The BNP is tearing itself apart somewhat tonight.

While 2007 has seen a variety of political advances for the BNP, the party has to an extent been held back and troubled by a string of leaks and misinformation briefings to political opponents, and by internal rumour-mongering designed to damage morale and confidence in the workings of various party departments, and in the leadership generally. Had this continued the result, whether by accident or design, would have been to disrupt, perhaps fatally, our all-important drive to break through with victory in the London Assembly Elections next year.

Some months ago, a BNP Intelligence Department was set up, with one of its key initial targets being to track down the source of these problems and provide the evidence needed to expose those responsible and put an end to their subversion.

Working closely with several other BNP Departments and following discussions with the BNP’s independent auditor, our Intelligence team – headed by Lance Stewart, a long-standing British nationalist and a former high-ranking officer in the South African Police - have now completed the first stage of their investigations.

As a result, two junior level national officials, Administration Officer Kenny Smith and Group Development Officer Sadie Graham, have today been removed from their posts with immediate effect on the grounds of gross misconduct and now face disciplinary charges over alleged offences against the BNP Constitution and Code of Conduct.

The degree of damage is difficult to assess, but it will go a lot deeper than the two who have been named here, and already expelled.

These two, it is claimed, established a blog titled Enough is Enough Nick with the object of forcing Griffin to fire three others whom they accuse of gross incompetence and bringing the party into disrepute.  One of these is Mark Collett, the party’s Director of Publicity, who twice stood trial alongside Griffin and, of course, twice won.

A few moments reading this blog will apprise you of some fairly colourful histories and rumours of histories.  American nationalists will recognise the moral template.

I suppose that rumours of MI5 black ops will also now play on everyone’s mind.  A second nationalist party may well emerge.  There is, of course, room for a second one in England, but not predicated principally on fighting Labour in the Islamic North.  Its orientation towards the BNP, therefore, and towards the electorate will tell us whether those black op rumours have any substance.  Let us hope not.

The LA Times carries an OpEd by Steve Fraser titled “Symptoms of an economic depression:

More significantly, for at least the last quarter of a century the whole U.S. economic system has lived off the speculations generated by the financial sector—sometimes given the acronym FIRE (for finance, insurance and real estate). It has grown exponentially while, in the country’s industrial heartland in particular, much of the rest of the economy has withered away.

This sounds similar to an article published in 1920 containing the sentences:

And now the two forces, Industry and Finance, are in a struggle to see whether Finance is again to become the master, or creative Industry.

This article was not, of course, predicting an economic depression nearly 90 years later…

Look for demonstrations in Europe on December 16 in sympathy with the Ron Paul “Tea Party” money bomb held in the US on that day:

I’m shooting the wind a bit here on the subject of financial muscle and political influence, so let me know if any of my assumptions are obviously wrong.

Here we go ...

One lesson that comes through loud and clear from the Ron Paul Presidential Campaign is that small-scale individual funding can compete in the political market.  In excess of ninety-nine per cent of Paul’s funds has come from individuals.  Forty-seven per cent has been raised from contributions of $200 or less.

Now, as these things go, the appeal of a Presidential Campaign is high-voltage, short-term, eyes-on-the-prize stuff.  “The Ron Paul Revolution” has to motivate donors only as long as it motivates enough voters to keep Paul in the game.  However, while the race for the Republican Nomination obtains, both supporter categories have an inbuilt - though quite generous - limit in terms of numbers.  They are drawn from that fraction of the American voting public that can identify institutional politics, and deduce that it serves not them but the institutional interests who fund it.  That’s the nature of the Revolution.

My guess is that the IQ gateway for that deductive capacity lies somewhere between 105 and 110.  Given that voting is itself an IQ filter, maybe two-thirds of the white voting public could, theoretically, be expected to know why they supported Paul in the booth - should they do so.  (This is not to say that the votes of others who simply “like Ron Paul” or “agree with him on the war” aren’t just as welcome, but a Revolution has to be a bit more revolutionary than that.)

Paul may or may not travel far down the presidential road in 2008.  But in shining a light for his brand of strict Constitutionalism he has shone a light for anti-institutionalism.  And that, clearly, has some carry-over into the much weightier and vexing question of the future of white America.

Now let’s look at the scale of the challenge confronting race-conscious white intellectuals as they contemplate Ron Paul’s already surprising achievement.

READ MORE...

More evidence, blind poll canvassing would be better for the Ron Paul campaign than normal canvassing.  A video describing MSNBC’s equivalent of an online “blind poll” showing how candidates match up with respondent positions:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21116732

Bloomberg reports that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a landmark case on the Second Amendment (right of “the people” to keep and bear arms with military intent).  The last time the Court heard a Second Amendment case was 1939—yielding an ambiguous decision.  So why the long wait to rule on such an important issue as the right of the people to overthrow a despotic government with their own militia?  It appears the Supreme Court was waiting for the perfectly bad opportunity:

1. The people increasingly see the government as despotic: e.g. the Ron Paul movement.
2. Following the old maxim that “Hard Cases Make Bad Law” the Court needed to wait until the would-be despots had the most pathological case imaginable:  Washington D.C.

Washington D.C. is among the most extreme outliers imaginable for testing law—and particularly with the high population of blacks and crime rate through the roof, it represents the nearly perfect opportunity for the Supreme Court to grab the weapons from all of “the people”.

Here are some of the would be despots solemnly presenting yet another case of gun crime in the nation’s pathological capitol:

And here are the rank orderings of Washington D.C., compared to the 50 states, in various attributes showing just how pathologically perfect it is for a despotic ruling:

READ MORE...

The Japanese are an ageing people with the low-birthrate typical today of a prosperous first-world economy.  The Japanese are also fiercely ethnocentric, and really, really don’t intend to import millions of black and brown gaijin.  The Japanese are also crazy about horizon technology, especially electronic gadgetry.

The result?

It’s on display at the 2007 International Robot Exhibition in Tokyo, a 1,000-booth show that ends tomorrow.  The greater part of the floor area is devoted to manufacturing robots, since that’s where the money is today.  But the buzz is coming from the non-manufacturing robot sector, which is still in its initial research phase.  The vision shared in the big Japanese corporations, universities and public research institutes involved in this effort is of a future in which, if robots don’t do everything (human contact work, for example), they will certainly share in the execution of the more utilitarian tasks.

The main categories where development is proceeding now are: maintenance (inspection, repair); home automation (cleaning, security); life assistance (for medical and welfare use); entertainment; hobbies.

The Guardian ran a piece on the exhibition today:-

In Japan, robots can already be found working as home helps, office receptionists and security guards, as well as on the factory floor. There were more than 370,000 industrial robots in use in Japan in 2005, according to a report by Macquarie bank, 40% of the world total, with 32 robots for every 1,000 manufacturing workers. The economy ministry calculates that the Japanese robot market will be worth more than £26bn by 2025.

There are compelling economic reasons for Japan’s obsession with robots. The population recently went into long-term decline and a reduced workforce is expected to struggle to fill jobs in the health and welfare sectors. As long as Japanese leaders remain cautious about relaxing immigration laws, robots will be seen as at least part of the solution.

Here are a very few of the Tokyo machines I’ve been able to identify:-

Hitachi’s EMIEW2 is an office worker.  Of course.  What else?

READ MORE...

My thanks to Micheal R for this link, an article by the near-libertarian Jewish-Russian-American blogger Eugene Volokh.

Richard Warman, a lawyer who worked as an investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, often filed complaints against “hate speech” sites — complaints that were generally upheld under Canadian speech restrictions. Fromm, a defender of various Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites, has been publicly condemning Warman for, among other things, being “an enemy of free speech.” Warman sued, claiming that these condemnations are defamatory.

Friday, the Ontario Superior Court held for Warman — chiefly on the grounds that because Warman’s claims were accepted by the legal system, they couldn’t accurately be called an attack on free speech. Thus, for instance:

  [25] The implication, as well as the clear of meaning of the words [“an enemy of free speech” and “escalated the war on free speech”], is that the plaintiff is doing something wrong. The comment “Well, see your tax dollars at work” also implies that Mr. Warman misused public funds for this “war on free speech”.

  [26] The plaintiff was using legal means to complain of speech that he alleged was “hate” speech.

  [27] The evidence was that Mr. Warman was successful in both the complaint and a libel action which he instituted.

  [28] Freedom of expression is not a right that has no boundaries. These parameters are outlined in various legislative directives and jurisprudence. I find Mr. Fromm has exceeded these. This posting is defamatory.

Likewise, apropos another statement (“Since then, a number of dissidents have been dragged before human rights tribunals, largely through the efforts of CHRC hatchetman Richard Warman”), the court responds:

  [32] While opposition to legislation is permitted, it is defamatory to say that Mr. Warman is largely responsible for “dragging” dissidents before the human rights tribunal, when in fact the “dissidents” were disseminating prohibited hate speech. The tribunal upheld the complaint. This posting is also defamatory.

Likewise, here’s another statement that the court treated as defamatory and legally punishable:

  [48] At the press conference after Mr. Fromm’s comments, he introduced three other people who spoke of their “problems with Richard Warman.” Mr. Fromm added, after one speaker:

      Thank you very much, Jason. So, for posting an opinion, the same sort of opinion that might have appeared in editorial pages in newspapers across this country, Jason and the Northern Alliance, his site has come under attack and people who are just ordinary Canadians find themselves in front of the courts for nothing more serious than expressing their opinion. This is being done with taxpayers’ money. I find that reprehensible.

  [49] In one posting Mr. Fromm describes Mr. Warman’s “campaign of intimidation” recitingvarious actions taken by Mr. Warman. He states that freedom of the Internet was the key issue.

  [50] Again Mr. Warman was referred to as acting like a one-man thought police agency.

  [51] The plaintiff is accused of using taxpayer money to “restrict freedom of speech” and of refusing “to allow those with differing opinions the right to express their views.”

  [52] The tone of all these allegations is derisive and holds the plaintiff up to ridicule and contempt. The words themselves and the inferences to be drawn are all defamatory.

Likewise, the court says, “[59] Mr. Warman is criticized for his anti-hate speech stance, and his professionalism and integrity are attacked. This would lead a reasonable reader to conclude that the plaintiff was an ideologue who wanted only to deny freedom of speech to those with whom he disagrees. [60 ]I find this posting defamatory.”

READ MORE...