Why some old timers might think Jews helped whip up the war fever that lost the British their empire

Anti-Semitism discussed from 9:20

From 21st minute: "We can never have a racial policy in Great Britain because we are running a multi-racial empire."

CPS to re-examine the case of a prolific anti-Semite who claims the West are “slaves” to the “Zionist agenda” https://t.co/ESlhtM0wcG

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 8, 2017

I thought Jews are a wise people. Is it wise to oppress the gentile and take away his free speech in his own land?  https://t.co/ZH4jkwdRBl

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 8, 2017

I wonder if sensible Jews agree with Gideon Falter/Campaign Against Anti-Semitism actions: provoking the gentiles. https://t.co/ZH4jkwdRBl

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 8, 2017

If I were a Jewess, I'd be a sensible Jewess, I like to think, n I wdn't be going out of my way to provoke gentiles. https://t.co/VEL2v4mUMh

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 8, 2017

Sensible Jews would know that complaining about anti-Semitism would have the effect of provoking more of it.  https://t.co/ZH4jkwdRBl

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 8, 2017

Jews are the tribe most protected from being complained about, are they not? This in itself arouses great resentment https://t.co/ZH4jkwdRBl

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 8, 2017

Nothing provokes the majority more than a vocal minority being given what they perceive of as undeserved privilege. https://t.co/ZH4jkwdRBl

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 8, 2017

This is a very provocative display of Jewish power likely to be resented by gentiles.  https://t.co/ZH4jkwdRBl

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 8, 2017

It seems folly for a minority to provoke the majority and flaunt its power over them with such hubristic arrogance. https://t.co/ZH4jkwdRBl

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 8, 2017

What is anti-Semitism? You are an anti-Semite if Jews hate you for saying anything they find offensive.  https://t.co/ZH4jkwdRBl

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 8, 2017

What explains the supine nature of a gentile judiciary to Jewish demands in a land where the majority are gentile?  https://t.co/ZH4jkwdRBl

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 8, 2017

The answer must be that the libtard judiciary is the Enemy of the People and are so out of touch, mad and silly they no longer hide this. https://t.co/w9IOEX5qcu

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 8, 2017

No mention of the name of the judge who made this decision. If this judge was Jewish, shouldn't he have recused himself? https://t.co/EwvRf3ixvN

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 8, 2017

It would be nice to have British historians discussing this, to hear the other side.Will they dare? It is such a political hot potato that historians both Jew or gentile must fear being accused of anti-Semitism whatever they say and however impartial they mean to be towards Jews. 

What I make of The Second Thirty Years' War is explained at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/poppy-mania-day-prevents-any-rational.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/the-battle-for-barking-revisited.html

"Why did British people die in the Second World War?" one BNP-supporting householder asked.

"They died to let everyone come in and take over."

Secular Koranism is the antidote to anti-Semitism

Are you an anti-Semite just because Jews hate you? 

Why some old timers might think Jews helped whip up the war fever that lost the British their empire

Richard Edmonds of the NF on the two ruinous world wars Britain inexplicably fought

7 August 2015
rttimes.co.uk

British foreign policy has been insane for approximately 100 years.

British domestic policy has been insane for approximately half that time.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/why-i-would-be-pleased-to-see-statue-of.html

When you ask a lunatic what he thinks he is doing, he sometimes manages to give what sounds like an intelligible answer.  However, when you enquire further, you discover that he has become catatonic and is not responding at all.

Why did Britain enter two ruinous wars?  Can any British historian explain this?

Actually, not even the Right who denounce the warmongers in the Liberal government of Asquith as well as the Conservative government of Chamberlain, can explain this.  

But I can.  The answer lies in Gilbert & Sullivan's IOLANTHE.

ACT II.
Scene. — Palace Yard, Westminster, Westminster Holly L, Pri-
vate Willis discovered on Sentry, R, Night.
^ SONG.— WILLIS. 

When all night long a chap remains
On sentry-go, to chase monotony
He exercises of his brains :
That is, assuming that he's got any.
Though never nurtured in the lap
Of luxury, yet, I admonish you,
I am an intellectual chap.
And think of things that would astonish you.
I often think it's comical (fal, lal, la !)
How Nature always does contrive (fal, lal, la !)
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservattve.
Fal, lal, la I
When in that house MPs divide.
If they've a brain and cerebellum too,
They've got to leave that brain outside
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.
But then the prospect of a lot
Of dull MPs in close proximity.
All thinking for themselves, is what
No man can face with equanimity*.
Then let's rejoice with loud fal, lal, fal, lal, la I
That Nature wisely does contrive (fal, lal, la !)
That every boy and every gal
That's born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative.
Fal, lal, la! 

*  http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html  Peter Bone's House of Commons Disqualification Bill never got anywhere, did it?

What does this mean?

Are MPs too stupid to see the cause of their own oppression?

Or are they too afraid to complain about it?

Why do successive governments contrive to facilitate immigration when they know their voters hate it?  Do they know what they are doing, or are they being a combination of mad, stupid and evil?

The answers to these questions are contained in the following:

1. Representative Democracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy
2. Indiscriminate universal suffrage.  The welfare-dependent should be disenfranchised.  
3. The lack of protection of the rights of party members making them afraid to criticise or question party policy or their leader  http://conservativehome.blogs.com/parliament/2010/10/peter-bone-seeks-to-abolish-the-flatterers-cajolers-and-sometime-bullies-that-are-the-party-whips.html 
4. The lack of a one-party state whose operation would necessarily become more transparent than the current apparent abundance and confusion of choice.  Joining the wrong one could easily ruin your political career.  
5. Feminism and the Single Mother Factor that inclines politicians to the Left to attract the votes of spoilt, irresponsible and parasitical women who never think of the long term national interest.  http://www.examiner.com/article/how-the-single-mother-factor-was-responsible-for-obama-s-win-1
6. The matriarchy we have been living in is irrational and causes men to behave irrationally too.  http://www.heretical.com/sheppard/hflttww.html  
7. The principle of free speech is not understood, not even by the nationalist parties who complain about a lack of free speech.  
8. Nobody trusts anyone and no one can rely on anyone because they have no code of honour and the idea of behaving like gentlemen with a sense of fair play has long since been lost, if it ever existed.  

Nationalist parties unable to put the political establishment on the defensive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NgRxunKAT0M

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/national/emma-west-%E2%80%93-victim-multicultural-judicial-system

Instead of whingeing about persecution, nationalist parties should have demanded to know why the CPS deliberately exacerbated racial tensions, instead of fining her for breach of the peace or being drunk and disorderly.

It is patently obvious that over-charging her with s 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 was deliberate and malicious and not in the public interest.

The legal phrases of malicious prosecution and abuse of process come to mind.

Shame I ain't Media Spokesman for the BNP, eh?

God forbid that Nick Griffin should allow anything constructive to be done to help the white working classes apart from whingeing about Muslims.  

Who to vote for in the Croydon North By Election if you are a social conservative

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y4rCu_GRyGM
Election Address of Richard Edmonds NF candidate

Richard Edmonds in his characteristic finger-wagging pose.  VOTE RICHARD EDMONDS  (even if you are not white)!

Sadly, there is no mention in Richard's election address of feminism fuelling widespread illegitimacy leading to the degeneracy of the white working classes making them no longer fit for purpose.   The egregious equality of British state education for which the female-dominated teaching profession is largely irresponsible also fails anyone whose parents do not value education and cannot afford school fees.

Until and unless nationalists find the courage to challenge the morals of their women, they will not succeed.

In this video, there is no sign that Richard Edmonds wishes to challenge feminism which makes the women of Paedo Bastard Britain Slutland what they are: slags and unfit mothers breeding a generation of degenerate NEETs and NEET-breeding SSMs whom no sane employer would employ.

However, if I were white working class voter living in Croydon North I would be voting for Richard, a conviction politician, even if he does not see eye to eye with me about challenging feminism, and even though he excluded me from a Nationalist Unity Meeting in London because of a certain gun-toting photograph of me that came to his notice, which he thought would give nationalists a Bad Name.  I feel sure too that the late John Tyndall would have had no problem at all in denouncing feminism.  Richard is a good and entertaining speaker and has even bought me a drink or two in the past.  He is the best receptacle of your protest vote if you are a social conservative and are uneasy about the effects of immigration.   Even non-white British citizens are getting alarmed about immigration.  They should vote for Richard too.  He is not going to win anyway, and you won't be sent on the first banana boat home, but you can give the Tories a slap in the face for supporting gay marriage and betraying their own principles.  

It is just stupid to think that all non-white people are liberals.  In fact, Asians are more socially conservative than white people.  Indeed, Muslims are a force for social conservatism.  If you can't forcibly repatriate them then you might as well get them to vote for you.  I am afraid the only hope for white man now is to use religion to protect him from feminism.  Islam is the way, or at any rate Secular Koranism.  Unpalatable though it is, the White Man must swallow his bitter medicine and start dealing with his SSM Sacred Cows who are eating his country out of house and home as well as leaving their cow pats all over his nice carpet.

If you are a genuine Conservative you should also vote for Richard Edmonds. David Cameron is not a Conservative - he is a Whateverist.   (A Whateverist has no principles and will say anything to keep himself in power or win your vote.)  Just because David Cameron is the leader of the Conservative Party does not mean he is a Conservative.   He is just a Great Pretender.

David Cameron too is afraid of SSMs.  He is afraid of them because they have the vote, but there are ways of dealing with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croydon_North_by-election,_2012


VOTE RICHARD EDMONDS IF YOU ARE A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE OF ANY RACE.






HELP ME ANNOY THE PC BBC

Would you like to nominate Claire Khaw for the iPM New Year Honour for being the most entertainingly philosophical, political and theological Woman of the Year?  Go on, go on, go on!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b018xymw

Would you like me to the be the Most Powerful Woman in Britain?
Do you want to annoy the feminazis at Woman's Hour?  Then you know what to do: nominate me!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/features/womans-hour/power-list/
(They won't let me win, but they will definitely get annoyed if the nominations keep coming in!)

Andrew Brons leaves the BNP. What next for British nationalism?

https://apps.facebook.com/theguardian/politics/2012/oct/16/bnp-andrew-brons-resigns-mep


No nationalist party will get anywhere without new blood and a reviving injection of civic nationalist maturity. It remains to be seen how adventurous and innovative Brons will be.

His main problem was always too little, too late.

I doubt if he and his associates did form a party they would have me in it.

That is why I don't think they will get anywhere.

Ethno-nationalism is a dead duck ideology and the only high profile member of the NF is Richard Edmonds.

Although I like and respect Richard, he is not the man capable of making nationalism attractive to those not born into the faith, shall we say.

The BFP are now seen as losers rejected by the EDL. They are already tainted by their Islamophobia. They will not have the will or the sense to recant from that either.

It would just be easier if nationalists hailed me as their leader and formed a party round me.

I would be quite happy to use as much of the old BNP constitution as I practically can, including having annual leadership elections when the membership reaches a certain stated minimum to be agreed between myself and the other founder members.

The problem, as ever, is finding a good leader, and this is not a problem confined only to nationalism.

Looking around, I am probably as good as you are ever going to get. If you don't agree then find someone better capable of connecting with the voting public. You won't be able to.

If you disagree, then just name a single nationalist you can think of who can get as much publicity as I can.

I have been around for years, and I am not a flash in the pan. I do not really think my conviction and courage can be doubted.

All that I believe in I have already stated publicly, repeatedly and loudly. There will be no nasty surprises.

All the evidence against me is already online.

Choosing me as your leader would immediately wash away the taint of racism from nationalism.

If you have not seen the writing on the wall, then you cannot read and obviously refuse to learn. There are none so blind as those who will see, and Pride (especially chauvinistic racial pride) is a Deadly Sin.

British Nationalist (now in National Front) Richard Edmonds tells us where he gets his underwear

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ILaNNTPw_Q

and also that the West is bankrupt.   

Nationalist meeting in Newcastle on Sunday 27 May 2012

http://www.civilliberty.org.uk/newsdetail.php?newsid=1497

I would encourage any nationalist concerned about the future of nationalism to attend this meeting so that questions can be asked of the speakers.

1. Do any of them see feminism as a nationalist issue?
2. Is feminism an issue that nationalists should avoid because it is controversial?
3. Do any all of them see controversy as an opportunity to show the liberals how wrong they are?
4. Is feminism a sacred cow of the British?
5. Should nationalists propose that the sacred cow of feminism be slain?
6. How good has feminism been for nationalists?
7. How good is feminism for the long national interest?
8. Is feminism the enemy of family values?
9. Does feminism condone the right of women to be never married mothers?
10. Does the tolerance of widespread illegitimacy lower educational and moral standards?
11. Does the fact that most babies born in Britain are born out of wedlock augur well for the future of the British?
12. Do any of them see that the tolerance of widespread illegitimacy has led to the degeneracy of the British race?  (By degeneracy I mean your offspring being physically, economically, intellectually, educationally and morally inferior to you.)
13. Do any of them see feminism as the enemy of male and parental authority through which the traditions of any society are passed?
14. Have you noticed that women are far more easily offended than men and how often they call for more taxes to be imposed to suppress free speech and more laws to be passed?
15. Have you noticed how female-dominated and feminist-dominated is the teaching profession?
16. Have you noticed how cleverly the feminist teaching profession disguises its failure to teach your children to be employable?
17. Have you noticed how good women are tricked into careers so they forget to have children?
18. Have you noticed how promiscuous and irresponsible women are not discouraged from having their illegitimate children at the expense of the British taxpayer?
19. Is the degeneracy of the white working classes the reason why successive governments bring in immigrants to do the jobs they should be doing? 
20. Do you think the contempt in which Muslims hold the white man is something to do with the perception that white women are mostly slags as well as the worst mothers in the world,  and that the white man is afraid of his women?
21. Is true that nationalist men do not trust themselves to challenge feminism?
22. If it is true that nationalist men are afraid of their women, should they not let someone else do it?   
23. Do the speakers agree that the person best able to challenge feminism is Claire Khaw?
24. If Claire Khaw is indeed the person best able to speak against feminism on behalf of nationalists and the nation, should nationalists not consider becoming civic nationalists so she can join and represent the party's views on feminism?

If you feel strongly enough about these issues and think that these issues need to be tackled forcefully and intelligently, just print this out and hand it to the speakers at the meeting, after asking one or some of these questions from the floor.  

Otherwise, you know what they will do.  Put you to the expense and trouble of attending the meeting just to to boost their egos while doing NOTHING at all for you, except telling you to wait and see.  

The old dinosaurs of nationalism will not change their tired ideas until and unless they are made to.  Don't let them fob you off any more!

WHY BRITISH NATIONALISM IS COLLAPSING AND THE UNITY OPTIONS ON OFFER by David Jones

Honoured Guest Blogger David Jones  (Over the Farm Gate)

I think, by now, even the most ardent sticks in the mud supporting Nick Griffin can, seeing the dismal election results, no longer all is fine and dandy in UK Nationalism.

The poor showing by the BNP in comparison to both other parties and their previous vote cannot be glossed over with sugar-coated begging letters from Welshpool. Confidence in Nationalist Politics is at an all time low. I know that because even I've been feeling the biting pinch upon the morale of all those that call ourselves English/ British Nationalists.

Despite a rash of "Unity Meetings" around the land, I fear that the agenda/ s at play are not unity but self/ brand interest.

There are essentially two currents flowing in that circuit.

The first is a push to promote the National Front, the main asset there being Richard Edmonds. This is not a genuine unity effort in my opinion, no disrespect to the ex-BNP officials now working hard within the NF, but a recruitment drive. When I was an NF member in late 2003, I was told that the NF believed that progress was only possible if the other parties are undermined and marginalised, that attitude in my opinion is part of the NF's DNA and will never change. Whatever the sound logic of that, the fact remains that other parties exist, and such an attitude is bound to rouse hostility from other groups. It did from me anyway, but I have a strong belief that submission to another group or its philosophy constitutes a strong personal defeat - hence my hatred of organised religion.

The second current is the Brons-Lewthwaite axis. This is a northern based push to promote an alliance of northern-based parties and rebel BNP members around the DN Party, and employing a sportingly co-operative Andrew Brons MEP as their main event, with support from the England-First and British Movement. This for all its faults will be the better option for those seeking competent organisers to work with. Their website and propaganda could do with a makeover though but they appear to know their business.

Caught up in the currents are the London-based IONA and New Right, who appear to be a in quarrel with each other but these can be dismissed as talking shops, and they have been pushed down into the flyweight division since their recent loss of the late Jonathan Bowden, the talented orator. We may safely disregard the BNP from the equation now as I think we already know.

Opens two distinct possibilities:

1. The vast number of independent nationalists and freelancers have an greatly increased chance of influencing the shape of things to come. If, that is, we can drag them away from their PC's and present our common demands and grievances. There is an enormous pool of talent going to waste here.

2. If the DN Party/Brons axis is centred in the North and the NF camp operates out of London, the exception being East Lancashire, there exists a strong possibility of infighting over the influence of nationalism in East Lancashire. With a strong NF presence in Rochdale & Rossendale that feels no love lost against the England-First Party in Preston and the increasing DN Party presence in Burnley then we could see the real battle lines drawn in this "unity effort".

Interesting times lie ahead. The NF wouldn't attend the Unity meeting I attended in Burnley and the theme there was "Nationalism in One County".

This could be a highly intriguing time for an independent nationalist hoping to fight a by election in nearby Todmorden in November, with the Lancashire County Council seats up next year in May 2013.

I don't want to miss this history in the making.

David Jones,
Todmorden, East Lancashire.

Further thoughts on nationalist unity

Why do I bother, eh?

They are not my people and very much dislike me for saying the things I do.  I am now banned for every kind of nationalist meeting for trumped-up reasons.  

Troy Southgate, the Organiser of the New Right Meetings pretends I am a security risk merely for blogging on what they discussed.

Jez Turner banned me from attending a London Forum Meeting in April for reasons he refuses to disclose.

Richard Edmonds now claims that I support the actions of Anders Breivik whom I have described as a terrorist on  numerous occasions, and nothing I say, long or short, will disabuse him of the idea.  Indeed, the very idea is defamatory, for every response he gives suggests that he has not read anything of what I have said, because his purpose was to pretend that I support Breivik and use this reason to exclude me.  

But if I don't remain active in nationalism and wag my finger at the men like an officious nanny, who will?  There is no one in nationalism who dares denounce feminism, except Simon Sheppard,  the Political Prisoner, and he is under a very strict control order that prevents him from discussing politics at all, I understand.  

Give me the name of a man better able to lead the nationalist movement to dizzying heights of triumph and national influence than I, and I will shut up and return to the kitchen!  

Nationalist Unity Meeting 17 May 2012

I enquired what was decided at the meeting.  My sources inform me that they discussed whether or not to form another party and get the 65 year old retirement aged Andrew Brons to be the figurehead.

I have no idea why nationalists would think that yet another nationalist micro-party with a leader older and slower than Nick Griffin, defeated in a leadership election, could ever be more successful than the current BNP, especially one that has decided to dissociate itself from me because it is pretending that I endorse the actions of Breivik when I have taken every care to say that Breivik is a terrorist and that it is possible for nationalists to gain influence even under the current rules, but only if they are strategically astute.

Perhaps it is yet another disease of the mind that Western men are currently afflicted by.

The last time I attended such a meeting, I told them that they needed to find a leader who is obviously better than Nick Griffin, but I fear that they either did not understand the implication of my words or cannot quite grasp that Andrew Brons is obviously not better than Nick Griffin, since he was defeated in a leadership contest.

If I had been allowed to attend, and not shunned because Richard Edmonds has chosen to pretend that I endorse the actions of Breivik (whom I had described as a terrorist on numerous occasions), I would have said the same thing, and doubtless they would have listened just as uncomprehendingly and carried on just as before.

I wonder if this proposed party that would have Andrew Brons as figurehead would have an ideology that is ethno-nationalist, or civic nationalist.   Perhaps it did not even occur to them to address this issue at their meeting.   Since it was mostly ex-BNP members who have now gone over to the NF, they will be going back to muttering darkly about forcible repatriation again, probably, seemingly oblivious to the fact that any attempt to do so would bring about civil war, and that  British citizens who have been born here have nowhere to be "repatriated" to.

It is terribly terribly sad that they do not seem to have realised that time has moved on or heard of the old Texan saying "If all you do is all you ever did, then all you'll get is all you ever got" - defeat and disappointment.

Most of my ex-BNP buddies have gone to the English Democrats (who are too bland and boring) or the NF (who are too full of stick in the mud dinosaurs who have not noticed that the non-white British citizens they would like to repatriate have been born here for three generations now).

Ironically and laughably, they like to pretend that they are more intellectually and socially respectable than me and claim falsely that I endorse Breivik's actions (even though they cannot find anything I have said in words and deed to prove this), when it is they who fear and hate Muslims more than me.

In fact, I do not fear Muslims at all.  In fact, I think there is much of their religion that the British used to follow before the Muslims arrived.   In fact, I propose that Islam - and a distinctly Anglicised form of it, with Anglican forms of worship in Churches with carols and hymns, pews and pulpits (but with Trinitarian elements excised) should be made the national state religion after the current lot of third-rate minds incapable of discussing morality beyond tolerating every damn single evil thing, openly gay priests, women, socialists, liberals and feminist clergymen have been defenestrated and dramatically disestablished.

Predictably, I have not been given the opportunity of putting it to put it to them that civic nationalism will give ethno-nationalists more of what they want than ethno-nationalism.  Perhaps they already know this, but don't care, as long as they can keep themselves busy going round ever-decreasing circles.

Even I would be give nationalists a sense of a new dawn than Andrew Brons ever would.  Many at the last meeting I attended complained of the tardiness and ineffectiveness of his actions, always too little, always too late.

I really do not think they want success, but prefer the failure that fuels their grievance, because that is all they ever knew and all they will ever know.   Put to them a new idea and they will behave in exactly the way a vampire would  if you offered them a phial of holy water or a wreathe of garlic.   You cannot help the Undead, especially if they do not want to be helped.

Perhaps the only future for the independent nationalist who refuses to give up is to infiltrate the established parties.   The Conservative Party would be the obvious choice, now that they have a seething simmering backbenchers' rebellion after having ousted Peter Bone, the most rebellious of the rebel Tory MPs.

Sadly, for most of my ex-BNP buddies, they will be too tribal and socially awkward to contemplate leaving the group of people they have met at their little social club that they fondly imagine is a political party.  

WHY THE NATIONALISTS SHOULDS GROW SOME BALLS AND OPEN THEIR MEETINGS UP TO CONTROVERSIAL AND OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS by David Jones

AN OPEN LETTER TO IN DEFENCE OF CLAIRE KHAW'S RIGHT TO ATTEND NATIONALIST UNITY MEETING

By David Jones (Over the Farm Gate, Pennine Independent Nationalist)

Honoured Guest Blogger David Jones

Nationalism is in a crisis, we are not facing violent threats, state bans or unimaginable horrors, we are facing the worst thing a nationalist could ever face—obscurity!

I have been following the case of my friend and ally Claire Khaw being excluded from a “Nationalist Unity” meeting in London. Now it is highly likely she is being excluded on colour grounds, the keynote speaker Richard Edmonds is a member of the National Front and the National Front certainly wouldn’t allow Claire to attend one of their meetings.

However at such “unity” meetings she has been allowed to attend in the past but hysterical reaction to

a) her controversial and outspoken attacks on welfare-fuelled feminism,
b) her blogging about nationalist speakers and what they said at nationalist meetings and
c) her being unafraid to associate with swastikas etc

To begin with the first I suggest you read her earlier post “why feminism is a nationalist issue”, (http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/feminism-is-nationalist-issue.html) and also in a more recent context her article about the “Rochdale Grooming Gang” case (http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/notice-how-neurotic-british-journalists.html and http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/simple-solution-to-problem-of-sex.html).

The second relates to the veil of secrecy that nationalists see fit to impose over everything that they do. The situation with her being excluded from the last IONA meeting in London being a prime example, for that read her blog post “Harmless old dears harassed by far left” (http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/harmless-old-dears-harassed-by-far-left.html) , surely nationalists WANT controversial publicity, surely they do not want to be driven into obscurity. If they don’t care about being driven into obscurity then they are not playing to win - and by definition do not have the nation's interest at heart.

Thirdly, read Claire’s blog post about her exclusion from this upcoming meeting where Mr Edmonds is due to speak. (http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/reasons-given-to-exclude-me-from.html)

Regarding her photos taken at my address it is highly strange that many White Nationalist want to make use of Third Reich Symbolism, the BPP uses the drab-looking Celtic Cross in a “Nazi style setting. I would rather get straight to the point... I use a Swastika. The swastika is a common symbol of rebellion on the Outlaw world of motorcycles.

David Jones with a BPP Celtic Cross behind him

Hells Angel Auckland Swastika

Hell's Angels President Sonny Barger told the Los Angeles Times in the 1960s. "If a Hells Angels guy is wearing Nazi paraphernalia, it's basically their equivalent of sticking up a finger to some middle class family they see in a Volvo.”

I am however a serious nationalist who is prepared to go out and gather serious support, despite my being unafraid (like Claire Khaw) to be photographed with a swastika. You, Mr Edmonds once questioned me in disbelief at a recent Bacup National Front Meeting, expressing alarm that I as a serious candidate could wear the jacket pictured below.

David Jones with gun and flag

Richard Edmonds in tie and suit

Just compare my election campaign with yours, though yours was more high profile the NF got less than 0.6% of the vote whereas mine got 8.5% of the vote, despite the fact that I’m more likely to be seen in a Swastika–emblazoned motorcycle jacket that a suit. Believe me the public don’t care. 

Nationalist Unity

Richard, if you’re reading this, learn a few lessons and realize that nobody cares how strongly or loudly you condemn Mr. Breivik, the press will still treat us like pariahs regardless. We are not the good guys in this cause and in the public minds, we are villains and we can’t change that. I urge you to support Ms. Claire Khaw attendance the meeting, and accept the fact that we as nationalists must be prepared to adopt a daring and aggressive, middle finger strategy, and stop treating nationalist as a spectator sport with old fashioned house rules.

We are not engaged in a debate between gentlemen here but a fight for the survival of Britain.



NB:  As a result of our Nationalist Unity photos, probably, Amazon are now selling Nazi flags.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/05/16/the-debate-should-amazon-be-selling-nazi-flags/

£6.44 each if anyone's interested.  http://www.amazon.co.uk/German-Regular-Nazi-Party-1920-1945/dp/B004NDDF0C/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

If you read this and agree with it, you should have the courage to vote for Tess Culnane, but you probably won't because you are a piece of gutless scum and DESERVE to have your country taken over

http://www.national-front.org.uk/?p=236

If you live in Greenwich and Eltham and agree with the sentiments in this leaflet, then you have no choice but to vote for Tess Culnane.

But will you?

When Tess was still in the BNP and on the selection panel, I knew she objected on principle to having either me and Carlos Cortiglia (the Uruguayan who was rumoured to have supported the Argies in the Falklands War) as the BNP London Mayoral Candidate, because there were perfectly good white candidates such as Jeffrey Marshall to represent the party.  Tess told me that the last straw was when she saw Nick Griffin refusing to even glance at Jeffrey's excellent CV.   My dealings with her have always been civil and cordial, and I bear her no animosity whatsoever.  In fact, my dealings with many NF members have been perfectly friendly.  Richard Edmonds once bought me a coffee.   Recently, that nice Peter Rushton of the England First Party  who are having a meeting in Burnley this Saturday http://efp.org.uk/nationalist-unity-meeting-%E2%80%93-burnley-%E2%80%93-10th-march-2012/ bought me a pint at a David Irving talk http://fpp.co.uk/ and told me he had appeared on Russia Today.  http://rt.com/news/syria-referendum-vote-constitution-211/

I have met members of the British People's Party
http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/09/my-afternoon-in-york-with-simon.html and probably have more problems with UKIP (who like to pretend I am a some sort of baby-eating racist monster who must never join their party when I am in fact a Libertarian Civic Nationalist just like them) than with many ethno-nationalists.

Tess Culnane, NF London Mayoral Candidate 2012

Eddy Butler's leadership challenge meeting 20 July 2010

Shelly Rose Bedfordshire Organiser with Eddy Butler

 Michael Barnbrook and Richard Edmonds 

 Richard Edmonds explaining the awfulness of the new BNP constitution and how impossible it was to get a copy of it.  Was something "medically wrong" with Nick Griffin, he wondered?  The BNP was told by the court to remove the infamous miscegenation clause in March 2010, but this was not done and the offending section 3.2.2 reappeared in Annex 3 of the 12th edition of party constitution dated 9 April 2010 (page 83)  incurring unnecessary legal costs the Party can ill afford.  http://www.bnp.org.uk/constitution-british-national-party  The constitution remains riddled with offending sections that will give the EHRC plenty of reasons to come back for more blood making the Party incur yet more legal costs. 

Shelly Rose the Bedfordshire Organiser and Una Rice, explaining to the camera how to deal with the nomination form sent by the party and the nomination form sent by Eddy Butler. 

DERECK BEACKON

The meeting began an hour later than stated.  I was introduced by Jeffrey Marshall to Derek Beackon  the first BNP councillor elected in 1992 General Election - a historic first.  We shook hands and his manner was gentle and mild unlike the hell-raising Nazi Fascist Extremist Racist the media potrayed him in old news reports. He also wore rather less frightening glasses than the ones I remembered from old news reports.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Beackon

RICHARD EDMONDS

Richard Edmonds chaired the meeting and he looked younger and stronger than I remembered when I last heard him speak.  His headmasterly bellow promptly stemmed our chatter and commanded our silence. 

He began brandishing the infamous objectionable 12th edition of the BNP constitution.  92 pages of nonsense, he called it.  It was much better in the old days when it was only 15 pages long.

http://www.thenationalparty.org.uk/constbnp

He reminded us that the BNP are a democratic nationalist party.  We were all present freely of our own will and had every right to do so.  Indeed, Section 7 (page 27) allows a leadership challenge every year.  

Then he began by praising Jim Dowson of Midas Consultancy, an "outisde businessman" being paid £2,000 a week.  This works out to be £90,000 per year as well as the £72,000 per year paid to the Call Centre in Northern Ireland.  Dowson was not a member, but a businessman.  The last Advisory Council meeting held in March discussed at great length Dowson's "outside consultancy".  He "no smudge, no fudge, quite impressive and a very powerful speaker".  He was also described as "completely frank and open as well as a very dynamic businessman" who answered every question fully and frankly. 

The 12 Regional Officers however, are not paid.  We were reminded that £7,500 per month goes to Jim Dowson for his consultancy fee.

It was Richard Edmonds view that "all party business should be done in-house."

Mailshot letters of appeal with Nick Griffin's signature were also the work of Jim Dowson, "an outside businessman".  Edmonds said he was "shocked to the point of being frightened at the direction the Party is heading."

Jonathan Bowden - the talented and transporting BNP orator - would have spoken but was prevented from doing so by transport and traffic problems.  Eddy has his complete support.  http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2010/07/statement-from-jonathan-bowden.html

MICHAEL BARNBROOK was then introduced.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagenham_and_Rainham_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29

http://www.londonpatriot.org/2010/01/29/sleeze-buster-michael-barnbrook-ppc-dagenham-and-rainham/


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23712701-mayors-former-deputy-to-face-fraud-inquiry.do


He began by saying he arrived at the meeting unaware that he was supposed to be speaking.  It was disconcerting to find his voice moved by emotion.  Indeed, he was actually tearful.  He has been "stressed out" by this whole business.  He had considered himself "a nobody" in the Party but from the way he was being treated, one would be forgiven for thinking that he or Eddy were "probably the most dangerous person in the BNP.  The whole business had put his marriage under a strain.  As far as he was concerned, the leadership contenders were "nice people" and he "genuinely didn't want to get involved" in the leadership challenge.  Eddy Butler, the leadership challenger, had reduced the 1000 Tory majority in Bexley to a mere 8.  Eddy Butler, as far as Barnbrook was concerned, "has not destroyed the General Election campaign" and should not have been removed from his post as National Organiser.

He was a self-confessed Griffinite who has been bothered by phone calls ever since he agreed to a meeting with Eddy Butler, who understandably wants to lobby big-hitter members of influence.  Apparently, Nick Griffin and/or his Praetorian Guard are so steeped in paranoia that they thought Eddy was about to pass him documents that would get him into trouble with the law.  Barnbrook then said he was already 67 with only 3 years' membership of the party while Eddy has "the personality of a flatfish" and "no one knows him".

We laughed in surprise and I quickly glanced at Eddy to see if he too was enjoying the joke.  Eddy was indeed smiling.

Barnbrook then admitted that while everybody who was inclined to support the Party "loved Nick Griffin", this was regrettably not the case as far as the activists and organisers were concerned.



He declared the leadership nomination form he received an insult to his intelligence for the reasons explained at http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2010/07/dirtier-and-dirtier.html
See heading "Yellow Peril"  (This is not in fact a reference to the BNP being swamped by the Chinese but to the colour of the official and offending nomination form.)

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news/bnp-elections-department-outlines-leadership-contest-regulations

If you believe that Richard Barnbrook and Derek Adams are not spoiler candidates (candidates with no chance of winning but put forward with the intention of preventing Eddy from getting the 840 nominations required to trigger a leadership challenge), then you must have an IQ of under 10, Michael Barnbrook went on to say.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/leadership

He has ended the careers of at least 12 MPs and the career of Ian Clement and wondered why he was not given more credit for this in the run-up to the leadership election.  He did not want praise and acknowledgment from the Chairman for egotistical reasons, he said, but because all this sleaze-busting of expenses irregularities might have given the BNP more votes in the run-up to the General Election

The implication was that the Chairman wished not to acknowledge the contribution of others to the Nationalist cause and sought to identify the BNP with himself alone.

Clarity, probity and transparency are required and only a leadership election would clear the air and save the reputations of both Nick Griffin and Eddy Butler, he said.

The point was that one could be a Griffinite and still want a leadership challenge, to clear the air, and he therefore urged everyone who cared about the Party, irrespective of their personal loyalties, to see to it that the Party gets one, Barnbrook concluded.

Video of meeting on 20 July 2010:

Part 1 - Michael Barnbrook
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_SFRdlYE38
Part 2 - Michael Barnbrook
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqeEfn6s-L0
Part 3 - Michael Barnbrook
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqeEfn6s-L0


Christine Mitchell on Paul Norris and Paul Golding on the Eddy tapes.  It is claimed Eddy "condemned himself" at a meeting at which I was present.  The person who came out of it worst was not Eddy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEutwTVp8lQ&feature=player_embedded

Part 1 - Eddy Butler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGY6VbhQ5-o
Part 2 - Eddy Butler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI80KzOvbLw
Part 3 - Eddy Butler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBAYIG2vfdQ
Part 4 - Eddy Butler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO-b9nvMj9A
Part 5 - Eddy Butler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GkwVd0Vabw

My photos used in Eddy Butler's blog at http://eddybutler.blogspot.com/2010/08/statement-relating-to-jim-dowson-by.html