Harry's Place

Parties of the extreme fringes in Britain are notoriously prone to centrifugal forces; sub-sub-sects of Trots and of the Nationalist Right are so common a sight as to be a byword.

Griffin might not be everyone’s cuppa, but he and his gang have taken a scattering of cranks and produced a nationwide party which appeals to at least 5% of the electorate and, on some issues, to 20%.

Running a tight ship for the next decade is probably the best course for the BNP.

If and when the BNP jettisons its sillier baggage it may – MAY – make the electoral breakthrough the long-suffering Brits deserve.

Griffin and his gang are a scattering of cranks, and the membership of their party – all 9,000+ of them – are cranks, racists, oddballs, and/or thugs – the worst of white Britain.

The British people deserve good political leaders, not these idiots.

This is part of a campaign, it seems, to promote Chris Jackson to the position of leader. He subtitled the piece you refer to as: “What is the point of the BNP if you admit foreigners?

Picture of him here.

Though his strange grin makes him look like like he has just escaped from Broadmoor’s nonce’s wing, this cheesy fellow obviously believes in the party’s core values – “Fuck Foreigners, even if they’re born here.”

Some further commentary on this letter of resignation by Chris “would you like to see some puppies?” Jackson, Mike Easter and Kevin Bryan, see Lancaster Unity:

http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.com/2009/12/christmas-chaos-hits-bnp-as-chris.html

Apparently Jackson tried a leadership bid before, in 2007.

On to Mike Easter, who has also been dissing the leadership of the BNP.

Flash back to September 10, 2007, and a letter that Easter wrote to Tina Wingfield:

“…It seems to many of us that Nick Griffin is getting totally unbalanced and believes that no-one should challenge him for the Leadership of the Party, despite the fact that the Constitution allows for such challenges. You will know that the Party has lost, by various means, several key members over the last few weeks. I believe this is due to Nick’s refusal to run the Party openly and properly:

Andrew Spence, the very successful Sedgefield parliamentary candidate, praised all over the Party newspaper. He is alleged to have said, “He couldn’t get on with the sleazy people close to Griffin.”

Simon Smith, Sandwell Councillor and Black Country organiser. Left because he queried BNP accounts and expenses. Are the Party Accounts still overdue with the electoral Commission? ….”

Seems like there has been a rift in the party for some time.

Tina WIngfield, by the way, intends to fight Hazel Blears (for a parliamentary seat, unfortunately, and not in a ring, with both contestants covered in Marmite):
http://bnp.org.uk/2009/12/tina-wingfield-to-take-on-hazel-blears-in-salford/

The BNP is lead by ideological racists. It is the thing that makes sense of the world for them.

For them to ‘jettison’ that would be like the SWP dropping the Trotskyism.

Won’t happen!

Those fault lines never went away. Here’s Sonia Grable reporting on dissent in the party, from September 2008:

“……Nick Griffin, the British National Party leader, may have been wrong-footed by this year’s attempt to mount a challenge to his position. Colin Auty, a BNP councillor in Dewsbury until he resigned from the party in July, failed narrowly to gain the 100 signatures he needed to stand against Griffin but the attempt seems to have panicked the party leadership.

A change to the party constitution that did get passed was that candidates for leader will now have to obtain the backing of 5% of members with more than two years’ unbroken membership of the party instead of the present 100 signatures from members of two years’ standing, where the candidate is not a party office-holder. Those few people designated as office-holders need only 10 signatures. ….“

Re: Griffin and his gang are a scattering of cranks, and the membership of their party – all 9,000+ of them – are cranks, racists, oddballs, and/or thugs – the worst of white Britain.

Sounds like McLabour too, and if were talking Dictators, Broon a Scot, elected in Scotland, who have their own Parliament and government, has virtually no say over his own country (EU Region) Scotland, has full say over England where he is unelected, unaccountable and without mandate.

Dictator.

Fact.

Kevin Bryan is chapter leader for Rossendale & Rochdale BNP. Now this ignorant pillock is out-and-out racist. Notice here, how he introduces himself – “Ladies and gentleman, fellow Nationalists, fellow Whites“.

And he says “Britannia (ward) is 100% white, just as it should be“.

Lovely fellow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeIjViqovSE

Sounds like McLabour too, and if were talking Dictators, Broon a Scot, elected in Scotland, who have their own Parliament and government, has virtually no say over his own country (EU Region) Scotland, has full say over England where he is unelected, unaccountable and without mandate.

Sure Brown’s a totalitarian f*ckwit, who used to claim that Scotland needed to be be run according to the values of Antonio Gramsci, but there is a huge difference.

Nick Griffin leads his party into failure at every election, and does not get changed after the catastrophic defeat. And Griffin WAS elected at some stage in the past to head the party (unlike Broon).

After the next election, within three months of Labour losing, Brown will be kicked out by a putsch, probably led by a cabal of stoats and weasels led by David Miliband.

A

Why has Lee been silent on this and – more interestingly – the other thread by Edmund, about accounts?

After all, how Lee John Barnes gets funded is the most interesting aspect of the party.

He is not listed amongst the run-of-the-mill “members” in the leaked documents and his absence from the accounts, despite his being “Legal Director” just begs so many questions.

Please Lee, come and explain it all to us. You always have the right answers……

And what are you going to do with these racist traitors who are trying to destroy the party – Chris Jackson, Mike Easter and Kevin Bryan? Will there be a special Star Chamber for them? Or will your mates be sent round to sort them out?

“…it may – MAY – make the electoral breakthrough the long-suffering Brits deserve.”

What they deserve. That’s funny. Reminds me of a bit from Monty Python “Oh, I see. I hadn’t correctly divined your attitude toward..” well in this case the British public.

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode17.htm

That is because, despite attempting to cover up the fact that the BNP is an ideologically racist party, most voters know this and reject it.

The people who support the BNP are either ideological racists, or people who haven’t quite realised that this is the nature of the party. When they do, they generally denounce it, for that reason.

Racism just isn’t popular. Opposing immigration, ‘law and order’ and ‘anti politics’ has some traction. But thinking that skin colour is destiny just isn’t a runner for more than 5% or so.

You are right. In 2006 I stupidly thought the BNP leadership had turned over a new leaf re: racism.

Boy was I wrong.

The leaders and the rank and file cannot even consistently pretend to be against racism – their core support comes from their antagonism to anything non-white (Jobbik and other “foreign” groups are OK)

It would be like Azam Tamimi giving up on the idea of an Islamic State!!!

@ Adrian M

Perhaps Lee isn’t funded? I wouldn’t be suprised if he just get expenses (travel, stationary & perhaps the odd lunch if he’s lucky). After all the BNP appears to be primarily a money making enterprise for Griffin & his favourites. Having a well funded & staffed legal department would divert cash away from Griffins wallet.

I think Griffin regards Lee as a useful idiot. He can make noise, float ‘dangerous’ new ideas on his blog & have a go in the employment tribunal for various bnp guttersnipes who get fired. He comes in handy but isn’t worth a salary (note neither Griffin or Brons took him to Brussels)

When William Joyce left the British Union of fascists he wrote almost the same criticism of Mosley (in a pamphlet called ‘National Socialism now’.)

Question is, which foreign totalitarian power do this lot go and suck up too now?

Graham:When William Joyce left the British Union of fascists he wrote almost the same criticism of Mosley (in a pamphlet called ‘National Socialism now’.)

Didn’t he also find Mosley to be insufficiently anti-Semitic?

Adrian:In 2006 I stupidly thought the BNP leadership had turned over a new leaf re: racism.

The BNP? The BNP?

Racism just isn’t popular

Which is why I would rather have someone like Chris Jackson as leader than Nick Griffin, who some people seem to find plausible.

You are right. In 2006 I stupidly thought the BNP leadership had turned over a new leaf re: racism

Adrian I don’t for a minute think you are stupid. I will teach you a trick. People who are not racist, never say ‘I’m not a racist’ they just presume that it will be obvious or do not imagine that anyone could possibly believe that they were. Therefore when someone says ‘I am not a racist’ they mean ‘I am a racist, but I don’t want you to know that’. Likewise people who say ‘You can trust me’ generally cannot be trusted and people who say ‘I’m not going to hurt you’ (except in a medical context) are thinking about hurting you as they say it.

@ angrysoba
At that time I was busy with a lot of other more pressing items, and took my eye off the ball. I was only taking note of their superficial press statements. I knew the rank & file were braindead unreformed Nazis but I naively thought the leadership was trying to steer the party away from its racist past.

A few months later, when they started showing an interest in recruiting me, I found out what the party core was really about. I was seen as someone who might be able to promote them in the US. They have recently repeated the same tactic of trying to get US websites and writers to become “linked” to them.

In November last month they were sending this to US writers and bloggers:
http://alliednationalists.weebly.com/

Which has now had all its material removed (it is still too early to use the Wayback Machine to retrieve its contents)

Basically it claimed to be an alliance of various European nationalist groups (including Jobbik) but presenting itself to the US as patriotic and other bullcrap. One of our writers (a scientist) was hoodwinked into allowing them to place his name as an “associate” before we sent him relevant information and links, which led him to remove his name.

Thanks Ana – I know that now. They were publicly making a lot more running on the subject of Islam, and apart from that, they didn’t really feature on my radar like they did in the 1990s. I would send you a bunny pic, but Edmund would kick me.

Adrian, erm… okay. They’re constantly trying the trick of pretending to be a “reasonable” party, but the thing is that they don’t even know what reasonable is. You can see on some of their videos party members saying, “Yeah, all I want is the government to think about immigration.” Only for his mate to say, “Yeah right and to let us use the word n*****.”

Their sluglike leader probably thought he was being reasonable and sharp-witted by saying he has never been convicted of Holocaust denial on Question Time yet he was being slimy, loathsome and thick. The same goes for his comments on gay people and pretty much everything else. Lee John Barnes also thought Nick Griffin had made himself look good because the little twat also has no idea what are reasonable opinions. At some point after the programme someone in possession of the BNP brain cell at the time probably told His Repulsiveness that his performance was abject and they’d have to resort to Plan B: It was a stitch-up!

G&T,

You are correct, I am just an unpaid idiot.

People join political parties.

People leave political parties.

Same shit. Different day.

Big fucking deal.

Seeing as you are all soooooo excited, just leave a note and let me know who won the soggy biscuit today.

Reading Edmunds post above, I bet he wins the soggy biscuit on Harrys Place today.

Didn’t he also find Mosley to be insufficiently anti-Semitic?

Indeed he did and in a way that was true. Mosely was opportunistically anti-semitic in terms of Hitlerism (The Germans had an inbuilt and ‘unreasonable’ hatred of Jews so he thought.) This is why Arnold Leese called the BUF the ‘British Jewnion of fascists’. Mosely did though have the usual British country-house dwellers fear of the urban cosmopolitian. Paradoxically this led Joyce away from British nationalism into a European Nazism (Mosley followed in a slightly different way after the war). Griffin is of course following the post-war Mosley towards the idea of a united (white) Europe. The BNP ‘reform group’ find this insufficently British Nationalist. Round and round it all goes.

Is that the official BNP press release Lee?

I tried to read Rebecca West’s book on William Joyce’s trial but though it was interesting at first, it became too much hard work and after two chapters I had to return it to its owner.

But being American-born, there is still some debate about how he could not have been tried for treason, is there not?

G&T,

You are correct, I am just an unpaid idiot.

Being an unpaid idiot and a useful idiot are very different things, Lee.

But please stay, and maybe you can win the soggy biscuit prize today.

But being American-born, there is still some debate about how he could not have been tried for treason, is there not?

I don’t know. I haven’t heard that. I don’t see why he wasn’t British enough to be hanged for treason. I expect if Churchill had done what Joyce had then he would have been hanged too despite also being American-born.

Churchill was born in Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire:
http://www.blenheimpalace.com/

His mother Jenny was American, from the family that owned the New York Times.

William Joyce was born in New York to Irish parents.

Whoops! Looks like Churchill wasn’t American-born. Why did I think that?

Correction – Joyce’s mother was English. But when Joyce was born, it was before Home Rule so theoretically his father was still a subject of Britain. The family lived in Ireland thereafter until he became an adult. But Joyce could have claimed American citizenship.

You are correct, I am just an unpaid idiot.

May I be the first to congratulate you on your promotion from unpaid complete moron without a clue. Your present status may be a stretch but if you cut down on the drugs you may find it possible to do the job on an idiot with great distinction.

Joyce was hung because the jury decided that having a British passport (even if he had got it by false means) meant he was entitled to the protection of the King whilst in Germany and therefore still owed allegience to the UK. To be honest it isn’t one of British justice’s finest hours. Being Xmas I don’t want to restart another old argument by saying ‘and there but for the grace of God went PG Wodehouse’ (but I will anyway.)

Graham – Surely Christmas is exactly the time for restarting old arguments?

Graham, I am afraid you are premature in your congratulations.

In the early Twentieth Century, the words “moron” and “idiot” were proper technical terms for people with low intelligence. A “moron” was someone with an IQ of 51-70, while an “idiot” had an IQ of 0-25.

Sadly for the unpaid idiot LJB, moron status is but a distant dream. For now he will have to focus his efforts on promotion to imbecile (IQ 26-50). But one day, maybe one day…

But being American-born, there is still some debate about how he could not have been tried for treason, is there not?

It was more to do with the fact that he become a naturalized German in 1940 – at this time this would have meant that the US would have deemed him to have renounced his citizenship. However he had also joined London University’s OTC in 1922, for which he had to take an oath of loyalty to the King. His application was accompanied by a letter from his father claiming that all the family were British and not American citizens. On this strength he was later able to obtain a British passport. It was held that Joyce could face trial for treason as he had declared allegiance to the King both by joining the OTC and obtaining a British passport and, unlike Norman Baillie-Stewart (the original Lord Haw-Haw), was not a German citizen at the start of hostilities.

Thanks hasan

I never knew there was more than one “Lord Haw-Haw”. I just looked on Google and there quite a few entries. I had never heard of Norman Baillie-Stewart.

alauda,

All of those are Eugenic terms, is this something you support?

A neo-fascist party being led by a ‘dictator’ whose removal is ‘virtually impossible’. Surely not!

Expect a Night of the Long Knives against these traitors.

Adrian – in this part of Yorkshire there is an ancient tradition, still practiced, of making a dish called Dock Pudding from the new shoots of dock leaves when they first appear around April. My grandmother used to tell us how during the war, they were highly amused to hear a broadcast by Lord Haw Haw which claimed that the food situation in Britain was so bad that people in certain parts of Yorkshire were reduced to eating leaves!
And if you’ve never had the good fortune to try this delicacy, you must – it’s delicious.

alauda,

All of those are Eugenic terms, is this something you support?

No. They were, thankfully, consigned to the dustbin long before I studied psychology, tainted by association with the eugenicists as you say.

However, those are the historical origins of the words now only used as insults and I feel a certain irony in turning that against a representative of a party whose forebears were at the forefront of the eugenics movement. The point of the insults was about his rank in the BNP, wasn’t it?

David T

That is because, despite attempting to cover up the fact that the BNP is an ideologically racist party, most voters know this and reject it.

True.

The people who support the BNP are either ideological racists, or people who haven’t quite realised that this is the nature of the party. When they do, they generally denounce it, for that reason.

I’d say that the majority of BNP voters are not ideological racists, they know the BNP are, but vote for them anyway because they think that other issues just over-ride that in importance and nobody else is addressing them. Many of them would vote for a Geert Wilders type if one were available instead of the BNP (UKIP doesn’t quite cut it).

Racism just isn’t popular. Opposing immigration, ‘law and order’ and ‘anti politics’ has some traction. But thinking that skin colour is destiny just isn’t a runner for more than 5% or so.

True. Though the BNP doesn’t go on about things like race / IQ or race / crime / genes in public. Their racism is more “tribal loyalty” and subjective as presented, but also I’d say in reality.

The unfortunate thing though is that those horrible heretics who do go on about those things, a mixture of retired or tenured professors and internet “warriors”, have a massive load of truth and objective reality on their side, and lies have to be maintained by a self censored media culture that the internet can short circuit. So Kevin Rudd’s internet censorship will have to be enacted outside Australia and have a broader remit than kiddy porn if it is to be prevented from happening that race, crime, IQ and what flows from it, are all to be linked right down to specific genes in the next 5-10 years or so, and the public are going to know about it, as the shrinkage in hours spent looking at TV continues and hours on the internet increases – the current Christmas No 1 being a portent of that.

How is the public going to take to the fact that race is important to outcomes and effects average attributes not just below but above the neck? One plausible sounding consequence is that the public will find the BNP’s racial message at least somewhat less objectionable.

So the BNP ranking system (in descending order) is: “retarded”, “idiotic”, “imbecilic”, “stupid”, “feeble-minded”, and Lee John Barnes?

It was probably the (actual German) Wolf Mittler who was first called Lord Haw Haw. Margaret Joyce who was undoubtedly English and who also broadcasted for Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda pretty much got off scott free. Farndale’s biography of them both is quite entertaining (reviewed here:)

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article528150.ece

Still. For us former London University students its always fun to wind up someone from Birkbeck by asking them who was their most famous alumni.

And if you’ve never had the good fortune to try this delicacy, you must – it’s delicious.

Thanks! I will certainly look for recipes online. If you say that Dock Pudding is delicious, I wil take your word for it. I like tasting new things. I live in the countryside so dock leaves are abundant. But I would not recommend them in late summer or autumn when they are swarming with these beauties:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adrian_morgan/3623874828/in/set-72157611861775685/

Gastrophysa viridula, the green dock leaf beetle

Terrapin -

Rageh Omaar’s excellent Race and Intelligence: Science’s Last Taboo blew apart the biological racism crap you cite as authoritative. You can watch it starting here.

Edmund: I watched that show and it is very, very shallow and clearly produced purely to prove a biased premise; very unscientific.

Pretty much all shows in that vein are little more then left wing masturbation fantasises and empty propaganda; another I watched a little while back on C4 about the merits of mixed race and this also biased show actually raised the fact that darker races (east Asians aside) were less intelligent genetically but were ‘bridging the gap’ at a huge rate due to racial mixture merely to validate their propaganda point.

The weight of evidence is that Terrapin is right, and so agree the leading experts. Many more would too if we didn’t live in such a tyranny whereby objective science and scientists are subjected to Orwellian style consequences if they dare to research the politically incorrect or dare to find politically incorrect data.

Intelligence aside, we already know the gene responsible for intrinsic violent behaviour Monoamine oxidase A, and we already know that it varies in occurrence and levels between the races, with whites having the lowest reading; as to be expected with this research, already ‘ideological objections’ have been raised.

We know race and genes are extremely important, and as Terrapin says, we are finding out more each day, albeit much more slowly then would be the norm if the subject were no so ‘un PC.’

Monoamine oxidase is an enzyme and not a gene.

“Monoamine oxidase is an enzyme and not a gene.”

Pretty odd and petty distinction to make; doesn’t change the facts, but well done if it makes you feel any better. It is partly true.

Monoamine oxidase A, also known as MAOA, is an enzyme which in humans is encoded by the MAOA gene.

This gene encodes monoamine oxidase A, an enzyme that degrades amine neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin.

An association between a rare 2 repeat of the VTNR region of the gene and an increase in the likelihood of committing serious crime or violence has been found

As already described, we already know that it varies in occurrence and levels between the races, with whites having the lowest reading; as to be expected with this research, already ‘ideological objections’ have been raised.

No surprise really. The truth is not welcome in this world right now.

@Edmund Standing

Rageh Omaar’s excellent Race and Intelligence: Science’s Last Taboo blew apart the biological racism crap you cite as authoritative. You can watch it starting here.

It did no such thing. “Cite as authoritative” is an interesting choice of phrase. As if science were a matter of authority. It is not. The things that convince are numbers and evidence. That blacks score the same in the US and UK despite different histories. Crime rates showing patterns above and beyond any cultural explanation in multiple countries. Adoptions of identical twins including transracial adoptions showing the same things in relation to IQ and race.

Some of the most interesting questions will relate to how this applies to individuals and not races. How will education, the bastion of blank slatism, react when we can point to good correlations between academic success and failure and specific genes? Or even that those effects can be altered with drugs, diet or even gene therapy?

How will we react to crime and punishment where a gene scan can give a very good estimate of recidivism rates, and criminality itself may be found to be largely genetic, and again potentially mitigated by drugs, diet or gene therapy?

didgidont

Intelligence aside, we already know the gene responsible for intrinsic violent behaviour Monoamine oxidase A, and we already know that it varies in occurrence and levels between the races, with whites having the lowest reading; as to be expected with this research, already ‘ideological objections’ have been raised.

There is going to be a lot more than one gene involved in violent behaviour, and all genes express through interaction with the environment. MAOA is not the complete answer to racial crime differences, it only accounts for a minority of the expressed difference, but what it is is a proof of concept. It varies by race, and it has associations and relative risk stats every bit as good as those that are trivially and routinely accepted as those between certain genes and coronory heart disease, for example, and more so than many other genes which have an effect on human behaviour and are accepted as doing so routinely (e.g. the dozen or so genes that have been linked to schizophrenia or bipolar).

It may well be the case that blacks also have higher frequencies of genes that have effect to reduce their crime rates compared to whites, and that all those genes commulatively mean that whites and blacks have equal propensities to crime without environmental differences, so the blank slatists have some rabbit holes they can run down into. However it will get to the point where the no average racial differences proponents will start to look ever increasingly ridiculous, having to deny useful science in association studies that have been beneficial in things like heart disease, in order to maintain their dogma and not let the sheeple get bad ideas. Either that or an authoritarian regime will have to be established.