday court hearing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94LR798uNcA

Posted by Captainchaos on January 30, 2010, 08:44 PM | #

Watched Dare’s video: the situation is just as I said it was.  Why am I always right?  A blessing and a curse.  A game, is what is done here a game?  Well, that depends upon what is meant by ‘game’.  If the person engaging in the activity sincerely believes that they are not ‘playing’ at something, then their activity would not conform to the common sense definition of ‘game playing’.  Although there is obvious an element of gamesmanship.  Take the instance recently of cozying up to Linder after the cosmic egg was cracked just a little further upon having discovered that THE JEWS were so instrumental in just recently flooding the UK with muds.  A white flash of rage that was nearly blinding afterwards, no?  So game at sicking Linder on them, and at least console oneself with imagining what Linder would do to them.  And what if, as Linder asked, at the bitter end, it did come down to killing every last one of them, that or the people perish, what would it be?  Well, unless a man were to abdicate his responsibility to the people, then I’m afraid the Jews would just have to be killed.  Though only a fool would admit such in front of the lemmings (the cattle).  Then a retreat from Linder, bad PR to be identified with him, as the lemmings tender little sensibilities became inflamed.  All the rest of the stuff about WWII is merely a seemingly infinite regress of rationalizations of which each and every one of them could have a stake driven through it by pointing out that it was a result of having chosen the wrong side in the war, the side that benefited Jewish interests instead of effecting their Final extirpation.

Note, I do see the merits of shaping a new mental life to be inhabited by our people, my objection is, it is not nearly as power in controlling behavior as enthusiasts for it imagine.  Inculcating it in the lemmings would rely upon the same methods our enemies use anyway.  Ain’t that right?

Posted by Guessedworker on January 30, 2010, 09:05 PM | #

Thanks for the video link, Dan.

Griffin spoke fluently and touched all the bases.  But it’s slightly worrying that he thinks that the two purposes of the Labour/EHRC are to exhaust the BNP’s cash so they can’t fight the GE (correct) and to set BNP members against one another.  I assume he really believes the latter, and isn’t just he’s saying it to extract some unity from the “blokes”.  But, of course, that isn’t what John Wadham is trying to do at all.  He is trying to engineer the situation where the party’s pro-native British discourse is, at the very least, a legally grey area, which can then be clarified through individual prosecutions of BNP officers speaking for the natives.

Specifically, what worries me here is that Griffin himself isn’t ahead of Wadham’s game.  In fact, he would appear to have read it completely wrongly.

Likewise, there’s no sign yet that he or anyone in the party has grasped the ideological opportunity that this litigation process presents.  Henceforth, they can, if they wish, demonstrate to (to be perfectly clear) the English public that the Establishment requires them, the English, to cease to exist.  It’s as simple and stark as that.  All other discourse is redundant now, and this perfect storm is entirely of the Establishment’s making, ie it’s beyond challenge.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 30, 2010, 09:11 PM | #

The Jews effectively control America, that is all they need to control, that is ballgame, end of discussion.  And how did that come to be?  Through the programs implemented per Roosevelt and his Jews (where one stopped and the other started, who knows?  and it doesn’t really matter, he was their extended phenotype par excellence).  Roosevelt egged on the Japs to the point that their attack was inevitable, because that’s what he wanted to get into the war and drive through the rest of his program.  Without the war, England and America would not be racing oblivion.  And don’t give me some smug shit about how if the German’s had just been good little goys they would not have been destroyed.  The looming threat of the Bolshevik invasion smashes that all the smithereens.  And, again, no Jews (and there are Jews in our midst for the very reason to begin with and at all because no one but the Krauts would man the fuck up and cast them out), no Bolshevism.  Are you reading me, loud and clear I hope?  But...but...if we wouldn’t have been stumbling in the dark, if we just would have known our true selves (or at least enough of us in a position of influence to make a difference) then it would have never come to that.  However true, it ignores the fact(s) (as stated above) that we WERE stumbling in the dark, and the Jews were instrumental in keeping us there, and lead us ever further into darkness.

As I said, the wages of the sin of betraying our own blood, right or wrong, is death.

Posted by Dan Dare on January 30, 2010, 09:47 PM | #

Yes, GW I concur entirely.

While the case was in its early stages and it appeared that Griffin would be taking a principled stand I made another sizeable donation, and my finger was poised over the Donate button ready to contribute again when the call came for funds to fight the case. But that call never came.

I certainly don’t intend to help defray their court costs at this stage since in my view those have only been incurred because of Griffin’s procrastination and prevarication. What possible utility was there in him attending the Copenhagen jamboree as a member of the European Parliament delegation, and what was he doing swanning around the corridors of Strasbourg for most of the week prior to the court hearing?

Posted by Captainchaos on January 30, 2010, 10:38 PM | #

Griffin spoke fluently and touched all the bases. 

So we have every reason to believe he is fundamentally aware of what the situation is.

But it’s slightly worrying that he thinks that the two purposes of the Labour/EHRC are to exhaust the BNP’s cash so they can’t fight the GE (correct) and to set BNP members against one another.

That is not the limit of his understanding, see below.

I assume he really believes the latter, and isn’t just he’s saying it to extract some unity from the “blokes”.

You mean he really believes this has the chance to divide the party between the “absolutists” (however many of those there are, and however noisy they are prepared to be) and the cattle and everything in between, and that this is something he is actively trying to avoid?  I hate to be crude, but no shit.  Just what the hell else would he do for his own interest and in the interest of maintaining the party?

But, of course, that isn’t what John Wadham is trying to do at all.  He is trying to engineer the situation where the party’s pro-native British discourse is, at the very least, a legally grey area, which can then be clarified through individual prosecutions of BNP officers speaking for the natives.

This is the key point, because for the cattle, out of sight means out of mind.  We can reasonably surmise that Griffin IS aware of that as he mentions it obliquely in the video regarding the real issue of British people being able to EXPLICITLY advocate for the interests of their people.  You didn’t catch that?

Specifically, what worries me here is that Griffin himself isn’t ahead of Wadham’s game.  In fact, he would appear to have read it completely wrongly.

Only if one has the psychological need to believe in Griffin’s relatively absolute purity of motivation.  Maybe he is doing it more in his own interest as to maintaining power and prestige, or perhaps he is following the ‘logic’ of Dunkirk, slink away to fight another day, call it glorious, only fail to fight ultimately in a way that will actual save the existence of the people.  As when Amerikwa was brought into the war, even then, it was necessary to pry with a crowbar English women of the niggers Amerikwa brought with them, and all else that flowed from the ‘American Century’.  What would be of use now would be a heroic stand in the mold of the 300 at Thermopylae which was truly glorious and inspiring, no BS needed to polish that one.  That would inspire Americans to throw off their shackles.

Likewise, there’s no sign yet that he or anyone in the party has grasped the ideological opportunity that this litigation process presents.

As pointed out above, we have good reason to believe he DOES realize it, at least dimly.  Why not attempt to contact him and drive the point home, thump it into his skull if need be?  But...but...that just isn’t how it’s done, proper channels, saving face, you know how it goes.  Fuck that, What’s it going to be at the last, Dunkirk or Thermopylae?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on January 31, 2010, 12:17 AM | #

The problem is, even if he does realize that’s Dickwad’s game (something I myself didn’t realize till GW pointed it out above, and it made sense), what can he do differently from what he’s already doing?  I don’t see anything he can do differently — Dickwad’s got him backed up against a wall either way.  What he needs obviously is a large infusion of cash so he can fight this thing the way it ought to be fought in the courts, but needless to say no such infusion is going to be forthcoming from the English wealthy class as presently constituted.

Posted by PF on January 31, 2010, 12:26 AM | #

holy shit, brohams, check this music video out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-iWrIBaq3Y

Its Madonna’s “Like A Prayer” from the 80s! The original video of a hit song!

In it, an attractive young madonna has her black boyfriend taken away by the police,
but she entreats/worships a life-size negro wax doll in a church, apparently some sort of
black saint figure, which then begins to shed tears and come to life after she kisses its foot!

miscegenation + life size wax dolls of negro saints + catholicism = the perfect music video!

A group of white rapists then assail a white woman until she is saved by a black man,
appearing on the scene at the last moment! The white criminals scatter away to safety.

The police then arrive and arrest the black man who was tending to the assailed white woman,
while Madonna sings in front of a row of burning crosses!!

Then she sings in the church with a black soul revival type thing, dancing suggestively with a 12-year old black choirboy!

DO YOU THINK THERE IS SOME KIND OF MESSAGE THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO CONVEY?

Posted by Captainchaos on January 31, 2010, 12:40 AM | #

I love that song, I don’t love those niggers.

As for what an Englishman with balls (with balls) can do, I’ve given several suggestions above.  Too late to unring the bell of contributing mightily to the genocide of the race by having fought the Krauts though, sadly.  That was a fuck up of epic proportions.  Boy, was it ever.

Posted by PF on January 31, 2010, 12:46 AM | #

LOL @ CaptainChaos.

I’m glad you like that song, I do too.

Posted by Captainchaos on January 31, 2010, 01:09 AM | #

An oldie but a goodie.

Posted by PF on January 31, 2010, 04:27 AM | #

Cocteau Twins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ka-WpqCAJI&NR=1

Posted by Guessedworker on February 06, 2010, 11:41 PM | #

The BNP has circularised the following update on the EHRC attack, in the form of a response to frequently asked questions:

http://mybnp.co.uk/newsletter/equalitiesfaq2.html

Here are a couple of the more interesting Q/A’s:

Is this whole saga a disguised attempt to ban the BNP by the backdoor?

The end result of the Equalities Commission court case is that the right of ethnic groups to associate amongst themselves is outlawed, and any attempt to do so will result in legal retribution. However, what is also apparent is ‘one rule for them and one rule for us’ - the Equalities Commission is engaging in selective prosecution on a truly breathtaking scale. Why the BNP now, 28 years after its foundation? Why not haul into court similar ethno-centric organisations? If the Equalities Commission had its way, the BNP would not exist at all.

This was apparent by their statements at the last court date, where they seemingly dropped all reference to our admissions policy and instead started lambasting the principles that underpin our Constitution, such as our commitment to preserving the indigenous ethnic and cultural character of the British people. Ethno-nationalism is then the first ideology and viewpoint to be outlawed in democratic Britain. From the start of the court case onwards, ethno-nationalist political organisations cannot exist, except in prostrated form, and take part in the political process. Welcome to totalitarian Britain.

Will the new constitutional changes lead to a multi-racial BNP?

The new constitutional changes comply with the forthcoming provisions of the Equality Act, thus making the BNP a legal entity once the new law comes into force. There is simply no alternative, except to face legal financial meltdown, and not being able to take part in elections. As for the BNP becoming a ‘multi-racial’ organisation, this will never happen. Nationalist political parties all over Europe such as the Front National in France, and more ‘hardline’ parties in many parts of Europe, have always had to allow ethnic minorities to join their respective organisations. This has never led to them becoming ‘multi-racial’ and it has never hindered their progress.

In the experience of nationalist parties on the Continent, only small numbers of patriotic civic ethnic minorities join and there is no reason to suppose that our experience - if the new constitution is accepted - will be any different. Among the changes and expansions to the constitution are many clauses designed to prevent any group who wish us ill from infiltrating and derailing the BNP. The biggest danger there never was the empty boasting of Simon Wooley and his fellow black racists, but impeccably white but liberal civic nationalists, refugees from the Tory party and such like. The new constitution gives significantly extra weight to the people who are already in the party, who have been ‘through the mill’ when times were really difficult. This does not discriminate against any ethnic group, but it will keep Johnny-Come-Latelys in their place.

Posted by Lurker on February 07, 2010, 06:17 AM | #

Going o/t:

Ah the Cocteaus, just took an instant nostalgia hit, not heard that for ages. Knew you were a man of tatse PF! I’ve never really known what Liz was singing about, but that was never the point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mUmdR69nbM

Reminds me I’ve got the 12” single of that one knocking about somewhere, must track it down.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on February 07, 2010, 06:47 PM | #

The video Lurker links just above is riveting, the girl, the voice, the music, the lyrics.  What an achievement putting those all together in that final product!  I’d never heard of her, the group, or the song before.  No other race.  No other race.  Need one say more?  What more can one say?  No other race.  All races have their gifts, all their unique genius.  This is ours.  Forever.  None can take its place.

Posted by Anon on February 07, 2010, 07:49 PM | #

“The video Lurker links just above is riveting, the girl, the voice, the music, the lyrics.  What an achievement putting those all together in that final product!  I’d never heard of her, the group, or the song before.  No other race.  No other race.  Need one say more?  What more can one say?  No other race.  All races have their gifts, all their unique genius.  This is ours.  Forever.  None can take its place.!

I second that as those were my thoughts precisely, too.