by Alexander Baron

Although he is unquestionably one of the most irksome presenters on British television, Dominic Littlewood has one major saving grace; here and there he presents a programme which has real educational value. On March 9, 2010, he presented the second of five episodes of Fake Britain, which among other things showed a police raid on an illegal factory where bank cards were being cloned, literally by the hundred.

Littlewood also visited the Yorkshire town of Ilkley where shopkeepers and publicans had been on the receiving end of a blitz of forged £20 notes, which had left many of them out of pocket, but the most interesting cameo was where he brought in a counterfeit coin specialist – a former employee of the Royal Mint – who in a near two hour shopping session in the capital managed to find seven fake one pound coins. There was probably nothing too surprising about that, nor with the claim that the police would not be the slightest bit interested if you, dear reader, were to take a fake pound coin to your local cop shop. Such a course of action may leave you out of pocket, but a dud coin passed here and there will not prompt any sort of investigation while the police have terrorists to chase and motorists to harass.

But the really surprising revelation was the reaction, or rather the non-reaction, of the Royal Mint to fake coins. Though it is estimated that some two and a half percent of one pound coins in circulation have been produced illegally, the Mint does not bother to take them out of circulation. While a forged twenty pound note will most definitely leave you out of pocket and may see you questioned by the police if not actually arrested, it is quite likely that you will continue to spend your quota of fake pound coins in your local shops, and as long as neither the shopkeeper nor the bank notices (or cares) your fake money will be every bit as good as the real thing.

READ MORE...

The BBC is reporting on its ticker service that Judge Paul Collins, sitting in the Central London County Court, has ruled that the BNP’s new membership rules are “likely to discriminate”.  The basis for this ruling appears to be that prospective members sign up to principles including a duty to oppose the promotion of any form of “integration or assimilation” that impacted on the “indigenous British”, and to support the “maintenance and existence of the unity and integrity of the indigenous British”.

If this is the case, we have indeed arrived at the existential moment I described in my last blog on the party‘s legal travails:

We have reached a defining moment in the long process of racial destruction which began with the Atlee government turning its back on the people’s rights and instincts in 1948. The BNP has stripped away everything but the one essential principle that it must fight, and fight, and fight. The Establishment has, in attempting to force the discourse of the BNP to match its own, stripped away everything but the one essential principle that the native British must die as native Britons. This is no longer about “fascism” or “the hard right” or even “hate”. It is existential …

We need more information to come out before a proper assessment of the scale of the damage can be made.  But it looks like the BNP will now have to lodge an appeal against the ruling in order to be able to contest the forthcoming General Election.

Downstream from this ruling is the prospect that anti-discrimination law will be clarified and, possible then, hate speech law will be extended to make the expression of nationalist sentiment illegal too.  This, in my view, is the logical end-game.  The British government has already “affirmed” at the UN and in the EU that there is no such thing as an indigenous Briton.  These people really do mean to destroy us.

The consequences of such a legal trajectory would be that thousands of good men and women will be imprisoned and have their lives destroyed because they love their people and they love justice and freedom too much to remain silent, and unknown numbers of others will quickly come to see violence as the only path to our survival still open.

by Rod Cameron

I see one of the brothers has recently been writing about the end of teleology. I am a fan of teleology and whatever the brother was on about, it was not teleology. I wish he had found another word for his angst. Speculation about the future is what keeps us on the political margins going, so I thought I would show what it is about. Teleology is about joining a few dots to predict a glorious future. We all do it: take a few premises and cantilever an extrapolation till it crashes and burns. The critics of teleology say it is not within a million miles of being a pseudo-science, and they are right, but it is a lot of fun and I am actually serious, especially since the answer to the first question, “Where are we?” is damn obvious.

We are in a post-ideological age; we are beyond the debates based on political economy – Easy. Next dot, “What does that mean?” It means we are beyond trying to understand the world in terms of good and evil; we are beyond ethics. Dot 3, “Enlarge on that”. Basically ethics was behind ideology and in the end ethics had nothing to do with predicting the eventual answer which is known as liberal democracy or democratic capitalism. Dot 4, “So?” Well, look at our particular situation. Instead of a debate on immigration we get an ethical invective, “Racist!” And do we buy that as a comprehensive response? Does any-[intelligent]-one continue to think politics is applied ethics? Dot 5, “So?” Liberalism and its mate ethics are shagged-out. With their inane reply to the anti-immigrant protest they are begging us to say something really intelligent that will bury their faith in ethics. They are destined to be replaced and we have to get in early with some new Absolutes to replace the worn-out, simplistic one commonly associated with shagged-out Christianity. Dot 6, “You are sure history is against ethics?” All ethical absolutes finish up in the same place – the philosophy dump. Dot 7, “And you no doubt have a few Absolutes handy to fill the vacuum after ethics and thereby predict future developments in the world of ideas?” Yeah. And that is enough dots to get me started. I will have to make a few points before the teleology is launched.

READ MORE...

by Alexander Baron

An obscure if somewhat bizarre murder case from the State of Texas is back in the news, and the bleeding heart liberals are banging the drum again, this time for a convicted murderess who is facing execution by lethal injection.

Surprisingly, though Linda Carty is black, her principal supporters haven’t quite played the race card; they have though overplayed their hand with an endless stream of half-truths and bland acceptance of demonstrable lies. Carty’s case has garnered a great deal of unwarranted publicity in the UK and has been endorsed uncritically by the mass media because she is said to be a British citizen, a claim that is true only in a purely technical sense. Her supporters have played a tape of her begging for her life, and a cardboard cut out of her was erected on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square during the recent innovative living artwork exhibition. Those like the current writer who have longer memories, suspicious minds and a reluctance to take the top fifty Google listings at face value, will be less than impressed.

According to an article on Reprieve’s website, to which its director, campaigning lawyer Clive Stafford Smith contributed, it’s all down to her incompetent lawyer, a flawed trial and a frame-up, if not by the authorities then by the actual perpetrators. Carty was convicted of the murder of a young mother who was bound, gagged, and stuffed in the boot of a car (that’s the trunk to US readers). The evidence shows clearly that the death of Joana Rodriguez was not an unfortunate accident – which might just have reduced it to second degree murder or even manslaughter - it was an intentional and cruel act. Unlike her, Carty’s co-defendants – whom she had tricked into the kidnapping – were interested only in stealing drugs and money from the apartment the victim shared with her common law husband and his cousin.

Sally Rowan of Reprieve wrote:

If Texas go ahead with her execution, Linda will die because she had a bad lawyer, and because the British Government was not given the chance to help her at a time when it could have made a difference.

Yes, that bad lawyer again, but why should the State of Texas allow the British Government to dictate to it how it should run its criminal justice system - even if the British Government were so minded?

So what exactly are Carty and her supporters claiming?

READ MORE...

A recent conversation with what might be thought of as an American Brahmin, (which seem to be coming back into vogue) included the following exchange (paraphrased):

Me: The problem with central planning is the problem with all the social sciences—the failure to respect experimentation over argumentation.  That’s why I support greater State autonomy. 

Me: No, I’m saying that the philosophy of science is the proper basis for Polity…

And so forth…

The thing that struck me about this conversation is the attitude of the American Brahmin toward experimentation—as though Polity—or to cast another light on it, Politeness—rendered experimentation somehow less than Civil.

That’s when it struck me that true science is in fact Barbaric and will always be treated thus by ruling elites of any Polity because Polity depends on faith in a set of—usually unstated—hypotheses in human ecology adopted by religious faith as pragmatic enforcement of elite powers.

David Cameron gave a speech sans notes to his party’s Spring Conference today (ie, it was more sincere than usual).  It included a jaw-dropping three-minute passage that makes very satisfying listening for every BNP member.  His theme was “winning it for Britain”.  I won’t write anymore.  Just listen for yourself - in particular for the loudest cheer.

Hat tip to Simon Darby

by The Narrator

“Own a flat screen television? If not you’re missing out. In high definition everything is so clear and real looking …”

A trendy comment today on movies or TV shows is “realistic”. Over and over I hear this adjective applied to various bits of entertainment as an endorsement of it. The special effects are “realistic” or the fight scenes are “realistic” and so on.

I have to wonder, what exactly does it mean to say a movie is realistic? If there are writers, actors, directors, editors, pre-production, post production, sound and visual effects companies involved over the course of generally a year and half, what exactly does “real” mean in regards to packaged entertainment?

One example I’ve heard pointed out is the ubiquitous ‘blue screen’ or back-projections employed in films since the 1920’s, if not before. These were most commonly used in scenes where an actor or actress appears to be driving. Now they are quite obviously in a mock-up of a car in front of a projection of scenery going by. But does this matter?

I’ve read that the reason special effects have improved is that audiences today are more sophisticated than those in past times. However, is the need to be convinced that a space-ship is realistically rendered in CGI as it dog fights with aliens from Beta reticuli on the planet Zorbom really demonstrative of a sophisticated mindset?

It may seem an insignificant question but it gets to the heart of the current mentality of many a citizen of The West and their relationship with media.

And it isn’t just in the realm of goofy sci-fi films. A few years back I was encouraged to see a new James Bond film because, and I quote, “it’s not like the old ones. This one is more grounded and realistic.” I’ve never been much of a James Bond fan but I gave it a shot. And within the first twenty minutes I witnessed a superhuman comic book character running mile after mile without breaking a sweat, men free-climbing buildings like Spiderman, people jumping to the ground from two stories up (from atop cranes) –tuck-roll- then hop up and start running some more. This was capped off by the hero single-handedly defeating an army of heavily armed soldiers and slipping away during a massive explosion that, though wreaking tremendous damage and knocking everyone to the ground (save the hero), did not appear to harm a hair on anyone’s head. Apparently this was “realistic”.

READ MORE...

by Rod Cameron

New Labour’s decision to put the EHRC dog onto the BNP has cost New Labour dearly. Not only has New Labour disowned its Working Class roots, but also it has handed over on a silver plate the most precious part of its history, its formative years, to the BNP. History of a century and more ago has repeated. The danger inherent to becoming part of the Establishment is to forget your forebears and their struggles, and then you surrender your political soul. I offer you this analogy.

THE BRITISH LABOUR MOVEMENT AND THE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY

The decision by Nick Griffin to change the constitution of the BNP to allow blacks and Asians to join, following pressure from the EHRC, should be received by the BNP with a certain sanguinity. Knowledge of the rise of the British Labour Movement will result in a wry acceptance that this is “par for the course”. Not for the first time social realities are being ignored and Establishmentarian forces are arrayed against the political newcomer.

The Social Reality

Trade unionism and opposition to immigration were preservationist/survivalist reactions to social realities. The Labour Movement was motivated by the need for working-class preservation. The BNP arises from the desire for ethnic self-preservation.

Establishmentarian Reactions

READ MORE...