Search This Blog

Monday 14 February 2011

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.
Posted by at

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.
Posted by at

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 1st 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. 18th) 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 17th 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 21st, 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 19th 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 400th 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 1st of England15
You can get it from Amazon:
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 6th 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/
2 King James, His Bible And Its Translators, pp 92-93
4 ‘O Biblios’ The Book, Chapter 11, Section 11.1
6 O Biblios’ The Book, General Introduction, pp 1, 101-102
The Christian Leaders of the Last (i.e. 18th) Century, by Rev J.C. Ryle, T Nelson and Sons, 1878, Preface, pp 26, 90
8 Satan’s Masterpiece! The New ASV by Dr Peter S. Ruckman, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1972, p x
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
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
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
23 www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html
Posted by at

Sunday 13 February 2011

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.
Posted by at

Is it Multiculturalism Which Has Failed? or rather the entire policy of mass Third World immigration?

Is it Multiculturalism Which Has Failed? 

The British National Party Newsroom 

French president Nicolas Sarkozy has also announced that “multiculturalism had failed,” echoing David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australia's former prime minister John Howard and former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar — but is it multiculturalism which has failed, or rather the entire policy of mass Third World immigration?
Much ado has been made of Mr Cameron’s recent announcement in this regard, and he has even been accused of “racism” and “stoking racial tension.”
However, a closer analysis of what Mr Cameron — and these other leaders — actually means by their statements reveals that they have not admitted that their policies of flooding European countries with Third World immigrants is wrong.
On the contrary.
What Mr Cameron and his ilk actually mean is that their policy of allowing separate cultures and identities to be maintained by immigrant groups after they moved to First World countries, is wrong.
In other words, Mr Cameron believes that the problem is that there has not been enough integration, and what is needed is even more mixing.
According to Mr Cameron, the problem only lies in the fact that these immigrants have not been forced to adopt First World culture, and have been allowed to continue with their Third World culture and traditions.
This bizarre worldview is the liberal mindset’s latest trick to try and explain why the policy which they have endorsed for the last 50 years — mass Third World immigration — has not led to peace and harmony, but rather social discord and the wholesale importation of Third World poverty, chaos and lately, even terrorism.
In his now ‘infamous’ speech in Munich last weekend, Mr Cameron claimed that “we must build stronger societies and stronger identities at home.  Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism.”
According to Mr Cameron, a “passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone.  It stands neutral between different values.”
And therein lies the rub.
The liberal mindset has claimed for the past 50 years that “diversity” would bring harmony and that “multiculturalism” was a good thing which would broaden peoples’ worldview and make them more tolerant.
The opposite has of course happened, as racial tensions have spiralled upwards in all First World nations subjected to this insanity.
Now, Mr Cameron has argued, that there must be a change. Immigrants, he said, must be “educated in the elements of a common culture and curriculum. It will also help build stronger pride in local identity, so people feel free to say, ‘Yes, I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am Christian, but I am also a Londonder or a Berliner too’. It’s that identity, that feeling of belonging in our countries, that I believe is the key to achieving true cohesion.”
Mr Cameron is wrong. It is not the lack of a “common identity” which is to blame for the disaster  which Britain and other First World nations face.
Rather, it is the policy of mass immigration itself which is the cause of the problem, not the maintenance of separate cultures by immigrant groups.
“Multiculturalism” is, of course, doomed to failure as well. But this is not, per se, the problem. The real danger facing Britain is not if there is a policy of multiculturalism, but rather if the indigenous British people continue to exist or not.
Multiculturalism is a disaster, but forced integration into a “common culture” which will see the British people extinguished, is a disaster of equally great proportions.
This is the truth, and no amount of chameleon-like distortions by the fraudster establishment politicians can disguise it.
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.
Posted by at

Saturday 12 February 2011

USA Discovers Price of Mass Islamic Immigration

And Now, Americanistan: USA Discovers Price of Mass Immigration

 The British National Party Newsroom
The United States of America faces an unprecedented Islamist terrorist threat from Muslims born inside that country, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has announced.
Recent Muslim immigrants in New York City pray every Friday on Madison Avenue. Recent Muslim immigrants in New York City pray every Friday on Madison Avenue.Speaking before a congressional Homeland Security Committee, Ms Napolitano said that the threat of terrorism in America is at "its most heightened state" since the September 11 attacks.
"The terrorist threat facing our country has evolved significantly in the last ten years — and continues to evolve — so that, in some ways, the threat facing us is at its most heightened state since those attacks," Ms Napolitano said.
“One of the most striking elements of today's threat picture is that plots to attack America increasingly involve American residents and citizens," she continued.
According to official statistics, at least 24 “Americans” have been arrested on terrorism charges in the past two years, and in the ten years since September 11, more than 50 Islamists arrested for their involvement in 32 high-profile terrorism plots were U.S. citizens at the time of their arrests, according to a study by the New York State Intelligence Center.
"[We] are now operating under the assumption, based on the latest intelligence and recent arrests, that individuals prepared to carry out terrorist attacks and acts of violence might be in the United States, and they could carry out acts of violence with little or no warning," Ms Napolitano added.
According to reports, FBI and Justice Department officials have reported a dramatic increase in the number of terrorism-related investigations and prosecutions involving U.S. residents since 2009.
News reports said that many of the suspects — including Najibullah Zazi, who plotted New York City subway bombings in September 2009, and Faisal Shahzad, the convicted would-be Time Square bomber — lived and worked for years inside the United States before preparing their attacks.
Just as in Britain, the blind liberals who lead the American government have failed to understand the most simple of basic truths: that if you import millions of Third Worlders and Muslims, you are merely importing Third World poverty, chaos and terrorism.
According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), there are around 7 million Muslims in America today. Of that number, approximately 24 percent are black, which means that over three quarters are of recent immigrant stock.
American immigration policy has therefore encouraged mass immigration from Muslim countries in the ten years since the 9-11 attacks, and now, as Ms Napolitano has revealed, America faces an internal Islamist terrorist threat.
The cause is so obvious as to be screaming, yet there are none so blind as liberals who refuse to see basic truths.
Posted by at

Friday 11 February 2011

Barnsley – The Next Battle Nick Griffin MEP Chairmans Update



Barnsley – The Next Battle
Dear Fellow Patriot,

Another Labour party thief is caught red handed with his hands in the taxpayers’ till. Quite rightly he is losing his seat in Parliament, and our next by-election will soon be upon us.

Working closely with our hard-working Barnsley branch, we have selected a superb candidate – Enis Dalton, a professional trainer and well-known local community campaigner – to be our candidate in this high-profile election.

As a local girl, she is perfect for a constituency like Barnsley with its close-knit community. Predictably, Labour have parachuted in a candidate, from Hampshire.

Last year, at the General Election, the British National Party candidate polled 3,307 (8.9%) votes in Barnsley Central. With the party united behind Enis, and a strong local branch under dynamic organiser Ian Sutton leading the campaign, all we need to secure an excellent vote is the money to stand against Labour and run a really professional campaign.
Click Here To Donate
We’ve already hit the ground running, with a fantastic total of 150 activists joining me and Enis Dalton on our first Day of Action. The whole constituency was blanket leafleted in just a few hours, with more specialised teams also out canvassing and using specially designed questionnaires to collect the information about what Barnsley voters really worry about. This information will allow us to tailor our message for maximum possible impact. We’re aiming to make this our most professional campaign ever.

“We need to remind voters that Labour are no friends of the people of Barnsley. They have betrayed us. The British National Party is now the true voice of the British people” – British National Party candidate, Enis Dalton.
Click Here To Donate

Your help is always appreciated. All nationalists are required to assist in this battle. Please help us in any way you can. Come and join us on the streets, or send your most generous gift today. It is almost impossible to put a monetary target on this appeal for Barnsley, but every single penny you send will make a difference. You will help us confront the Labour thieves, raise public awareness and ensure that the British National Party become the true voice of Barnsley... because we’re in it for the long haul.

Click Here To Donate

By working together, we will win the battle for local hearts and minds in Barnsley. Thank you for your continued and generous support. I know that Enis will appreciate your help as much as I do.
 


Yours faithfully,
Nick Griffin
Nick Griffin, MEP
Leader, British National Party
Posted by at

An Open Letter to the Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron MP

From: Dr Frank Ellis
To: An Open Letter to the Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron MP
Date: 9th February 2011 A.D.

Re: The Prime Minister’s Speech at the Munich Security Conference February 2011 Concerning the Threat to Western Liberal Democracies by Islam and Islamic-Sponsored Terrorism

Dear Mr Cameron

I am writing to you in connection with the speech you delivered at the Munich Security Conference last week since its subject matter pertains not just to the security of the United Kingdom and other Western European states but also to the long-term survival of the indigenous population of this country itself: the ultimate security question.

You begin your speech by seeking to reassure fellow member NATO states that despite the dire condition of the UK economy Britain will continue to meet the NATO 2% defence-spending target. In general terms that is good. However, the standard government line notwithstanding – Labour as well as Tory – Britain is not made safer nor is our national security enhanced by the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan. The NATO presence in Afghanistan has, I believe, more to do with the nuclear ambitions of Iran.

Now, you begin your discussion of the terrorist threat in the UK by saying that some of these attacks are carried out ‘by our own citizens’ and that the perpetrators, Muslims, ‘are prepared to blow themselves up and kill their fellow citizens’ (my emphasis). But these Muslim terrorists do not regard me, us, as ‘their fellow citizens’. Indeed, they are correct: I am not one of ‘their fellow citizens’. Nor do I wish to be. Formally these people may have acquired a British passport but in what way can these people be regarded as ‘our own citizens’ when they live in parallel societies paid for by the white indigenous population and are at best indifferent to, and at worst murderously hostile, to the interests of the host indigenous population? If I went to live in Munich and started to make demands of indigenous Germans that they adapt to my folkways, habits and customs and threatened to kill them, would Germans regard me as one of their own? I doubt it.

True, Europe has suffered from terrorism before the arrival of Al Qaeda and its imitators. The key difference is however that groups such as The Angry Brigade (England) IRA (Northern Ireland), The Red Brigades (Italy), Direct Action (France) and Baader-Meinhof & RAF (West Germany) were all home-grown groups. People who were active in the IRA belong to the tribes of the British Isles. Muslims have no such claim. They are alien. Islamic terrorism would not be a problem in the United Kingdom had we maintained strict control over our borders and not permitted the huge influx of immigrants from Pakistan, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Turkey and Somalia. This was and remains a direct consequence of the cult of multiculturalism, a cult that preaches the poisonous view that, for example, sub-Saharan Africans have as much right to live in Britain as the white indigenous population.

You say that: ‘Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries’. Who exactly needs to wake up? Millions of people throughout Europe who over the last 40 years have seen their cities turned into Third World slums, who have witnessed, and suffered from, the relentless influx of immigrants, Muslim or otherwise, who have seen their institutions – police, armed forces, health services – corrupted by multiculturalism, who have seen their primary and secondary schools and universities turned into centres of politically correct indoctrination, where to be white, middle class, heterosexual and Christian is to suffer a constant stream of insults and barely concealed hatred, where, on the other hand, to be black or non-white is to enjoy special, protected-species status since non-whites are supposed to be bearers of some wonderful gift (referred to as diversity) and a source of great wisdom. Those of us all over Europe need no lectures from you Mr Cameron on what has been happening. If they are not exceptionally wealthy and have no choice but to endure the daily grind of commuting into our large cities or may actually have to live there, white people are confronted every day of their lives with the consequences of ‘vibrant multicultural diversity’ and have been for a long time. Take it from me they hate it and where possible they will avoid it all costs (white flight). If they work in the public sector and have large mortgages they will endure the consequences of the cult in silence, confiding their fears only to a trusted few.

All over Europe an unaccountable class of political-functionaries has sought to impose the alien cult of multiculturalism on the white indigenous populations. Your call that we need to stand up to Muslims - and it is not just Muslims – comes far too late and is, in any case, thoroughly dishonest. The danger to the white indigenous population posed by mass non-white immigration has been evident for a long time and politicians of all parties have either encouraged this process of dispossession or have been too cowardly to speak out in public. When, in his famous speech, Enoch Powell warned of what was to come he was mocked, derided and abandoned by people like you. The damage done to the indigenous population, its history, culture and future may now be irreversible. I pray to God that I am wrong; that it is not too late to save our nation.

Your attempts to distinguish between Islam as a religion of peace and Islamic terrorism are doomed to failure. Such is the overwhelming collectivist ethos of Islam and the complete absence of any respect for the dissenting individual that Muslims resident in this country who do not take part in acts of terrorism are not going to break ranks with the extremists. For Muslims the rule of law, free speech and liberal democracy are alien Western abstractions that mean very little. Given the choice between the rule of law, free speech and the civil society and Islam - in any shape or form - Muslims resident in this country will support the cause of Islam. There is no love for the British: we are just a source of welfare payments and material provision that would be impossible in Pakistan and Somalia (the reason immigrants come here).

You state the following: ‘It is vital that we make the distinction between religion on the one hand, and political ideology on the other. Time and again people equate the two’. Again, your attempt to separate religion from ideology is doomed to failure for the obvious reason that Islam, the ideology-religion, recognises no lay principle: it is all or nothing; it is Islam for the believers; Dhimmitude for the rest. Consequently, whatever action Western governments take to neutralise what they believe to be the purely political, ideological aspect of Islam, will always be interpreted as an attack on Islam as a whole. Indeed, such measures will be an attack on Islam as a whole since Islam does not recognise the division between state and civil society; the right of the individual to resist its collectivist ethos (just like communism incidentally).

The other factor that makes Islam a threat to the Christian West is the birth rate among Islamic immigrants resident in the West. The huge increase in the Muslim population throughout the West may well turn out to be the decisive factor that overwhelms the white indigenous population in their ancient lands, reducing them to a suppressed minority. In all the discussions about rising food prices, metals, access to water and productive farm land no one wishes to identify the real problem: specifically the reckless and unsustainable breeding of Third World Populations either in the Third World itself or in the Third World estates that Third-Worlders have been allowed to create in the First World.

You cite what has happened on the streets of Tunis and Cairo as an example of the compatibility of Western values and Islam: ‘hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy’. Middle-class, English-speaking protesters might well press the right buttons when interviewed by some BBC reporter but the underlying problem of Arab states and Sub-Saharan Africa is massive, out-of-control and unsustainable population growth. This is the Malthusian nightmare writ large and it is being played out all over the Third World. Egypt’s unemployed will remain unemployed (many of them are unemployable in any case). Hunger and hopelessness will gnaw at them. The results are predictable. Democracy and civil society are preposterous and irrelevant abstractions outside of Western Europe and will not feed people, certainly not in Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa. Where populations spiral out of control, as they are doing in so many parts of the world, violence, exacerbated by religious/ideological fanaticism, is inevitable.

Concerning multiculturalism in the United Kingdom you state the following:

Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

For the avoidance of any doubt your repeated exculpatory use of “we” does not include me and, I suspect, millions of other Britons. Your use of ‘we’ refers to the last Labour government and the xenophiles who sought to impose the anti-white racist cult of multiculturalism on the indigenous population. It is emphatically not the responsibility of the indigenous population ‘to provide a vision of a society to which they [immigrants] feel they want to belong’. If, according to you, the ‘we’ failed to provide this vision, then why did millions of Islamic immigrants join the first wave who could not find this ‘vision’? If they have no ‘vision of society to which they feel they want to belong’ why do they stay? Why not go home to Somalia, Waziristan and Sub-Saharan Africa? That these millions of immigrants have no ‘vision of society to which they feel they want to belong’ yet still stay in the Christian-infidel-infested wasteland of Britain suggests to me that their continued presence in Britain has everything to do with the fantastically generous welfare provision they receive (all the wives included) and absolutely nothing at all to do with any lack of ‘vision of society’.

You have been reported as saying that multiculturalism has failed. I see no clear statement of that in your speech at all. In fact, you claim that it is the indigenous population that has driven Muslims into their parallel societies. That you are still advocating some form of the cult is clear when you argue that ‘instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone’. National identity by its very nature is exclusive, partial and narrow. A national identity that is ‘open to everyone’ is not a national identity. National identity is determined by a combination of genetic, racial, cultural, psychological, geographical, linguistic and mental factors, tempered by the blows of history, by shared suffering in war and peace, by humiliation and glory, by the memory of those gone before. How can my English national identity be open to everyone? The answer is that it cannot. National identity that is open to everyone ceases to be a national identity; national identity that is open to everyone is just another way of promoting multiculturalism without using the m-word. In other words, it is a deceit, a ploy to disarm the critics of multiculturalism who have instinctively and rationally apprehended the cult’s national-identity-hating agenda all along. As an Englishman who still values his national identity I have no desire at all to share it with others. Do Pakistanis, Indians, Chinese, Japanese and Zulus want to share their national identity with me? Of course not: and why should they? It is their exclusive property.

Nor do immigrants wish to share their identity with white Europeans. When, in 2008, he addressed a large Turkish audience in Cologne, the Turkish Prime Minister, Reccep Erdogan was quite clear by what he understood on the question of integration. He told his audience: ‘I understand the sensitivity you show towards the question of assimilation. Nobody can expect that you tolerate assimilation. Nobody can expect that you submit yourself to assimilation. Then assimilation is a crime against humanity.’ Erdogan’s vision of how he expects Turks to behave in Europe is just one of a number of reasons why a Muslim non-European state such as Turkey can have no place at all in the EU.

You argue that Muslims are attracted to extremism from a sense of not belonging. Again you claim that this is the failure of ‘the wider society’. You might like to ask yourself why indigenous Britons - ‘the wider society’ - do not wish to engage with Muslims. Here are some of the reasons why indigenous, white Christian (or heathen) Britons want nothing to do with Islam: Tuesday 11th September 2001; Thursday 7th July 2005; suicide-homicide bombers; sharia; jihad; the obscene practice of female circumcision; so-called honour killings; stoning women to death; polygamy, the sexual grooming of white girls; extreme censorship; hatred of free speech; welfare parasitism; mosques; continuing, active terroristic hatred of white European host societies; and the cruel murders of Christians in the Middle East (and Turkey).

I am not convinced that you are serious about combatting the damage done by multiculturalism. If you are then the following measures should be taken:

(i). in the interests of clarity and in order to remove any remaining ambiguities you shall publicly state that multiculturalism has failed in the United Kingdom and that it shall no longer be promoted as policy, above all in education, so that white indigenous children are not denied their history, culture and national pride to which they are entitled and that where such subjects are taught they are not taught in away that denigrates the great achievements of Britain across the entire spectrum of human endeavour;

(ii). the government shall acknowledge that the Macpherson Report (1999) has had a disastrous effect on policing especially in large cities with large black populations and shall publicly disown the report’s central conclusions and recommendations;

(iii). the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 shall be repealed along with all other legislation which aims to stifle free speech under the banner of preventing ‘hate speech’ and which leads to the persecution of white critics of multiculturalism;

(iv). the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), the successor body to the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), shall be disbanded immediately;

(v). the government shall set a limit on the number of immigrants skilled or otherwise, who are permitted to work in this country. The option of working in this country implies no right to citizenship;

(vi). the government shall make it clear in a statement that there shall be no amnesty for illegal immigrants currently resident in the United Kingdom;

(vii). the government shall issue a personal apology to Mr Ray Honeyford, the former Bradford headmaster who warned of the dangers of multiculturalism in1982 and who for his honesty and professional decency was vilified by xenophile extremists and abandoned;

(viii). with immediate effect the government shall ensure that efficient and relentless border control and surveillance (entry and departure) shall be implemented. Such measures will include the explicit use of racial profiling;

(ix). the government shall take all necessary measures to ensure that illegal immigrants are hunted down, rounded up and immediately deported. Where possible the government shall aggressively seek to recover the costs associated with the deportation from the illegal immigrants themselves: property, bank accounts, valuable metals (gold, platinum), cars and so on;

(x). those employers who employ illegal immigrants shall be subject to severe financial penalties and where judged appropriate terms of imprisonment;

(xi). the government shall remove all welfare payments from the huge underclass so that the recipients of state benefits are obliged to work (this removes or weakens the incentive from employers to hire illegal immigrants);

(xii). the government of the United Kingdom shall declare that under no circumstances will the creation of an independent Islamic/Muslim state ever be permitted within the territory of the United Kingdom;

(xiii). the government of the United Kingdom shall declare that the provisions of Sharia are incompatible with the legal, political and cultural traditions of the United Kingdom and that the exercise of Sharia shall not be permitted within the United Kingdom and that any of judgements as may be made by Sharia courts shall enjoy no legal or special cultural status;

(xiv) the government shall initiate an International Church and Mosque Comparison Study (ICMCS). The aim of ICMCS shall be to ascertain the status of Christian churches, artifacts and believers in all Muslim states and the degree to which Christians endure persecution and terror. ICMCS will pay very close attention to the status of Christianity in those states that provide the main Muslim immigrants currently resident in the United Kingdom. A key part of ICMCS will be to ascertain whether the number of mosques existing or planned in the United Kingdom is too high relative to the number of immigrants themselves and whether the number of Christian churches in the immigrant homelands is too low.

Finally, I challenge the Prime Minister David Cameron MP or a senior member of the government to debate multiculturalism and the challenge posed by Islam, immigration and related problems with me on prime time live television. The terms and conditions of any debate (time, format, audience selection; lighting, citing of cameras, among other things) shall be a matter of discussion and formal written agreement between Ellis, Cameron and the television broadcaster.

Yours sincerely

Frank Ellis
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)