UK Foreign Aid Scandal: The Financial Times Parrots the British National Party

Foreign Aid Scandal: The Financial Times Parrots the British National Party

  

The increasing acceptance of the legitimacy of the British National Party’s political message has been confirmed once again with an article in the London Financial Times (FT) complaining about foreign aid to nuclear-power India.

In an article headed “UK to give £1bn to India in spite of cuts,” the FT reported that a “review of UK aid policy is to maintain more than £1 billion of help for India, in spite of the nuclear-armed state’s rapid emergence as a world power with its own aid and space programme.”

Written as if it had been copied verbatim off the British National Party’s website (where the topic of the foreign aid scandal was first raised), the FT article confirmed that British “aid” to India would amount to £280 million every year to at least 2015.

Actually, the FT’s estimate of £1 billion is an understatement. Annual payments of £280 million will mean that between 2010 and 2015, the British taxpayer will hand over £1.4 billion to India.

According to the Office for National Statistics, in the financial year 2009/10 the UK recorded general government net borrowing of £159.8 billion, which was equivalent to 11.4 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP).

This means that the foreign aid grant to India alone is nearly 1 percent of Britain’s deficit. It also means that the total annual foreign aid budget makes up 7.58 percent of Britain deficit.

“India is growing at 8.5 per cent a year, gives aid to Africa, boasts more than 126,000 US dollar millionaires and is one of only six nations with satellite launch capability,” the FT article continued.

Moving on to quote International Development Minister Andrew Mitchell, the FT said that India was a “development paradox.”

Mr Mitchell was quoted in the article as saying that “Some people in both the UK and India have been asking whether the time has come to end British aid to India. In my view we are not there yet.”

Mr Mitchell also revealed to the FT that Ethiopia will shortly become the recipient of “Britain’s biggest bilateral aid programme.”

There is no justification whatsoever for British taxpayers to have to go into debt to give “aid” to India.

The Indian economy is already the eleventh largest in the world by nominal Gross Domestic Product and the fourth largest by purchasing power parity (PPP). Economists have predicted that by 2020, India will be among the leading economies of the world.

Furthermore, India possesses nuclear weapons and maintains short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, nuclear-capable aircraft, surface ships, and will acquire the Arihant class of nuclear-powered submarines in 2012.

Unlike Iran, India is not a signatory to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Intelligence estimates are that it has around 95 nuclear weapons and enough weapons-grade plutonium for a further 110.

The British National Party is the only political party to have consistently called for an end to all foreign aid while there is poverty and social deprivation in Britain.

It is time to put the British people first, and it is encouraging to see the FT at last waking up to this simple, reasonable and righteous demand.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National; Party  website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.

UK Coastguard Budget Cut as EU Membership leaps to £118 Billion Per Year

Coastguard Budget Cuts to “Save £7.5 Million” Per Year as EU Membership leaps to £118 Billion Per Year

The British National Party Newsroom

The government’s budget cuts for Britain’s coastguard service will “save” £7.5 million a year, while the cost of membership of the European Union has rocketed to in excess of £118 billion per year.

The 15 percent budget cut to the Department of Transport’s coastguard control centres will see the number of such units reduced from 19 to 8, with only 3 offering 24 hour cover.

Currently the Coastguard’s search and rescue helicopters consist of Royal Air Force Sea Kings and civilian helicopters arranged through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).

An earlier proposal to privatise that part of the service has been put on hold after serious “irregularities” in the tender process were identified.

Nonetheless, the government is still pushing ahead with the wholesale closure of coastguard control centres, claiming that the process will “modernise” the service.

The government’s cutbacks have imperilled much of the coastline and Britain’s borders. For example, the proposal will leave Scotland – which has nearly two-thirds of Britain’s coastline with only one full-time watch station.

In the South West of England, another important shipping hotspot, four emergency tugs, stationed around the coast to tackle maritime emergencies, will be cut in September this year.

According to maritime union Nautilus, prospect was "deeply worrying" for the "vulnerable" Devon and Cornwall coast. "Ships are bigger than ever before, operating with fewer crew than ever before and carrying more and more complex cargoes," Andrew Linington, a spokesman from Nautilus was quoted in the media as saying about the South West cuts.

"To be cutting back of maritime safety measures in those circumstances we believe is dicing with danger."

Many of the threatened resources had been introduced for "good reason" after specific incidents, including the rescue tugs, brought in after the Braer and Sea Empress tanker disasters, he added.

The same story has been repeated up and down the coastline, with local communities warning of the dangers of cutting this vital service.

Cutting the coastguard threatens lives and the environment, many experts have warned, adding that the supposed savings will easily be dwarfed by the first big emergency which strikes as a result of these services have been cut.

The £7.5 million “saving” is made even more bizarre when it is considered that Britain pays over £118 billion per year to the European Union (a figure supplied by the Taxpayers’ Alliance).

Even that figure is due to increase over the next few years as Britain’s contributions to the EU increase exponentially as that organisation expands even further.

It is little short of a mystery how the politicians in Westminster can justify spending these huge amounts of money on the EU and simultaneously make cuts to the safety and security of Britain’s coastline – unless, of course, it is presumed that they are just traitors.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British Natuional Party website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.

Melanie Phillips’s Articles » Making a mockery of marriage

Making a mockery of marriage

Daily Mail, 14 February 2011

On countless occasions, David Cameron has declared that he is a tremendous fan of the institution of marriage. So big a fan, it now becomes clear, that he generously intends to bestow its status and privileges far beyond what most people consider marriage actually to be.

Time and again, the Tory leader has used his promise to strengthen marriage so as to reassure people that he was fully committed to defending this core value of conservatism.
Now, however, it is becoming all too plain that he is signing up instead to the wilder extremes of political correctness.
Indeed, he is planning to go further than even New Labour dared to tread. Eat your heart out Harriet Harman, patron saint of equality!
For it was revealed yesterday that ministers are planning to change the law to allow homosexual couples to ‘marry’ in religious ceremonies, including in church.
Gay partnership ceremonies in other venues will also be allowed for the first time to contain a religious element, such as hymns or readings from the Bible. These unions will then be called ‘marriage’.
For sure, this change doesn’t force religious institutions to introduce such ceremonies; whether they do so is up to them.
But the Government’s position is anything but neutral. For it implicitly endorses the idea that there is nothing wrong with overturning centuries of Biblical understanding of the sacrament of marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
As such, the Government will be cutting the ground from under the feet of religious traditionalists. And what if churches
refuse to conduct such a travesty of a marriage ceremony? Presumably, they would then risk being sued for ‘discrimination’.
Truly, we are fast reaching the stage where upholding Biblical sexual standards will become the morality that dare not speak its name.
Once again, we have to wonder at the way in which a politically motivated faction within a tiny minority of the population — for many gay people do not approve of this ideological gay rights agenda — is now running public policy.
When I argued here a few weeks ago that this agenda was all about destroying moral and sexual norms, I provoked a storm of protest. But once again, we can see that this is all too true. For Cameron’s latest idea proposes to make a mockery of marriage.
Gay rights supporters contend that there can be no justifiable objection to extending the status of marriage to those who are not heterosexual. Gay or straight — what does it matter, as long as two people are committed to each other?
But those who make this argument merely reveal they have no idea of the significance of marriage. They seem to think it’s just another contractual arrangement involving a binding (or not so binding) commitment — like buying a house or a car.
But the truth is that marriage is a unique institution because it involves the process by which humanity reproduces itself — which is only through the union of male and female.
The fact that some married couples are childless is irrelevant. The sole reason marriage has universal value is that it is vital for the healthy nurture of the next generation. This is because children need to be brought up by the two people who created them.
Activists argue that gay people should be able to get married because everyone is entitled to the same status. But why should this be the case if their sexual circumstances are different?
If the status of marriage is extended to other relationships — and that includes giving marriage rights to heterosexual cohabitants, as England’s most senior family judge, Sir Nicholas Wall, recently so unwisely recommended — the institution will be undermined.
If still in doubt, try this thought experiment. Imagine the Government was planning to recognise polygamy and polyandry (marriage with more than one woman or man), or marriage between ‘zoophiles’ (people who have ‘loving and committed relationships with mammals’, or bestiality to you and me) and their, er, partners.
If you think this is merely grotesque satire, you would be sadly out of date. There are now campaigns in North America to recognise the ‘equal rights’ of such people and end ‘discrimination’ against them.
If ‘marriage’ were extended to such groups, people would rightly conclude the institution was being turned into a meaningless joke. Yet the argument — that people with different sexual lifestyles must be treated identically — is exactly the same. (And no, before the hate mail starts, I’m not suggesting gays are on a moral par with zoophiles.)
But, of course, to question any of this is to run the gauntlet of bullying, threats and victimisation.
In a still-deepening scandal, a Christian GP, Hans-Christian Raabe, was sacked from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. His crime? To have co-authored a document which claimed that 25 per cent of paedophiles were homosexual.
It was bad enough that Dr Raabe was bundled off the Advisory Council because he was demonised for views which bore no relation whatever to his ability as a drug policy-maker.
But now we learn the astounding fact that the very same Home Office that sacked him had itself published data saying precisely the same thing.
In a report it published in 1998, it had referred to research which ‘suggested reasonably that approximately 20 to 33 per cent of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature’.
So this GP, whose views on combating drug abuse would have provided a much needed antidote to the destructive legalisation lobby on this most compromised of advisory bodies, was sacked by the Home Office for reporting facts which the Home Office itself had reported as reasonable.
Did Home Office Minister Jim Brokenshire know this when he terminated Dr Raabe’s appointment on the basis that his ‘controversial’ paper had caused ‘embarrassment’ to the department? Did he care what the facts actually were — or is Mr Brokenshire so petrified of the gay lobby that he blindly capitulates to its demands?
This is a truly terrifying totalitarian mindset from which the country cries out for deliverance. Yet, far from defending people against such bullying and seeing off the cultural subversives who are voiding morality of all meaning, Mr Cameron is going even further down this road.
Pinch yourself — a Conservative Prime Minister effectively endorsing the idea that upholding Biblical morality and the bedrock values of Western civilisation is bigotry.
He may be a Conservative, but he is no conservative. True conservatives seek to conserve what is most precious in a society and defend it against those who would destroy it.
Mr Cameron will apparently declare today that his programme is a moral one. Is this his idea of morality — to erode society’s core values?
The so-called ‘culture war’ now raging between those determined to destroy Western moral codes and those struggling to defend them is simply the most urgent domestic issue we face.
Despite the heroic efforts of Iain Duncan Smith to restore the importance of marriage to social policy, Mr Cameron has shown that in this war he himself is simply on the wrong side.
The most important thing is not whether we have a Big Society. It is rather that if we continue down this path there will be no society worth the name. Instead, those cultural ‘lifestyle choice’ bullies will stamp their boots ever more brutally on the faces of everyone else in a pitiless war of all against all.

read more articles at

Melanie Phillips’s Articles » Making a mockery of marriage: "- Sent using Google Toolbar"

Circumstances in Britain Will Play into British National Party’s Hands

Circumstances Will Play into British National Party’s Hands

The British National Party Newsroom

A convergence of circumstances about which the establishment can do nothing will legitimise the British National Party’s message and the party will be able to take advantage of that as long as it is properly organised and ready, Nick Griffin MEP has said.

Addressing around 90 delegates from around the country who attended the party’s organiser conference in Stoke-on-Trent, Mr Griffin said as spending cuts bite over the next few years, there will be a “momentous opportunity for the British National Party as the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties get the blame.

“The financial crisis is not over and the cuts will make it worse,” Mr Griffin said. “In fact, the second stage of financial crisis will be even worse than the first.”

He pointed out that the establishment politicians are just making things worse. “For example, there is a 35 percent youth unemployment rate in Barnsley, yet they are still bringing in masses of immigrants to do work which they claim no-one else will do,” Mr Griffin said.

The British National Party leader said that there were three other factors at work which made the future particularly uncomfortable for the establishment parties.

The first was the fact that certain parts of the media have gone out of their way not only to demonise the British National Party, but Muslims as well.

“If I was a young Muslim in Britain today, and saw how the media relentlessly portrays crazy things which other Muslims say or do, I would be pretty angry,” Mr Griffin said. This would, he said, lead to increasing radicalisation amongst Muslims living in Britain.

“Just recently we have seen the intelligence services admit that there are thousands of young radicalised Muslims about whom they know nothing, and that it is just a matter of time before they strike,” Mr Griffin continued.

The second factor is the strong possibility of a new war with Iran. “The establishment parties have now announced that Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon in 12 months, and the only way they can deal with this is to attack,” he said, adding that yet another war would have unforeseen consequences upon Muslims in Britain and amongst the general public.

“Finally, what is going on with the blatant media promotion of the English Defence League?” Mr Griffin asked.

“Is it their purpose to drive Muslims to do something crazy so that they can then persuade the public to support a war with Iran?

“Or is it aimed against us, the British National Party? They know from their study groups that there is enormous support for our policies amongst the general public, and they could be promoting the EDL to try and undermine us.

“Whatever the case, the EDL is certainly radicalising a large segment of British youth in a way which the British national Party, committed as it is to electioneering, could never do,” he said.

Mr Griffin also pointed out that the establishment was making a huge error — from their point of view — by legitimising the British National Party’s core message.

He gave two recent examples of this process at work. First, Labour’s Jack Straw had confirmed the accuracy of the British National Party’s warnings about Muslim rape gangs preying on young white girls.

Then Mr Cameron’s “incredulous” anti-multicultural speech had confirmed the party’s warnings on the effects of mass immigration.

“They are clearly trying to steal our rhetoric to trick people into thinking they are going to do something about the problems,” Mr Griffin said.

“In reality, of course they will do nothing. Nonetheless, the fact that they will fail to correct the problems after having legitimised our message, will present the British National Party with the opportunity it needs.

“When they fail to deliver, it tells people that our ideas are right and we will be able to take advantage of it if we are organised,” Mr Griffin said.

“We have the will and now we have the tools to put it all right,” Mr Griffin concluded to applause.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.

Crisis for Horwich and Bolton British Students as ConDem Regime Makes Foreign Aid Financial Priority

Crisis for British Students as ConDem Regime Makes Foreign Aid Financial Priority

The British National Party Newsroom

University tuition fees are set to rise across the board to £9,000 per year, directly contrary to earlier promises from Universities Minister David Willetts that this would only happen in “exceptional cases.”

The universities budget cut of 40 percent, announced in October last year by Chancellor George Osborne, saw funding reduced from £7.1 billion to £4.2 billion.

The foreign aid budget was increased at the same time from £9 billion to £12.1 billion, and spending on the war in Afghanistan continued to rise to well over £4 billion per year.

In effect, this means that the Tory and Lib-Dem coalition has spent three times as much on foreign aid and wars than on educating British kids.

When the university budget cuts were announced, the government said that the maximum fee of £9,000 per year would only apply in "exceptional circumstances" where universities meet "much tougher conditions on widening participation and fair access".

Now however, it has emerged that the vast majority of universities intend to charge the full £9,000 a year tuition fee.

Oxford and Cambridge universities were the first to announce their intention to charge the maximum £9,000 fee. According to student newspaper sources, others are set to shortly follow their lead.

Currently, maximum fees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are set at £3,290 per annum. In Scotland, university is free to Scottish and EU students, and costs £1,820 per year for English, Welsh students.

The public is becoming increasingly uneasy with the extent of the budget cuts, particularly given the fact that the coalition government seems to put foreign aid, war and EU membership at a higher priority than education in Britain.

According to a new opinion poll conducted by ComRes poll, 69 percent of voters thought that they would be worse off personally as a result of the coalition's measures and a similar number thought the budget cuts were “unfair.”

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of the British National Party website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.

Racial Pressure and “Human Rights” Undermines UK’s Security

Racial Pressure and “Human Rights” Undermines Britain’s Security

The British National Newsroom

The vastly higher number of blacks and Asians stopped by police in terms of the “section 44 stop-and-search” legislation has been listed as a direct cause of that law’s scrapping under the ConDem regime’s new “Freedom Act.”

The law, piloted by Liberal Democrat deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, will, according to a statement from his party, lead to “the scrapping of Section 44 powers, which have been used to stop and search hundreds of thousands of innocent people.”

The law was brought in by the previous Labour government in terms of the Terrorism Act of 2000, which empowered officers to stop anyone within a “designated area” without the requirement for “reasonable suspicion.”

The Metropolitan Police has subsequently robustly defended the law, saying that “stop and search is a vital tactic intended to create a hostile environment for terrorists and provide a visible reassurance to the public.”

As almost every single terrorist or would-be terrorist in Britain over the last ten years has been a Third World-origin Muslim, it was therefore no surprise that the number of black people stopped in London went up 354 percent while the number of Asians searched tripled.

The number of searches of white people also went up by 295 percent, which was substantial. This latter fact aside, the controlled media and the left wing have continually claimed that section 44 was “racist” simply because it allowed police to search people who officers on the ground thought most likely to be planning, or in the process of committing, crimes.

The final blow to the law came with a European Court of Human Rights' ruling that the Section 44 powers were illegal.

In terms of the new legislation, chief constables will only be able to request stop-and-search powers for 14 days at a time for specific areas “as necessary to address the threat."

Stop-and-search powers had been used to combat terrorism, knife and gun crime, and a host of other street crimes, which had been one of the primary causes of the proportional increase in the racial statistics.

Home Secretary Theresa May confirmed in parliament that the changes to stop-and-search powers were “not introduced by the police, what happened is that I changed the guidance" (following the European Court's decision).

Another element of the Freedom Bill which has been introduced specifically because of racial pressure is the introduction of a code of practice for CCTV and Automatic Number Plate Recognition systems (overseen by a new Surveillance Camera Commissioner) to make them more “proportionate and effective.”

This measure has been introduced after Muslims in Birmingham raised a fuss about anti-terrorism CCTV cameras and a report from the Metropolitan Police which revealed that black people account for 46 percent of all arrests generated by automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras.

That technology allows car registration plates to be scanned and automatically run through databases to determine whether a vehicle is stolen, uninsured or has not had its road tax paid.

If you liked this news article, please donate to help with running costs and improvements of this website.
Alternatively ring our donations hotline on 0844 809 4581. If operators are busy, please try again.

The King James Bible Story 1611-2011 The Book That Changed The World

The KJB Story 1611-2011 The Word of a King 

Orginaly published at Sarah Maid of Albion  

By Alan O'Reilly 

The Book That Changed The World1

The Word of a King, Ecclesiastes 8:4

Not formalized but Authorized

The question arises, was the Authorized Version ever officially authorized?

Dr Laurence Vance2 notes that Dr Miles Smith refers to King James 1^st in The Epistle Dedicatory as “the principal Mover and Author of the work” that became the 1611 Holy Bible. Dr Vance concludes, rightly that the 1611 Holy Bible is indeed authorized because according to Ecclesiastes 8:4, “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?”

It is interesting that the 1611 Authorized Bible was the last English Bible to be translated under the direct authority of a king. The committee that produced the Revised Version of 1881 appealed twice to the Crown3 in order to get royal approval for their new version, as for the 1611 Bible.

Queen Victoria refused each time.

Dr Vance highlights another reason why the 1611 Holy Bible became Authorized and that is, its universal acceptance by the English-speaking peoples across the world. This was the real reason for the Book’s authorization after its publication in 1611. Gustavus Paine agrees. He states4:

“The Puritans fought their way forward. The 1611 Bible by its own worth was making itself welcome throughout the country, for those on both sides needed the best modern texts with which to fight their doctrinal skirmishes. High churchmen in greater numbers began to use the 1611 version, which in centuries to come would be the sole bond uniting the countless English-speaking Protestant sects.

“In 1629 the Bible was again revised, but only in small ways, and once more in minor respects in 1638. The last issue of the Geneva Bible was in 1644. By then the King James Version was ahead of all others, and now the strife over forms and doctrine helped it on.”

As Paine also said, “The Bible has always thrived on turmoil.”

Alexander McClure states that “It (the AV1611) speedily came into general use as the standard version, by the common consent of the English people; and required no act of parliament nor royal proclamation to establish its authority. Some of the older versions continued to be reprinted for forty years; but no long time elapsed ere the common version quietly and exclusively occupied the field.”

McClure’s comment is interesting because he5 was an American Republican, not a monarchist seeking to promote the Church of England or the Episcopal Church in the US.

It is further interesting to look at the comments of men who were both for and against the 1611 Holy Bible6.

“Give me that Book” - Bunyan, Wesley, Spurgeon, Ryle, Shaw

This is from John Bunyan, The Immortal Dreamer, by W. Burgess McCreary: “A university man met Bunyan on the road near Cambridge. Said he to Bunyan, “How dare you preach, not having the original Scriptures?” “Do you have them - the copies written by the apostles and prophets?” asked Bunyan. “No,” replied the scholar. “But I have what I believe to be a true copy of the original.” “And I,” said Bunyan, “believe the English Bible to be a true copy too.””

John Charles Ryle7 was the first Church of England Bishop of Liverpool. In the 1870s, he wrote a book entitled The Christian Leaders of the Last (i.e. 18^th) Century, about the great revival preachers like Whitefield and Wesley. He said this about these preachers and the 1611 Holy Bible, his emphases.

“The spiritual reformers of the last century taught constantly the sufficiency and supremacy of Holy Scripture. The Bible, whole and unmutilated, was their sole rule of faith and practice. They accepted all its statements without question or dispute. They knew nothing of any part of Scripture being uninspired. They never allowed that man has any “verifying faculty” within him, by which Scripture statements may be weighed, rejected or received. They never flinched from asserting that there can be no error in the Word of God; and that when we cannot understand or reconcile some part of its contents, the fault is in the interpreter and not in the text. In all their preaching they were eminently men of one book. To that book they were content to pin their faith, and by it to stand or fall. This was one grand characteristic of their preaching. They honoured, they loved, they reverenced the Bible.”

One of those men was John Wesley. He said this about the 1611 Holy Bible.

““I want to know one thing – the way to heaven – how to land safe on that happy shore. God Himself has condescended to teach the way; for this very end He came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book. Oh, give me that book! At any price give me the book of God! I have it: here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be a man of one book.””

Bible critics are quick to point out that Wesley wasn’t consistent because he compiled his own New Testament. That raises an interesting question that will be addressed shortly.

In the meantime, consider what Charles Haddon Spurgeon had to say about the 1611 Holy Bible.

“The Bible is God’s word, and when I see it, I seem to hear a voice saying, ‘I am the Book of God, man, read me; I am God’s writing: open my leaves, for I was penned by God’...I plead with you, I beg of you, respect your Bibles, and search them out. Go home and read your Bibles...O Book of books! And wast thou written by my God? Then I will bow before thee, thou Book of vast authority! For He has written this Book Himself...let us love it, let us count it more precious than fine gold!”

Once again, Bible critics are quick to point out that like Wesley, Spurgeon was inconsistent, because at times he thought parts of the 1611 Holy Bible should be changed. We come to the interesting question mentioned before and it is this.

When Wesley and Spurgeon said what they said about the 1611 Holy Bible that has just been quoted, who prompted them to say it, God or the Devil? Ultimately, it must have been either one or the other, either “the spirit of truth” or “the spirit of error” 1 John 4:6.

You should make a decision. God hates lukewarmness and halting between two opinions8, 1 Kings 18:21, Revelation 3:15, 16.

This is what Spurgeon9 said to his students about the 1611 Holy Bible a few months before he died in 1892.

“If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of little popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scripture infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so?...

“But where shall infallibility be found? “The depth saith, it is not in me”; yet those who have no depth at all [spiritually] would have us imagine that it is in them; or else by perpetual change they hope to hit upon it...

“We shall gradually be so bedoubted and becriticized, that only a few of the most profound [intellectually] will know what is Bible, and what is not, and they will dictate to all the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy: they will rob us of all that we hold most dear, and glory in the cruel deed. This same reign of terror we shall not endure, for we still believe that God revealeth himself rather to babes than to the wise and prudent, and we are fully assured that our own old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and godliness. We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism, “These be thy gods, O Israel!””

In the English-speaking world, even up until World War 2, the attitudes toward the 1611 Holy Bible expressed by those men; Bunyan, Wesley, Ryle and Spurgeon, were not as exceptional as we might think, as this statement shows:

“In all these instances the Bible means the translation authorised by King James the First…to this day the common human Britisher or citizen of the United States of North America accepts and worships it as a single book by a single author, the book being the Book of Books and the author being God.”

What a bibliolatrous thing to say about the Britain and the United States of a mere 60 to 70 years ago! Who could possibly make such an outrageous statement?

Answer: George Bernard Shaw, who was a lifelong atheist10.

However, Shaw was of course an accomplished and well-known writer, so he was in a position to know what Britons and Americans of his time thought about literature.

We’ll now look briefly again at how closely the 1611 Holy Bible is part of our national life and how you can’t get away from that Book, no matter what you do.

“God save the king!” - The national anthem and a paratrooper’s farewell

The expression “God save the king!” is of course part of England’s national anthem and well-known as such. However, that expression turned up in an unusual place in World War 2. On September 17^th 1944, British Army paratroopers captured the north end of the road bridge across the Nederrijn or Lower Rhine in the Dutch town of Arnhem11. This action was commemorated in the 1977 film A Bridge Too Far.

A Bridge Too Far – Battle of the Arnhem Road Bridge12

After four days of heavy fighting, the paratroopers were finally overwhelmed by superior German forces but on the morning of Thursday September 21^st, a paratroop signaler “known unto God” Acts 15:18, Philippians 4:6 radioed a final message from somewhere near the Arnhem Road Bridge.

The last bit of the message said13 “Out of ammunition. God Save the King.”

The expression “God save the king!” comes straight from a 1611 Authorized King James Holy Bible. The words occur 5 times. They are found in 1 Samuel 10:24, 2 Samuel 16:16 twice, 2 Kings 11:12, 2 Chronicles 23:11 and they have stood there undimmed and unblemished for 400 years. They will stand there forever.

That reading illustrates something about the 1611 English Bible for English-speaking folk who believe the Book. The Author of the Book said in Hebrews 13:5, “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”

And the Book is like its Author.

The Book of course was found not only in a world war but it would be found worldwide, as we will now see.

Gone into all the world

English time, English longitude, English empire, English text

Remember what the ex-priest of Rome, Charles Chiniquy said about “the glorious British Protestant flag [that] floats on the breeze.” By the 19^th century, that flag floated on the breeze the world over and with it went the British Protestant Bible. Dr Peter S. Ruckman of Pensacola Bible Institute has summed up what happened in history14, his emphases.

“To fulfill Acts 1:8 [for the Lord’s witnesses to go to “the uttermost part of the earth”]...All the Lord needed was a Bible in line with what He had already written and preserved; since He had already decreed (in 1000 BC) that there had to be present “the word of a King” Ecclesiastes 8:4 before there could be any spiritual “power” in that word (Romans 13:1-4), and since His king was a JEW (John 18:34)...God needed a king with a Jewish name; He got one...this time it was JAMES. James is the English word for JACOB”…

“After 1588, “Britannica ruled the waves,” and…with absolute time determined by England (Greenwich Observatory), with absolute location on the earth’s surface located from Greenwich, England (longitude)…by 1850 the sun “never set on the British Empire.”

Britain was a seafaring nation and wherever Britain’s seafarers went, British missionaries went with the 1611 Holy Bible and to “the regions beyond” 2 Corinthians 10:16, as Dr Ruckman explains, his emphases.

“The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries sport the greatest host of Bible-believing witnesses the world has ever seen…These battle-scarred storm troopers crossed mountains, prairies, deserts, lands and seas and cast themselves into martyrs’ graves…They counted their life-styles in terms of the chains they loosed, the souls they liberated, the hungry they fed, and the heathen they transformed. They lived and felt Jesus Christ in every fiber of their being… They believed one Book and they preached and memorized that Book, taught that Book, and lived and died by that Book…”

So with the English Protestant Bible spreading throughout the British Empire and therefore the world, it is no wonder that today, the DVD that has been released in observance of the 400^th anniversary of the King James Bible has a simple but compelling title.

The Book That Changed The World – on DVD

The Book That Changed The World – on DVD -- King James 1^st of England15

You can get it from Amazon:

www.amazon.co.uk/KJB-Book-That-Changed-World/dp/B004BLTAT6

The Product Description states that “The greatest translation of Holy Scripture emerged into a world and culture that would never be quite the same again.”

Queen Victoria, who reigned over the British Empire for more than 60 years understood that statement. She was the queen that challenged the world.

The Queen that Challenged the World – a magnificent painting

Queen Victoria16 actually said on one occasion, to an African chieftain to whom she presented a copy of the 1611 Holy Bible:

“That Book accounts for the supremacy of England.”

The vivid painting by Thomas Armitage commemorates the occasion17.

“That Book accounts for the supremacy of England.” - Queen Victoria

However, it was not for the purpose of empire that God made England supreme and Britain Great. God made Britain great so that “all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of God” according to Isaiah 52:10.

We close with a compelling illustration of how this worked out in the days of the British Empire, from the lives of some of those “battle-scarred storm troopers” that Dr Ruckman described.

Dr William Grady18 relates how Charles Darwin visited the islands of Tierra del Fuego at the southern end of South America in 1833. The natives were in such a savage state that Darwin was convinced that he had found his so-called ‘missing link’ between animals and humans.

In about 1870, Darwin visited Tierra del Fuego again.

His time, he was astounded to discover that many of the natives had become Christians through the work of the South American Missionary Society, or SAMS19.

The society was founded in 1844 by Captain Allen Gardiner of the Royal Navy. Gardiner and six of his missionary companions died in the society’s service in 1851 in Patagonia. They had endured several months of sickness, starvation and extreme cold, reaching 20 degrees below zero.

After suffering for weeks on starvation rations and in sub-zero temperatures, Captain Gardiner wrote the last lines in his diary on September 6^th 185120. He said this: “By God’s Grace this blessed group was able to sing praises to Christ for eternity. I am not hungry or thirsty in spite of 5 days without eating; Wonderful Grace and Love to me, a sinner...”

Captain Gardiner died near the upturned boat in September 1851

(It is this author’s opinion that Captain Gardiner died with more joy in his heart, than even Kate and William will know on their wedding day if they know not the Lord Jesus Christ. “Rejoice in the Lord alway [all the way]: and again I say, Rejoice” Philippians 4:4.)

Thanks to his 1870 visit to Tierra del Fuego, Charles Darwin was so impressed by the work of SAMS that he became an Honorary Member and gave an annual subscription to the society for the rest of his life

It needs only to be added that the missionary workers of SAMS ministered to the tribes of Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego through one Book, the Book that John Wesley and Charles Haddon Spurgeon called “the Book of God.”

That Book didn’t stop at the ends of the earth.

Apollo 821 was the first manned spacecraft to leave earth’s orbit. That was in 1968 and on Christmas Eve, the crew of Apollo 8 read from Genesis 1:1-13 in a 1611 Authorized King James Holy Bible.

Conclusion

400 years on, we find that the Book that had its precarious beginnings at Hampton Court in 1604 went from there to the imperial throne of Queen Victoria, to “the regions beyond” 2 Corinthians 10:16 in darkest Africa, “unto the uttermost part of the earth” Acts 1:8, literally, to Tierra del Fuego at the southernmost end of South America, to the road bridge at Arnhem during the “perilous times” 2 Timothy 3:1 of World War 2 and even into outer space, with the Apollo 8 mission.

400 years on, the Book is still going strong, with well over a billion copies sold22, evidently the only Book to achieve that distinction23.

That Book changed the world for the better.

The testimony of the last 400 years is that it can change you for the better according to 1 Peter 2:2.

“As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:”

The last word should go to Dr Miles Smith, from The Translators To The Reader.

“Ye are brought unto fountains of living water which ye digged not; do not cast earth into them with the Philistines [Genesis 26:15], neither prefer broken pits before them with the wicked Jews [Jeremiah 2:13]. O receive not so great things in vain, O despise not so great salvation!...a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to everlasting blessedness in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when he setteth his word before us, to read it; when he stretcheth out his hand and calleth, to answer, Here am I, here we are to do thy will, O God. The Lord work a care and conscience in us to know him and serve him, that we may be acknowledged of him at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the holy Ghost, be all praise and thanksgiving. Amen.”

Earthrise - from Apollo 8, “And God made the firmament” Genesis 1:7

(Detailed appendix to The Critics’ Den available on request)

__________

References
1 www.kjbthefilm.com/

host248.ebm.bestsoftwarehost.com/iw_products.m4p.pvx?;products_no_tree?cat=STICKERS?company=BBB

2 King James, His Bible And Its Translators, pp 92-93

3 Which Bible?, p 286, kjv.benabraham.com/html/chapter-10.html

4 ‘O Biblios’ The Book, Chapter 11, Section 11.1

5 www.librarything.com/author/mcclurealexanderk

pabook.libraries.psu.edu/palitmap/bios/McClure__Alexander_Kelly.html

6 O Biblios’ The Book, General Introduction, pp 1, 101-102

The Christian Leaders of the Last (i.e. 18^th) Century, by Rev J.C. Ryle, T Nelson and Sons, 1878, Preface, pp 26, 90

7 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Ryle

8 Satan’s Masterpiece! The New ASV by Dr Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1972, p x

9 www.spurgeon.org/misc/gfw.htm

10 www.liberator.net/articles/SloanGary/Shaw.html

11 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnhem#The_Battle_of_Arnhem

12 http://shop.davidshepherd.org/detail.php?max_perpage=9999&id=000137, Google: Arnhem Bridge photos

13 A Bridge Too Far by Cornelius Ryan, Coronet Books, 1975, p 430

14 ‘O Biblios’ The Book, p 25

The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship by Dr Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988, p 119

The History Of The New Testament Church Volume II by Dr Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1984, Chapter Five

15 www.newmarketracecourses.co.uk/about/11788965902600.html

16 Halley’s Bible Handbook by Henry H. Halley, Regency, 1965, p 18

Bible Believers’ Bulletin, Bible Baptist Bookstore, June 2002, p 15, October 2006, p 2

17 www.arthermitage.org/Thomas-Jones-Barker/Queen-Victoria-Giving-the-Bible-to-an-African-Chief.html

18 Final Authority, p 182. Note that in an otherwise excellent account of the post-1611 history of the KJB, Dr Grady refers incorrectly to missionary John Paton with respect to the mission work on Tierra del Fuego, which was begun by Captain Allen Gardiner RN

19 www.cms-uk.org/Whoweare/History/SAMStimeline/tabid/511/language/en-GB/Default.aspx

www.archive.org/details/romance_missionaryheroism_0910_librivox, 17 – The Sailor Missionary of Tierra del Fuego

www.victory-cruises.com/allen_gardiner2.html

20 www.victory-cruises.com/allen_gardiner2.html

21 www.classicalastronomy.com/news/anmviewer.asp?a=310&z=21

22 www.thebm.com.au/index.php/a-biblical-birthday.html

23 www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html

British Nationalist Economics: Important Questions Answered

Nationalist Economics: Important Questions Answered

The British National Party Newsroom

Andrew Moffat, lead European Parliamentary researcher to British National Party MEPs Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons, answers a number of important questions which arose in the comments section of this website after his last article “Economics — The Dismal Science” appeared.

By Andrew Moffat— My previous article, the primary purpose of which was to explain how the government debt markets operated, raised significant interest.

It is not possible, alas, to reply to all the comments and queries that appeared. A number, however, were of sufficient merit to prompt a follow-up article.

Q1: The article assumes there has always been and always will be government debt. Surely it is a basic fact that wherever possible a government or indeed an ordinary person should live within their means and avoid debt?

A: Essentially, this is correct. A successful government, however, whose tax base is secure, whose credit is favourable and whose prospects are based upon a fundamentally sound economy will be in a position to afford an element of sensible gearing, i.e. debt. This is akin to the private individual, who borrows to improve his homestead.

The difficulty relates to the question of the sound level of prudent debt and this has risen from approximately 30 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at the turn of the century, to around 65 percent last Autumn.

Were interest rates to rise significantly, perhaps to combat inflation, then an increased element of the tax base would be required to service the interest.

In the past, government debt has risen above 200 percent of GDP. This occurred, for the most part, in the aftermath of the war against the rebellious American colonists, immediately followed by the Napoleonic Wars. Again, in WW2, the national debt rose substantially.

It should also be borne in mind, however, that private debt was lower in those days, long before the existence of credit cards, mass mortgages and sophisticated bond markets.

High government debt crowds out private investment and undermines the economy. The aim of a successful administration is to target neutrality during the economic cycle: thus, during recession, when the tax-take diminishes, government spending will rise and the government will borrow. The reverse occurs when the economy booms.

There is another interesting consideration: when debt was successfully being paid down a decade ago, pension funds worried that they could not find sufficient long term secure investments to generate income for their pensioners/investors.

A certain level of government debt, which need not be large, does provide security for pension funds.

Q2: QE (Quantitative Easing) is described as the process of "creating" money. Surely the money "created" should be based on some tangible asset, the obvious example being gold? If creating money was the answer, you would continue printing money. The problem with this is that you end up requiring a barrow load of money to pay for the weekly groceries.

A: Governments can and do create money. To that extent, they differ from individuals. Money is an equivalent of a ticket of exchange.

Simplistically, if total production is 100 units and there are 100 tickets, then one unit will theoretically exchange for one ticket of production.

If production collapses, then those tickets of exchange will diminish in value and more will be required to absorb the remaining units.

Say, however, production doubles: in this scenario, if ticket circulation remains unchanged, then its value will rise and more units will be exchangeable for each ticket in circulation.

At this point, to reflect rising production, the number of tickets in circulation should also rise. This will avoid both deflation and inflation.

Whilst simplistic, similar considerations apply to money within an economy. To avoid both inflation and deflation it is necessary to ensure that money in circulation is calculated to reflect the production of goods and services and the annual growth thereof.

If money is created without any regard for production, then inflation will result – as is the case in Zimbabwe. Inflation transfers wealth from the prudent to the imprudent.

The gold standard maintains advantages in terms of price stability but there are drawbacks in terms of volatility and inflexibility. The topic of the gold standard and its pros and cons deserves a separate article.

Q3: Quantitative economics is likened to nationalist economics. Why is this?

A:  QE was introduced during the recent economic crisis.

In the run-up to the crisis, many banks borrowed monies from the international markets to finance their lending, which was well in excess of their depository base.

When interest rates rose, these banks found they were unable to meet their obligations and found no market for their newly created debt instruments, i.e. packages of loans to retail customers. This is what happened to Northern Rock.

Other banks, such as RBS, Lloyds and Barclays found it necessary to re-finance their balance sheets to prevent insolvency, with state aid provided in the case of RBS and Lloyds.

The result was a collapse in lending, massive de-leveraging as banks sought to repay their loans, and recession. Bloated asset prices, on which loans were secured, collapsed.

The backdrop is a little more complicated than this but the above presents a broad-brush description.

The government, via the Bank of England, therefore commenced QE, the process of injecting newly created electronic money, interest free and debt free. This was for the most part employed to purchase debt, i.e. gilt-edged stock and similar instruments from the money markets, creating demand for such debt and, hence, maintaining downward pressure on interest rates.

Many nationalists have complained that new money is created in the form of interest bearing loans and refer to the term ‘fractional reserve banking’.

In the instance of QE, new money has been created by the state, via the Bank of England, to lubricate the economy, reduce interest rates – to stimulate business – and obviate recession.

It is what a nationalist government would do, i.e. it would create new money in regulated circumstances, via Crown authority and so as not to create inflation. This holds many potential advantages.

In my earlier article, I made the simple point that no one has yet explained why, if this process of QE can operate in recession, then why cannot it also operate in a period of expansion?  This is a topic which must be explored.

Q4: Who owns the Bank of England?

A:   The Bank of England is owned by the government and, therefore, the citizens of the UK.