Sarah Maid of Albion - II

Richard Barnbrook: “If only they’d listened ….”

2011-08-26T10:37:00.000-07:00

From what was once a total of over 100 councillors, the BNP now only has a meagre 9. And from having been in credit to the sum of some £2.3 million, the Party is said have debts of £700 000. Sad to say, back as far as the autumn of 2006, I saw that there were problems which eventually led to the difficulties that are now besetting the Party and that have resulted in its regression.

But be warned, this is not just a brief write-up but a good 30-minute read! I’m putting it up, because we need to look at what went wrong for the good of our country, so that we can hopefully put things right. But above all, we need to forge a new way forward involving all nationalist/patriotic groups. Because there are so many like-thinkers out there, from all colours of the political spectrum- disaffected Labour supporters, Conservatives and others- nationalists who need to find a voice.

In 1999 when I first joined the Party it was due to Nick Griffin winning the leadership challenge. At the time he had the charisma, the flair and the vision.

I had left the Labour Party in 1986 because under Kinnock, the values that I then adhered to were saying nothing to a new Britain, a Britain where education had become worthless, a Britain where the health system was overloaded and already showing signs of cracking and inability to cope with an increased population. At the same time, there was a decline in Britain’s economic and fiscal soundness. It was a nation that not even Enoch Powell could have predicted would have emerged with such velocity and speed. This was the mid 1980s when Margaret Thatcher had started to bring the incompetence of the unions, with their lack of vision, under control which I give her credit for. But she widened the doors to the immigration crisis and sealed our fate with the cheap gimmick of clawing back pennies from Europe, rather than expelling the Brussells bureaucrats from our shores. She should have kicked the EEC out of Britain when she had the chance. Because the majority of the problems we face today, together with the inability to do anything to counteract them, stem from our accursed membership of the EU.

Having left the Labour Party, I then decided to go about the continuation of my career both in the arts and education. While in the secondary education system of London, working on short-term contracts in failing schools, I was brought into schools across London as a trouble-fixer prior to OFSTED inspections, in such areas as Greenwich, Lewisham, Bexleyheath, Newham, Neasden and Tower Hamlets amongst others.

It wasn’t until 1997 and the election of a Labour government that I saw within the following three years a total desperation and despondency amongst the communities in London that felt dejected and let down by seeing their desires and aspirations being dashed once again. I thus felt I had to take up the political cudgel. It took me three years to determine where best my voice could be heard by representation through a political party. After several attempts and deep deliberation, I finally got in contact with the BNP of the nearest branch and group to where I lived in Lewisham, which was the Bexley branch. The reason I finally decided to go to the BNP meeting was that Nick Griffin had won the leadership challenge. Marching through the streets of London was not the way forward at that time.

At that meeting I put forward comments and proposals for development and electioneering. The Chair of the meeting requested that I stayed behind to meet a fellow nationalist who knew about the potential for Downham ward, in south Lewisham. I met the bus driver and he said to me ‘Right, if you’re that keen are you free to leaflet Downham, tomorrow?’ Over the next four weeks, the two of us leafleted every single house in Downham! I wasn’t even a member! But right from the start, I showed the commitment and hands-on perspective that I would lead from.

Four weeks later I was asked to meet Nick Griffin in Blackheath. I explained my position and background as an artist and a teacher.

Then I was asked to help out in a by-election in Northend in Slade Green where I started canvassing. I still had not yet received my membership card.

In early 2000, Nick appointed me as the Lewisham and Bromley Organiser and several weeks later I was issued with my membership card. By the end of the year we had 80 members in Lewisham, and an additional 40 in Bromley! I then spearheaded the parliamentary election campaign in Lewisham East where the BNP candidate attained 1005 votes which was an unprecedented result for south east London. And that was the start of patriots coming from across the country to assist in election campaigns. What is more important is that at that stage, the whole design of leaflets changed. I made sure that the wordiness went and the visuals came in.

It is quite clear that the approach that I was taking was being recognised as a valuable campaign strategy for others to emulate: that it’s not sufficient to rely on just leafleting and marching through the streets of Britain. What was needed was a more structured and solid campaigning approach involving interaction door-to-door with the electorate and general public, dealing head-on with issues that related to local communities ward by ward, rather than just pushing a ‘one size fits all’ national programme. I should say that this was also the approach used in the campaign which won the Party’s first council seat the early 1990s in the Isle of Dogs.

But my enthusiasm and persistence in getting things resolved and chasing people up when the work they undertook was not carried out, made waves. Also, some decided that once the good seeds had been sewn they wanted to take it over themselves. Granted, I used to make telephone calls to branch administrators late at night, which may have caused irritation, but I saw that the fate of our nation was at stake and in politics there can be no 9-5 approach to the job. Consequently I was removed as Lewisham and Bromley Organiser and the position was passed on to somebody else. Three years on from there, the branch membership collapsed. Under my watch we had rocketed straight to branch status without ever having been a just a group. Today, Lewisham and Bromley is barely a group.

In 2002 I continued with leafleting and canvassing throughout south east London and occasionally helping in other areas of the capital, but I spent a great deal of my time dealing with my career in education as well as national Queen’s Golden Jubilee projects.

In 2003 I was asked by the then national organiser to start giving speeches nationwide and at the Red White and Blue festival and also to assist in the canvassing at by-elections and elections across the country. I was also having an input into the basic design of the Party’s new leafleting strategy. At the end of 2003 I was made the co-ordinating officer for London. By this time I was also part of a think-tank, visiting the Chairman at his country retreat and then created ‘Special Projects’ which was set up to enhance the public’s perception of the Party by way of working on frontline community activities. It was at this time that I suggested that the Party create a small booklet containing a summary of our manifesto for members of the public and it was eventually produced… four years later! I also asked for an activists’ handbook and this again came out some four years later, but on-line only. Also an elections handbook that still hasn’t materialised. I suggested that there be a manual for councillors as well, to give guidance and an outline of good practice, but as far as I am aware this hasn’t as yet been produced either.

In 2004 I was made London Organiser, and was involved in the majority of the activities across London and played a major part in co-ordinating the 2004 GLA campaign, where we achieved an unprecedented 4.71% of the London vote, only missing a GLA seat by just 0.29%!

However, at this stage, the opposition started to attack me both in the press, verbally, and also daubed the front door of my house in Blackheath. Not having a driving licence, I travelled across London and up and down the whole country using public transport, with no security and one year into wearing my beige suit, fully aware that I was sticking out like a sore thumb. That same year, I won the coveted George Flaxton Memorial Award as activist of the year, and gave speeches and video recordings across the nation, getting by on a salary of just £600 per month. At this stage, I had given up teaching to put all my efforts, 7 days a week, into the nationalist cause.

The irony behind my giving up teaching is that each time it became known that I was standing for election, the teaching agencies informed me that there were ‘no positions at present’. And yet a month or so after my not being elected, they would call me requesting I took on a position at a then failing academy prior to OFSTED being called in. I was somewhat bemused at these sudden changes of circumstances and said that my politics had not altered and asked why I was wanted back. The answer was that it was because parents and staff believed I did an outstanding job in correcting failing classes and pupils.

In 2004 I was made Barking and Dagenham Branch Organiser, working alongside the then National Elections Officer. That year, there were three by-elections in Barking and Dagenham. The results achieved were as follows and the figures speak for themselves:

15 July: Valence 31.5% BNP SECOND
16.Sept: Goresbrook 51.9% BNP FIRST!
7 October: Village 38.5% BNP SECOND

Following the momentous Goresbrook victory, I was the secretary and events organiser for the wining Goresbrook councillor and assisted him with his daily activities after he was elected.

During 2004, the Chairman requested me to have a private meeting with the founder of the Party offering him the position of life-long president. He refused it.

In 2005 it was as a member of the Advisory Council, that I started to notice, after the nation-wide success of councillors being elected in parish, town and borough, the start of the frustrations and discontent (which later became apparent at the 2005 Red White and Blue). Prior to the RWB there was a conference of the Regional Organisers and Advisory Council. The then head of security had made statements that were deemed to be too innovative and above his station to the Chairman and some of longstanding Head Office officials. Several months later, he was removed from his position.

In 2005 I stood for the parliamentary seat of Barking against Labour’s sitting MP, Margaret Hodge and I received 17 % and achieved third place, only missing second place, which was taken by the Tories, by a mere 28 votes! This was and is still the highest nationalist vote for a parliamentary seat ever achieved in this country.

At an AC meeting in Wales I brought to the Chairman’s attention the fact that the National Elections Officer and the then National Organiser were putting in place parallel systems and appointing officers into positions in London without informing me what they were doing. This was consequently interfering with my role as London Organiser and the development of London, because it meant that there were two separate London operations in place, one effectively being carried out without my knowledge. This was the first sign of the hole in the heart of the BNP, where cohesion, communication and continuity did not exist. I was concerned too that there were also key locations in the south of London that needed assistance and some possible financial help, and that these were being neglected. This led to a confrontation between the Leader of the Party and myself in the summer of 2005. Subsequently, the Leader displayed poor judgement by taking the line of least resistance in undermining my position. He sacked me as London Organiser, basically for being too pro-active, and attaining positive results! It clearly was a case of nepotism over ability.

Prior to the RWB in 2005, one national organiser had been replaced by another and from then on started the true problems.

At the RWB I went past one tent that contained certain high ranking individuals who were conniving to undermine both the Party and the Chairman. (Indeed, some were kicked out of the Party later for being alleged infiltrators). They asked me to join them but I refused. The following day I informed the Chairman and said that we had to bring in a polygraph test to filter out infiltrators, for those at regional organiser level and above. (Remember that at this point, I had been sacked as the London Organiser). Some time earlier I had had a conversation with an ex SAS information officer who said that he would have been more than happy to carry them out at £1000 per test. Nicks’ reply was that it wasn’t practical at that time.

I also told the Chairman that chain of command was falling apart due to poor communications. And that the public’s perception of the Party was all important and that every effort had to be made to improve it.

Then, a month after the RWB, I was asked to resign my position as Barking and Dagenham Organiser. The excuse given to me by the Chairman was that I needed a rest!! Of course, I refused- and so I was sacked! This was my third sacking! The position was given to one of the 2004 Barking and Dagenham candidates who after only two months stated that he could not do the job and asked me to take over from him. So I did, but without the authority or knowledge of Head Office. Because I couldn’t just stand back and watch things stagnate.

In 2006, I was continuing my work on the ground in Barking and Dagenham. I pushed ahead, making sure that the BNP were there for the people where the problems were. We went out in hi-viz vests, collecting rubbish and clearing up graffiti. Because of the efforts of individual BNP activists at ground level, Barking and Dagenham was becoming a visibly better place.

In 2006, due to my input, a new professional format for leaflets was brought in. The design was upgraded and combined with the selection of a striking and forceful message, in A3 full-colour finish. And at the same time as canvassing we were continuing to work away in the parks, cleaning graffiti, picking up litter and clearing brooks, leaving the perception in people’s minds that we had already been elected and were going about our council work.

I was eventually formally asked by Head Office to take control of the forthcoming borough elections of 2006; by that time I had already put things in motion anyway! Of course, I agreed and was given back the membership list of Barking and Dagenham and then started a national assistance strategy, which we now know as the national and regional Days of Action.

Between myself and just three key activists in Barking and Dagenham, we began the election campaign that led to the BNP’s ground-breaking result in the council elections. Come submission of nominations time, we had 21 candidates. Due to the thorough vetting and appropriate analysing of the candidates it was deemed that four were unsuitable and 13 were chosen. A further four were by one means or another indebted to the council due to disability which would have left them out of pocket if elected, which was too much of a burden to expect individuals to shoulder. Hence only 13 candidates stood and as is well known, 12 of them were elected.

However, it was at about this time I was told by the National Elections Officer to ‘forget Barking and Dagenham because at best you will only get four or five elected.’ If we had had a full slate of candidates, I’m sure now that every one of them would have been elected! If I hadn’t been sacked as the Barking and Dagenham Organiser and also as London Organiser, I would have had a fighting chance of getting the 51 candidates that we needed. But with just five months left to the elections, we could only get 13 together. Jon Cruddas, MP for Dagenham, said that if we had fielded a full slate of BNP candidates, we would have taken the whole council. That was after Margaret Hodge, the sitting Labour MP, had made comments that inadvertently promoted the progress of the BNP, not only in Barking and Dagenham and London, but nation-wide.

The scale of the unprecedented victory in Barking and Dagenham was achieved by hard work, tenacity and a deliberate decision to act contrary to the view of the then National Elections Officer. Twelve out of thirteen councillors were duly elected which made us ‘the official opposition’ to the Labour-run council. This was the first time ever that such a thing had happened, and all from a standing-start of zero councillors! This unprecedented success led to my winning two awards:

2006 Best Campaign Organiser

2006 Most New Councillors (Barking and Dagenham)

Following the success at Barking and Dagenham, it was deemed appropriate by Head Office to bring me back on to the Advisory Council as Councillors’ Liaison Officer, as I was now the leader of the Barking and Dagenham Council official opposition. But plots were fermenting prior to the RWB 2006, as I was approached by four leading officers of the Party and asked to stand against the Chairman on isues of bad management and financial improprieties. I refused and had a lengthy conversation with the Chairman at the RWB, again emphasising the need for stronger security checks for key officers, including and above the position of regional organiser. I also brought to the Chairman’s attention that it would be a wise move for him to distance himself from any involvement with financial matters and suggested that he should consider introducing the process of electing regional organisers, rather than undemocratically appointing them. It was also by this time that certain key people who were coming up from the south, south west and south east, were suddenly disappearing, while at the same time yes-men were being kept in place over and above those who displayed obvious talent.

Also, as the Councillors’ Liaison Officer, I was seeing at first hand the disillusionment at coal face, with sole councillors in particular not being supported. Councillors were promised an internet set-up where they could debate and contact each other and share knowledge, (so they did not have to use their councils’ internet systems), but it was constantly being put off by Head Office. This meant that having worked hard to get councillors elected, once in post, they were steadily being demotivated by the lack of resources and assistance given to them, leaving individuals in an isolated, vulnerable position, and causing them in many cases to stand down through disillusionment and lack of support. Even in my own council of Barking and Dagenham, with some of the less able councillors, it was difficult to keep them up to speed, causing our stronger councillors to battle with the extra case-studies and mountains of bureaucracy in a struggle to make sure we did not look incompetent.

As leader of the opposition I was at this time on a gross salary of £14 000 for which I was working 7 days a week.

In a private meeting in 2007, I mentioned to Head Office that there were problems. My prediction was that we would possibly get the GLA seat the following year, and if sufficient work and electioneering took place there was a good likelihood we would get a European seat in 2009, but my concerns were that if we kept running ahead too fast without supporting the existing elected councillors, we would look back over our shoulders and see the basic foundations crumbling. Unfortunately this has now come to pass as we have lost all the ground-work it took to get win our 100 plus council seats at county, borough, district, town and parish levels.

2007 saw the sacking, for one reason or another, of key members who questioned Head Office or the leadership on its financial irregularities, poor judgements on national campaigns and faux pas to the media. Also the accounts were being submitted late to the Electoral Commission. The bigger the Party became, the more Head Office tightened its control. Yes-men were continuing to be appointed at the expense of those with ability. Councillors, especially sole councillors were becoming despondent. It was more and more difficult to keep up the momentum, given that the grass roots were being starved of resources. And there was still no Party back-up provided to councillors. Councillors started resigning due to the pressure and lack of support.

At the end of 2007 I did not put my name forward again for the Advisory Council as Councillors’ Liaison Officer. My requests for assistance for councillors had fallen on deaf ears, so I decided instead to focus my efforts on the following year’s GLA/mayoral election campaign.
It was in 2007 that I received the Party’s award:

Best Councillor of the Year (runner-up)

2008 saw the GLA elections. A staggering one million leaflets were delivered by hand all over London, comprising of 600 000 full colour A3 and 500 000 black and white A4, which were double dropped in some key areas. This was an unprecedented campaign in nationalist politics which I co-ordinated and managed with just seven other key London activists, together with the support of the majority of London activists as well as hundreds of others from across the nation. But it wasn’t until the last six weeks of a nine month campaign that the National Elections Officer and the National Secretary felt the need to exert themselves! Throughout the months preceding the elections, I was working flat-out, seven days a week, which took a toll on my health and my domestic circumstances. The press were still attacking me and the door of my house was vandalised. A lot of the time I was travelling across London on public transport with no security (and in many cases having to carry the maps).

During the London campaign there were also other frustrations going on, as organisers from the south east were having problems with Head Office and were therefore reluctant to come across and work on the west side of the London campaign. The decision had to be made to focus all key efforts on London, which was the only high profile election that was taking place at that time. London was winnable and so deserved the best possible resources. But it wasn’t until the last months of the GLA election campaign that money started coming in thick and fast from the then National Fundraiser. However, with or without this increase in finances, the GLA seat still would have been won.

On the day of the election, when it came to the count, many of the boxes had been tampered with, and the new electronic counting system had glitches. Three hours prior to the results being declared, I asked one of the key officers of London Elects what percentage we were at, regards the PR London-wide vote and he said that the BNP was at around 7.5%. I then asked him where this percentage would ultimately level out at, and he said ‘7-7.1%’. This would have resulted in a contest between the Greens getting two seats and the BNP achieving two seats. In fact, we ended up with only 5.3% or 130 000 votes for the top-up candidacy! So what was the explanation? At least I was elected- another BNP first! But to drop from a predicted 7% plus to 5%plus seems somewhat inexplicable! So much for electronic counting systems…

I was at the same time also the mayoral candidate for London and won 198 000 votes. I had been out every single day- canvassing, leafleting, attending hustings, as well as spearheading the campaign, while at the same time still acting as the Leader of the Opposition of Barking and Dagenham Council which was also a seven day a week job. This put inevitable pressure on my domestic life. In spite of all this frenetic activity for the Party, it transpired recently that the closer it came to the elections and the more likely it seemed that we would win a seat, Head Office were having second thoughts about my being the candidate!

Yes, I like a drink at the end of a long hard day but I’ve never drunk to excess or allowed it to affect my judgement. However, the Left don’t miss a trick at our expense, and saw this as a stick to beat me with. I would like to make clear I have never sought assistance from any AA group, nor have I needed to. Having a drink has never affected my work or professionalism. For those of you who feel that my speeches are somewhat ‘poetic’, that is just my character. Having said this, it has secured every success I have achieved for the Party, for my own area and across the nation both at branch meetings and at the RWB and throughout the country in canvassing campaigns.

When elected to the GLA it was agreed that I would give 10% of my net earnings to the Party. However, I decided voluntarily to donate all of my net wage from Barking and Dagenham council which was £500 a month. This was in fact over £100 per month more than 10% of my GLA salary and this money went directly into the Party treasury with the intention for it to be used for the Party’s development.

Success inevitably attracts attention and opposition. During 2008, having been elected to the GLA and while also a councillor in Barking and Dagenham, I was constantly under attack, both having my house damaged again and being brought before the Standards Board through complaints initiated by Labour councillors. After I was elected as a member of the GLA, I passed the leadership of Barking and Dagenham BNP councillors on to the deputy leader of the opposition and became the deputy myself. By this time I was dealing with not only my own ward but with several other wards, as well as representing London on the GLA.

The elections of 2006 and 2008 were run on what was actually a pittance, (compared to the vast amounts spent by the main parties), of £50 000. With all the big money that has come in to the Party subsequently, I ask the simple question, where did it all go?

At the end of 2008, any campaign strategy had fallen through the floor, with people permitted to contest seats that were clearly not winnable. This includes unlikely areas such as Camden, Tower Hamlets and Hampstead. These no-hope campaigns were run at the expense of winnable seats like Hainault. Here again, Head Office had lost the plot. The subsequent poor results demoralised individuals, and brought down our national average, which gave ammunition to the press and achieved nothing beneficial.

It was also in 2008 that they stopped the annual awards for achievement and thus turned the RWB into a low key non-celebratory non-event. Yet this was at a time when the Party needed to praise and encourage individuals for achieving things beyond the normal expectations of any main-stream political activists. Unlike the other parties, the BNP was the only political entity that was being attacked from all directions, every day of the week. As tangible, positive recognition within such a negative political climate, people valued those awards so much. And the more successful we were, the more our opponents turned up the heat and the more difficult it became. But of course, as with everything else, Head Office knew best!

It was at about the end of 2008 that people began to have growing concerns about money. I told the Chairman repeatedly that he should distance himself from the financial affairs of the Party and also that he had to get an independent auditor. I also pointed out that the begging letters, which were coming from Northern Ireland at an almost indecent rate, had to balanced out with letters requesting practical help and activity from those who could not afford to pay. The response to this was that ‘people should be embarrassed into feeling that they should pay up’!

Also at this time, on a monthly basis, key leading activists and administrators were complaining to me about issues that I could clearly see that were arising within the structure of the Party, and were asking me to bring them to the Chairman’s attention on the basis that I could not be sacked from my position and that they could! I duly did so and the result was that I was sacked as Barking and Dagenham Organiser- again!

From that point on, support at meetings in Barking and Dagenham started to dwindle. And not only was attendance at branch meetings falling off, but the number of ward news letters going out was diminishing. As early as late 2008, the overall picture in Barking and Dagenham was that the borough was starting to slip away. And Head Office was becoming ever more remote.

The decline slowly continued. The then Barking and Dagenham Organiser had too much to do. Some councillors were struggling with personal attacks, not to mention the mounting pressure of the bureaucratic side of council work coupled with their ward work, and still there was no support from Head Office, and no let-up in sight. And this was happening UK-wide. Yet the money was still coming in thick and fast to Head Office. No doubt it was all going into the Northern Ireland set-up.

2009 saw more complications in the working structure of Head Office. Even though more finance was coming in to the Party than ever before, we were losing seats we had won previously and even more discontent was being passed on to me by grass-roots activists to pass on to the Chairman. This was becoming more and more frustrating because he clearly wasn’t listening! No doubt he was basking in the success of the European elections which saw two MEPs successfully elected.

Yorkshire and Humberside had been seen as a secondary consideration and yet Andrew Brons got a higher vote than the Chairman. But Head Office was more concerned with getting money into seats where key officers were candidates, rather than looking at where the most votes were likely to come from! By this time we were into an annual income of something like £2 million and yet branches and groups had to give up money to finance the European elections. Head Office should have paid for it and left the branches and the groups to conserve their finances for local elections. The Party had lost the plot with its misjudged priority of pumping millions into the Northern Ireland office. It was if we were about to be a key player in government. And yet we hadn’t won over-all control of a single council- or even a parish.

In mid 2009 I said to the Deputy Chairman that things had to change because key activists’ complaints were falling on deaf ears and if this continued I would have difficulty in retaining the whip at the GLA, because these issues had to be addressed. At the same time, rumours were passing around that I would be deselected to stand for the Barking parliamentary seat. As it turned out, the rumours proved true, and it came to light in the winter of 2009 that I would not be selected to stand for the constituency of Barking again and that some one would be parachuted in from outside London. This approach was also to take place in Stoke, Thurrock and other key strongholds, with local activist candidate hopefuls being replaced by outsiders with no links or affiliation with the constituencies in which they were to stand. Yet another ingredient was being stirred in to the mix in the recipe for disaster!

In 2009, with the stagnation of activities in Barking and Dagenham, I asked the Chairman to reinstate me as the Barking and Dagenham Organiser. Even so, it took an unbelievable five months of time wasting and petty discussions for me to be given the post again! I formulated a campaign which this time had the necessary number of candidates that would allow for two thirds coverage which would have given us control of the council had they been elected. Notwithstanding, this was all left to the last minute, because I didn’t have access to the Barking and Dagenham membership list and previous election canvassing sheets. The campaign was run in only five months! In this time we had to leaflet the whole borough five times over and partially canvass it. Having said that, the glitches in the campaign itself made no difference, because what I did not predict was the amount of corruption that went on during the election with each Labour councillor getting an additional 1000 or more votes on top of what they had attained 2006!

Just look at these figures and draw your own conclusions:

Whereas the BNP vote largely held up to what it had been in 2006, the Labour vote consistently more or less doubled! Even those former Labour councillors who had been deselected and had stood as independent candidates were complaining to us about what had been going on. These were individuals who had worked hard and been popular within the wards that they had represented- people we thought that we would have found it difficult to beat. Following the election, we made door to door enquires, knocking on doors of houses with multiple voters listed on the electoral roll, only to be told in many cases by neighbours that in fact only one or two people lived there. But by this time the entire activist team was totally exhausted; we just didn’t have the resources or the energy it would have needed to launch a full scale investigation. We reported our concerns to both the police and the Electoral Commission but nothing came of it.

After the elections of 2010, where we lost everything on the council and got a derisory vote in the both the parliamentary seats of Barking, and Dagenham & Rainham, it transpired that the then National Elections Officer, the Chairman and possibly other key national head office officers had made the decision to deselect me from Barking, not for my alleged ‘drinking’ nor for dyslexia, but because they could not allow someone of my high profile to take the possibly only parliamentary seat in the country. In other words they didn’t want me to become the number one person in nationalism in the Britain. Pathetic!

During the last 3 months of the Barking and Dagenham campaign, otherwise known as the Battle for Barking, there were massive splits in campaign team. Certain people who supported the Chairman would not work in a team with the sacked National Elections Officer! Maybe it’s time to look back to former times in Barking and Dagenham, to see how the situation had degenerated:

During the second weekend in March in 2005 we had 85 people leafleting and canvassing throughout the borough.

In 2006 in the council elections in the same weekend in March we had around 150-160.

In 2008 in the GLA and Mayoral elections in the same weekend, we had 240 people out in the borough of Barking and Dagenham.

But in the same weekend in March 2010 we had a pitiful 60-70 people turn out.

At the same time, in 2010, we were over the £2 000 000 fundraising mark. I had myself donated £1000 to the national elections. And at the same time paid out £500 for lifelong membership. Yet parliamentary campaigns across the country were being paid for by branches and individuals and not by Head Office. Granted, I have to say with some humility that Barking and Dagenham, primarily Barking, had all its funds supplied by Head Office- after all, it was where the Chairman was standing. But what is also very concerning is that branches and groups had to donate a large percentage of their hard earned reserves to fund the national campaign. So once again, I have to ask, what became of the £2 million? Who’s been eating into the pie?

Following hard on the heels of the 2010 elections, came the Goresbrook by-election in July. This came about because a Labour councillor did not declare that she was working for the council which disqualified her from standing. I fought long and hard to get Labour to concede the point, which eventually led to the councillor resigning, thus forcing a by-election. But these efforts were all in vain, because when it came to the campaign for that by-election, hardly anyone turned up- maybe 3 or 4 canvassers a day! There were again massive splits between those who supported the National Organiser who had been given control of the campaign by Head Office, and those who followed the ex-National Elections Officer. Both factions would have nothing to do with each other and would even not be seen canvassing in the same road! The situation was so bad that it led to us losing the seat again, only this time we polled even fewer votes than we had in the preceding month- this in Goresbrook, the once flagship ward which had previously polled some 52%!

It was more than clear to me then that in-fighting and personal ambitions had started to take precedence over the good of the Cause itself and the situation was getting seriously out of control, so much so that it was detrimentally affecting our election outcomes. Goresbrook was a seat which we should have been able to win back easily! However at the time I myself was totally exhausted by the effects of the election campaign and the subsequent wipe-out, support was dwindling in all directions, factionalism had distracted and split the activists and supporters, members were not re-joining and morale was at rock bottom. Also the RWB annual event had been abandoned.

Since then, it’s been one tale of unmitigated woe for the Party, due to the horrendous mismanagement of the finances by Head Office, resulting in outstanding printing bills, numerous and largely avoidable court cases, changes to the constitution, mass expulsions… dissatisfaction was becoming so bad that many councillors were resigning the whip in despair.

At this point, I had come to the conclusion that something had to be done; the Chairman had to be replaced. I attended a meeting with the ex-National Elections Officer to decide which of us would mount a leadership challenge and which would be seconder. The vast majority of the activists at the meeting were in favour of the ex-National Elections Officer. However it subsequently transpired that the meeting had been loaded in favour of the then ex-National Elections Officer; also that derisory comments had been made about me, behind my back at that meeting. I therefore then decided to distance myself from the challenge in disgust at the antics of the number one challenger. It wasn’t until some weeks later that a collection of independent national activists requested that I stood, as in their view, neither the Chairman nor the number one challenger was able to take the party forward. I would like to make it quite clear that I was not asked to stand by the Chairman.

The situation which led to my resignation of the whip has been well documented elsewhere on my blog. Suffice it to say here that following the leadership contest in summer 2010, in which the Chairman was successful, I could see clearly that after his re-election, the Chairman was unlikely to implement any of the changes that I and so many others had been calling for. So I reluctantly resigned the BNP whip at the GLA by way of protest. But instead of taking my concerns on board and formulating a plan for acting on then and thereby saving the Party from disaster, Head Office took the opportunity to expel me! (Please note, I have never resigned from the Party). Maybe it was because I had been seen as a thorn in the leadership’s side. After all, with my previous success record for getting things done and achieving groundbreaking results, perhaps I was seen as being just too pro-active, like all those others who had been culled over the years just because they showed too much ability. Perhaps given the number of times I’ve been sacked for no good reason, I should have seen it coming! But hindsight is a wonderful thing!

Having been expelled, I wrote to Head Office requesting an appeal hearing, which I was entitled to. At least I would then have had the chance to put my case. But even this was denied to me. In fact the reason that I was given for my expulsion was that having resigned the whip I had in effect resigned from the Party, which is utter nonsense. But it seems that they were determined to get rid of me once and for all, come what may.

Looking back, 2010 was a horrendous year for me personally. I received numerous death threats, had my bike damaged and wheels slashed on a number of occasions. I was physically attacked in the streets when wearing my suit, had liquids thrown over me and was punched in the face. No police action was taken, even though I reported each incident. And then there was that altercation with Billy Bragg where at least I managed to get him to concede that Labour wasn’t representing interests and concerns of the people of Barking and Dagenham. There was certainly never a dull moment!

In 2011 the Party started attacking me publicly with inflammatory and libellous statements. It also subsequently came to my knowledge that the Chairman had intended to falsify information with intent to bankrupt me in an attempt to evict me from the GLA. There remains the possibility that I may face legal proceedings over unpaid printing bills relating the Barking and Daghenham elections and incurred by Head Office, which I had been specifically led believe had been paid and consequently signed off in good faith as party agent. All this is hardly the sort of behaviour one would expect from the leadership of a national party which is supposed stand for the principles of honesty and integrity.

At the end of 2010 I attended two English Defence League meetings to see how the organisation could be incorporated within a political party and to look at its political intentions for the future. In January 2011 I attended a meeting of the English Democrats council in order to discuss possible affiliation and to talk over their manifesto and political aims. Neither of these avenues progressed further. In April, I wrote to all four leaders of the main nationalist/patriotic parities and group, suggesting unification.

Now you tell me if you don’t think I’ve tried to do my best for the Party and the country over the last decade?

So that’s why I’m where I am today. I still wear the beige suit- it has become a trademark. Because of it, wherever I am, people know exactly who I am and what I have done to assist this country. Let’s hope I don’t have to hang up the beige suit for good in the near future, but who knows?

So where to we go from here?

The BNP is no longer fit for purpose.

The Party has to be dismantled and re-named, while at the same time it should work towards unification with the other patriotic/nationalist parties and groups. This would ideally include UKIP and the English Democrats, and also the English Defence League, as well as other smaller groups where feasible, reaching out to all British/English patriots right across the political spectrum of nationalism to establish a single unified fighting force fit to take on the corrupt political establishment in today’s Britain.

The new party has to be restructured as soon as possible. And in order to progress unification with other like-minded organisations, all the key officers of the nationalist parties should be invited to come together for a conference to bring this about.

Joining together would give us sufficient power and resources to make the new united party of nationalism a real force to be reckoned with in the 21st century. Some may call it a ‘new model army’, working together to overthrow the tyranny of the British liberal elite.

We have been sliding backwards for long enough. Now is the time to move forwards.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having foreseen the problems within the Party, readers may well ask what I did to try and resolve them. Well, I didn’t just sit on my hands - I did my best to point them out. Here is some of the correspondence I sent to Head Office in an attempt to persuade them to change their ways. Unfortunately my petitioning fell on deaf ears:

June 2010

Dear Nick

I am to say the least, like everyone else, extremely disappointed by the results in Barking and Dagenham. But I hope that this will afford the Party the chance to turn a corner, because there are some things which need to be said, and unless these matters are sorted out now, once and for all, I do not see that the Party is going to progress; indeed its implosion is inevitable.

Firstly, to say I saw it coming would be untrue, but in hindsight, we were up against an unprecedentedly hostile and well-resourced campaign from our opponents. In the light of this, some facts have to be faced by the present leadership.

I have been saying for a long time that there needs to be far more support and resources given to the grass roots from HQ. At the moment things seem to be operating in the opposite direction. HQ should be there to assist the ground forces and not the other way around. I made this clear in a letter I sent to you Nick about a year ago and my advice has only just begun to be heeded. We have to move forward in this area as a priority.

Also, the Party finances have to be sorted out now, once and for all. Public perception is the big issue here. The employment of any individual on a six figure salary is wholly unacceptable. You could get at least 3 good people for this figure! It would be bad enough if this salary were being funded from investments, but no, this money is coming directly from donations- and as we all know, the Party gets its money from supporters who are either elderly or working class. No rich bankers or businessmen are forking out to help the BNP, I’m afraid. So although donations might well be up as a direct result of an individual’s efforts which on the face of it might be said to justify this level of remuneration, the salary is coming directly from our supporters and unfortunately there has been proven to be such a thing as ‘donation fatigue.’ Once we lose the memberships goodwill, the income flow will dry up and it will be very hard, if not impossible to restore it.

Again, it’s a fact of life that it’s the public perception that matters. What sort of message does this put out? -the fact that we can afford to pay a single individual this much? Also, I would have thought that one of the tests of loyalty of any employee of the Party is that they are prepared to come and work for us at less than the going rate! The situation has to tackled, and it has to be addressed as a priority, if not by the Leader than by the AC. To spell it out clearly, the national fund-raiser’s position has to be radically pruned. Because until this happens, questions will continue to raised throughout the rank and file about the Party’s finances which need to be far more transparent.

The question of European expenses is another bugbear that needs to be taken in hand. I hate to sound self-congratulatory, but I have never taken any of the expenses that I have been entitled to whilst on the GLA or the Council, with the exception of a travel card. I don’t take taxis, I don’t go on foreign jollies, I hardly take what I’m entitled to so there’s absolutely no chance of anyone ever being able to accuse me of swinging the lead. This has paid off dividends in the form of peaceful nights’ sleep while the MPs’ expense scandal was raging. We must not allow ourselves to be put in the position of attracting criticism. So I strongly suggest that the European expenses have to be cut right back.

I have to say that at times like this, with all this conflict over the leadership, words fail me. The secondary blogs, like ‘Butler Exposed’ and comments like ‘Barnbrook’s gay,’ have to stop! The lack of principle and individual loyalty in this Party is horrifying. I stand aghast as I watch all around me people putting themselves and their petty grievances, personal ambition and naked gain before the good of the Party and the country. This is not why I joined the BNP. We have to be the people of principle. We will only succeed through decency, sincerity, honour and self sacrifice.

I am wondering where I go from here. I can’t bear all this bickering, sniping and back-stabbing. At its best, it’s galling and at its worst it’s interfering and wrecking our ability to fight a decent campaign here in Goresbrook. All hands should be concentrating on winning back the seat and I shouldn’t have to waste my time in writing this. Believe it or not, and it’s incredible but true, I had to try to attempt tp mediate between the 2 factions of supporters whilst running the campaign! One lot of activists support the ex-national elections officer and the others under the national organiser, are loyal to you. So I was going to have to keep them separate in east and west Goresbrook which would have left me on my own canvassing in the middle of the ward so that the two groups didn’t meet!! In the end, only 4 people bothered to turn up! This cost me my 4 day holiday and remember, I have not had a break since well before elections. THE PARTY NEEDS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY IN INPUT FOR THE GORESBROOK CAMPAIGN. WE NEED TO RETAKE GORESBROOK IN ORDER TO PARTIALLY REDRESS OUR RECENT FAILURES. And yet people are putting their petty grievances before the Party- as usual. This is such a lamentable state of affairs, because indications up until now show that we are on course for a win, but we have to put the work in.

Nick, I’ve followed you to date without question, so much so, that I moved aside for you in Barking, but now I want to see some action on the points I’ve raised not just for your own good as leader, but for the good of the Party and the country.

Unless there are some significant changes along the lines I’ve mentioned, I think that it’s regrettably quite clear that the 2000 signatures needed for an election challenge will be forthcoming.

Believe me, I have always and continue to have the good of the Party and the cause at heart. We have to move forward now, otherwise we are simply doing the enemies’ work for them. I’m making these points for your own good as well as everybody else’s. You have to look for a successor that is not tied or tainted by the existing set-up. The Party cannot be led by ‘yes-men,’

Nick, I would like a response to this if not today then tomorrow, and then maybe we could talk.

Yours
Richard

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Richard

Many thanks for your long and carefully considered letter. My apologies for not replying sooner, but there was no time with a parliamentary session combined with party-running work and the very significant time currently being taken up with major staff restructuring and forward-planning (much of which, incidentally, is intended to deal with several failings that you rightly raise).

Anyway, I am now in a position to reply, so will do so one issue at a time in the order raised by you:

1) You state that HQ should assist our "ground forces, not other way around." In principle, I agree, and action is being taken on this. For example, starting on July 1st, for the first time in the history of British nationalism, local units will be allowed to keep every penny of every new membership they sign up. This will be for an experimental period of three months, but as long as it produces the major increase in recruitment that such an incentive should, I would hope to extend it.

But, and here's the point, this is only affordable because we (or, more precisely, Jim Dowson) set up a proper call centre, which allows the party centre to work on upgrading new members, which is what will make this financially possible. Your belief that our contract with Mr. Dowson is some kind of problem that should be brought to an end could not be further from the mark.

That said, I am mindful of the point you raise the perception can matter almost as much as substance. You will therefore be pleased to learn that Jim is now working on the next phase of the plan we designed for the party’s radical organisational upgrade, and that this involves a co-ordinated effort to raise our game at regional and local level. The aim of this is to help our front-line become more effective at recruiting and fund-raising, in order to provide sustainable funding for local staffing and campaigning.

Additionally, there is much of what has been done centrally over the last two years which, having got things right there, can now be used to provide the support for the front-line that you rightly point out is needed. Crucially, our Elections

Department will over the coming months be rolling out the knowledge and software needed by our frontline to run effective voter contact and databasing campaigns. Here too, we would be unable to make this absolutely vital step forward were it not for what Mr. Dowson has already done for the party centrally.

2) I agree that central support for local elections, and our councillors, has been woefully weak in the past. Our Elections Department, for example, promised to produce an elections handbook for six or seven years, but never did so. Clive Jefferson will have one (covering far more innovative and advanced techniques than have ever been used before) by the end of the summer.

As already pointed out above, we are also working on creating for the BNP the voter targeting database and online campaign support mechanisms that the other parties started to develop years ago. This will be a huge step forward and it is indeed overdue. Here too, I refuse to accept lectures on past failings here which originate with the man who was in charge of our election machine and is overwhelmingly to blame for its lack of drive and ambition. My fault is not having replaced him earlier.

What I do promise is that your well-founded concerns about past lack of emphasis in this field is already agreed with and being acted upon, and will be seen to have been addressed in the very near future.

3) On the related question of councillor support, I likewise have to say that I have never turned down a single, concrete, realistic proposal for training events, newsletters, online support or similar, from any one of the several individuals who have been elected as Councillors' Representatives to the AC. I created the post to encourage initiative and progress in that area, so again, my fault is not having taken action to remedy the omissions of others, but I am not super-human, and I try to avoid being a control-freak.

Some of what Clive's team are looking at will help to fill this gap, but overall this will remain a weak point for a little while until a group of current and especially former councillors step forward with proposals I can back to sort it out. That said, Cllr. James North is doing more in this field than any of his predecessors, so if you have any concrete proposals, he's the man to contact.

4) From a big picture point of view, when I decided to take Jim Dowson on at the end of 2008, we concluded very early that the organisational improvement side of his work would have to start at the party centre, on the basis that until that was sorted out and updated from amateur shambles to professional level, any significant growth from below would overwhelm our ramshackle system completely.

The downside was that having to put so much attention and investment into the centre has inevitably led to the perception that the volunteer base has been neglected. Well, since the centre is essentially full-time, I cannot see how it would have been right to leave it pottering along, wasting members' money and holding things up, while pressing our volunteer rank-and-file to work harder and (especially) smarter.

As discussed above, that part of the process is now just beginning, starting with a significant upgrade in the amount of practical and back-up support we will from now on be giving to ROs and their regional teams.

5) Thus far, I imagine you will have been generally pleased with what I've had to say. That will not be the case with the next point.

Jim Dowson is not on a six figure salary. He has never been paid that much. He is well paid, although please note that when one hires an independent contractor such as his operation, his bill includes services provided by other people he brings in to advise. Over the last two years I have seen this in action time and time again, as Jim has bounced organisational problems of ours on to experienced contacts of his, and come back with answers that work. This has been a good investment.

As for value for money, not only has Jim raised a huge amount more than he has charged us, his cost-cutting efforts on everything from print jobs to mobile phone contracts have literally saved more than we have paid him. Meanwhile, the call centre makes a profit every single month, as well as making our members feel they belong (it is one of the things that has reduced our membership turnover loss from 70% to 17%, do you really want to go backwards on such things?)

6) You suggest that we shouldn't raise funds from appeals. I have to ask, what alternative do you propose? A machine the size of the BNP costs huge sums of money to run. Our surplus income from memberships, subscriptions and unsolicited donations wouldn't begin to cover the costs of running the party's essential services.

If we stopped running appeals, what should we cut? Who should we sack from our paid staff? Which offices should we shut? Which publications or services should we scrap? How much should we increase membership fees?

You are right that there is a risk of donor fatigue among some, which is why Jim Dowson has taught us the importance of collecting and approaching the largest possible number of new names and addresses. It is why he, more than anyone else, is pressing ahead with measures designed to help us get to the 20,000 member financial take-off point.

Basically, a party of 2,000 members can be run on a largely voluntary basis, but one of 10,000 cannot. But a party of 20,000 can be run with the same infrastructure as a party of 10,000, which is why we - having got the central infrastructure right - we are now moving on to concentrate more on the membership growth that is the only thing that will allow us to scale back on the intensity of our appeals operation.

7) To move to your next point, you suggest that Mr. Dowson should work for us for less than the going rate. Well, firstly, he does. For the amount and effectiveness of his work, he is actually a bargain.

Secondly, if you would care to go out and find us a fund-raiser, a despatch centre chief, a management consultant, a budgetary control advisor and a skilled trainer, then if you can find those skills in a person or group of people who will perform those duties for the BNP - standing up to all the hate from Searchlight, the mass media and the time-servers and petty crooks who they expose and deal with - then when Mr. Dowson's contract expires I will consider taking on your fortuitous find. Do you have any suggestions to start with?

8) You say that finances need to be more transparent. The reality is that the BNP's internal systems are now, thanks to Jim Dowson's advice, full of checks and balances to prevent funds being stolen or misapplied. We are audited to the same level as a multi-national company. Any member of the A.C. (and please do not insult its members by even hinting that they are all 'yes-men') is at liberty to inspect any aspect of our accounting system and to ask any questions they wish. Then everything is checked by the hostile bureaucrats of the Electoral Commission - a second audit carried out by Establishment placemen. Where is the weak point?

You cannot call for more transparency without pointing out what it is at present that is not transparent. Nor can you do so without proposing sensible, workable and troublemaker-proof proposals to make further improvements. The ball is in your court, Jim and I have spent the last two years working on getting our accounting systems up to the required standard (not easy with a turn-over rising so fast, and lack of experienced staff), so we would be delighted if someone else would come up with some even better ideas to bolt on to what we have already achieved.

9) Still on money, we come to the question of European expenses. As I have already pointed out to you, I am at a disadvantage here, because despite my asking for it last week, you still haven't given me a shred of detail as to what is supposed to be wrong.

Are Andrew Brons and I accused of stealing? Of living high on the hog? Or of not breaking the law by ripping off the taxpayers to subsidise the BNP? Of employing too many staff? Or too few? Of using parts of our office and communications budgets? Or of not yet using them all?

You say there is a bugbear, but where is it, and what does it look like? And what. expenses do you think should be cut back? The District Line doesn't go to Brussels or Strasbourg and we don't get Oystercards like you anyway. Should we hitch-hike, or continue to drive, thus enabling us to take assistants and security with us at no extra cost to the taxpayer or to the party?

Should cut our Attendance Allowance payments by not bothering to attend, thus allowing the media to characterise us as 'do-nothings', losing our right to find and expose the sort of injustices and dangers which we are now uncovering frequently, and incidentally depriving our Community Funds of thousands of pounds of extra income, donated by us from our own money?

Should we stop using our £40,000 a year Communications Allowances to put out huge numbers of constituency newsletters or for postage for direct mail to constituents from their MEPs? All the other parties use every penny, should the BNP alone give the money back to the EU?

Should we stop using our £40,000 a year Office Expenses budgets to rent and equip our offices? All the other parties use every penny, should the BNP alone give the money back to the EU?

Or should we refuse to hire staff with the £180,000 a year we each get for that purpose? Should you close your offices at the GLA, stop employing your staff and give the money back to Boris? I ask, because those are the only measures that would reduce the amount of what our enemies and the ignorant call our "expenses claims".

Frankly you should be ashamed of yourself for even listening to the recycled Searchlight smears that Butler and his little gang of cronies keep coming out with on this issue.

10) I am, however, very much more sympathetic to your request that the party take responsibility for the Goresbrook by-election. Indeed, as you know by now Clive Jefferson has done just that. The whole of the Election Department is at his and your disposal. Every effort will be made to roll out our early experiments in telephone canvassing and other improved electioneering techniques.

So there are your answers. I hope that you like some of them and appreciate the facts and plain speaking in the others. Now I strongly recommend that you simply tell the smear-mongers to go away and leave you unmolested, and that you get on with Goresbrook and then your GLA duties, and leave the worries and cares of running the party to me.

Yours sincerely

Nick

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
29th June 2010
Dear Nick

Thank you for your long and detailed letter which I have now had the chance to read over carefully. It must have taken you a considerable amount of time and effort and I am grateful for the frankness of your answers.

In the light of all you have said, and given your over-all perspective as leader, it now seems clear to me that you know best. At least, I’m prepared to accept that you do. I have taken on board your comments about the National Fundraiser. Save with the proviso, that when all the focus is on financial considerations and marketing tools, there is inevitably a tendency for the personal side of things to suffer. I mentioned to you in a letter of over a year ago now, that the mail shots asking for donations should be alternated with requests for activists. Because not everyone can afford to keep giving donations and I feel that many people may find this aggressive repetitive badgering for money unwelcome and off-putting. Our party has to be seen as not only different from, but superior to all the rest, both in terms of principle and idealism On this point, I recall that Lee Barnes made an interesting comment a couple of years back when he suggested ways to re-invigorate the nationalist working class consciousness by organising outings and educational events as a means of cementing new members to the Party by social activities. It’s this human side of things that I feel may well get neglected as I have an almost Luddite revulsion to such new-speak terminology as performance indicators, targets, achievable and measurable aims and objectives and the new nonsensical vocabulary which is the pride of the paper-pushing MBAs which have done so much to cripple businesses and wreck this country with their money grabbing, one-size-fits-all methodology. So what I am asking for is that we do not lose sight of the doorstep activism side of things. Because what really matters above all is the personal touch.

With regard to European expenses, again it is the public perception that matters, as you rightly agree. What I have heard, and no doubt you will castigate me for having listened to anti-party propaganda, but what I have heard is that you attend in order to claim the attendance allowance and then beat a hasty retreat back home again. Somewhat reminiscent of what has been going on the House of Lords. Apparently they get over £300 for just turning up, sign in and then attend to their London business outside the House. If you have not been guilty of this sort of thing, then what it does show is that you need to be far more aggressive in rebutting all the whispering and lies that are in the ether and indeed, promoting your virtues.

After the Goresbrook by-election, which I hope will be successful, and I don’t necessarily think that it’s a foregone conclusion that it will be, given the huge lack of support and activity that I have received from across London, no doubt because they are all siding with Eddy and I have resolutely refused to nail my colours to the mast until I had spoken with you, you need to come down here and speak to all the London organisers and key members with your vision for the future to try and get them back on board. I think that if I win Goresbrook, your job may be a little easier. But you will need to confront them, nevertheless.

The only thing that keeps me going in the midst of all this misery and disappointment is that my intentions are sincere and that it is not so much the end result, but the quality of the fight that matters. Because that is ultimately what we as individuals will be judged on. At least I can console myself with having fought a good fight for the last 6 years with Barking and Dagenham consistently returning the highest national percentages, and I have done this for what I feel are all the right reasons.

Sincerely yours,

Richard

29th June 2010

No further communication from the Chairman led to:

Press statement 13th August

PRESS STATEMENT

Official Statement From Richard Barnbrook AM.

Over the last few months allegations of serious wrong doing concerning senior British National Party officials have been spread both within and outside the British National Party.

I do not know the truth or otherwise of these allegations.

These allegations have the potential to cause major political damage to the party’s future electoral prospects unless they are investigated and revealed to be false.

I was elected as a London Wide Member to serve the constituencies of Londoners who feel that the establishment political parties do not represent them or their interests.

I have a duty to put their interests and the interests of the British National Party first.

For over a decade I have been a loyal member of the British National Party.

This is why I have decided to take this course of action.

The serious nature of these allegations are such that they must be the subject of an internal independent and transparent BNP investigation to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations.

I have decided therefore that until these allegations are investigated fully by an independent panel of British National Party officers and members and are revealed as either true or false, that I cannot continue to represent the BNP in the Greater London Assembly.

I am therefore resigning the BNP whip with immediate effect and will now sit as an independent member of the London Assembly.

I am not resigning my British National Party membership.

I remain a loyal British National Party member and continue to serve the party and its members that I hold so dear to my heart.

Once this internal and independent British National Party investigation reports back its findings, and I can go back to my constituents and fellow party members and report that the allegations are not true, then I will immediately recommence representing the British National Party on the GLA.

I will not be making any public comment on the nature of these allegations to the media as they relate to legal issues that must remain confidential in order not to compromise the investigation.

I still am one of the most loyal and dedicated members of the British National Party.

I will not be making any further comments to the media on this issue, or any issues related to the investigation, until the independent and fully transparent internal BNP investigation has reported back its findings.

Richard Barnbrook AM.

Independent member of the Great London Authority.

13th August. 2010
11.00

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why I resigned the Party Whip:

The inescapable issues that must be addressed

Sent to the Chairman prior to publication on my blog 17th August 2010

The leadership challenge gave Nick Griffin a clear and decisive mandate; hopefully the Party will be able to move forward. But in order for this to happen, concerns that came to light in the course of the campaign must be addressed. We cannot progress as a party if things are simply swept under the proverbial carpet.

I have spent over a decade working the streets of London and across the nation, to support the principles and ideals of this Party, while at the same time, working tirelessly as most of you know, getting our members elected to local and regional levels of government. I am a nationalist, heart and soul, and always will remain so. I have not made the decision to resign the Party whip lightly. Nor have I produced this document with the intention of having a go at head office, the leadership or indeed, any individual. Any retribution is for the membership to determine and not me.

I honour my membership and respect the position that I was elected to. I deeply appreciate the work of those members of this party whose tireless efforts enabled my election, and am grateful to every individual that voted for me. It is only because of this that I feel that I have a duty to now speak out and hope that the wisdom and good sense of the Party’s management will be able to rectify these problems within the next two months. I am not prepared to allow things to drag on any longer than that because the damage could be irreversible. Those who have been active members for as long as I have will recognise that this cannot be allowed to happen.

We have gone, apparently, from £2.3 million in the black to owing something in the region £600 000. Nick himself admitted publicly on the night of the leadership challenge that the Party is £500 000 in the red. The Party’s books, therefore, need to be looked into by a small group to see what has gone wrong and where and how this can be remedied. I would suggest no more than 4 individuals- two from within the Party hierarchy who can offer explanations and two members with an accounting/investigative background, who can be relied on to be totally independent and fair. The findings need to be published.

Leading on from this, we were late again submitting the books to the Electoral Commission and the Party was fined as a result. This should not have happened as it could have been avoided and has cost the Party money. It is another indication that the accounting side of things needs scrutiny and overhaul.

The large scale sackings and suspensions have to stop. In particular, the individuals sacked from the Advisory Council should at least be given reasons for their dismissal. Those members suspended over the past few weeks ‘pending investigation’ should be re-admitted if there is no good reason for their exclusion. The investigation itself should be made by independent assessors and not by party officers. We cannot afford to lose good people. The effect on morale of these unexplained exclusions is devastating. If individuals need to be disciplined then so be it. But the procedure needs to be clear, transparent, and above all fair.

Once affairs are back on the straight and narrow and in order to ensure that matters do not regress, I would like consideration to be given to implementing the following measures:

Polygraph tests for anyone at Regional Organiser level or above, which includes non members These tests are expensive but very effective at rooting out infiltrators and they have to be prioritised. We cannot afford to let in any more moles into positions of authority from which they can wreck our Party’s future. The tests should be undertaken compulsorily, from the Leader downwards.

A new internal party structure needs to be set up to protect employment rights of BNP staff members. This committee would be required to check and authorise suspensions before they are issued.
This would ensure that sackings are fair and lawful and the Party is not left open to defending expensive legal proceedings.

Regional Organisers should be elected by the members of that region eligible to vote and should only be dismissed from office by the voting regional members, or by their peers on the Advisory Council.

The whole communications mechanism and accountancy and recruiting departments must be removed from Northern Ireland and brought back to the mainland. The present location is inaccessible and therefore not cost effective or practical.

As I have said, these issues have to be addressed within the next two months, before the political scene hots up again at the end of September. We cannot allow them fester any longer, because they are pulling this Party apart from top to bottom. When they have been resolved, I will resume my position as a BNP representative of the GLA. Until that time, my position will technically remain as independent, but rest assured that my political views have not changed.

Richard Barnbrook, BNP Member

London Assembly Member

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
25th August 2010

Changes that have to take place

I have always maintained impartial over the recent months after the elections, if not all the way through my political career with the BNP. Maybe the term impartiality should be replaced with that of professionalism.

Yes, I did stand for the leadership and yes, I did shake hands with Eddy Butler. That was before I saw what a moronic level this party and its structure has descended into, all crying out in the name of Britain and in the name of the BNP. What a fool I have been! It has now come to my attention that old friends, the first that I ever met when I joined the Party in 1999, that do not hold any status other than that of true activists, have been bullied and threatened not to work with me in any capacity. I may have resigned the whip, but for good reason. I am still a loyal member of THE PARTY. Managements come and go, as do leaders, but the stakeholders always remain the same.

I have never attacked anybody personally or made statements

to undermine the party, let alone its ability to function. While I am still a member of the GLA I will do my damndest to make sure that a member of the party that I belong to will be re-elected to the GLA in 2012, but that is a long shot at this moment in time with these divisions and factions taking place. As I said before I will resume the whip once the perceived current problems have been tackled This is not a selfish act or reprisal, it is simply what the party has to do now in order to survive.

Clarity, Communication, Cohesion and Continuity:

It’s due to the perception of a total collapse of communication from Head Office down, along with possible improprieties in the financial governance of our party that has caused the discontent of recent months We need an overhaul. Once again, this is what I suggest:

1)Our Chairman, Nick Griffin, MEP, be made life-long president of the party, a similar position that was offered to John Tyndall.

2)That Nick Griffin, MEP, be given all necessary resources to fight to regain his seat in future European elections.

3)That all expenditures over £500 are made open to party scrutiny in addition to that of the Electoral Commission.

4)That auditing and accounting functions are carried out by a scrutiny committee of 2 independent party members as well as independent professionals who have had to tender for the contract in order to secure the most competitive rate for Party

5)That all communications and activities based in Northern Ireland be brought to the mainland immediately and downsized to fit within the Party’s realistic structural capability and budget.

6)A full explanation of why the Party has gone from being £2.3 million in credit to a deficit of £600 000 in the past year.

7)All Regional Organisers and above, including national management, to undergo a polygraph lie detector test within the next 6 months.

8)All Regional Organisers to stand down and be elected by the regional members and to be paid £1000 per month, plus travelling expenses and communications. This is based on getting our donations and membership fees up again.

9)A Cabinet should be set up to include the Chairman, and Deputy Chairman. The Treasurer and the other 3 members to be chosen by the Advisory Council from among themselves.

10)All day to day decision making should be discussed and voted on by the Cabinet.

11)Regional Organisers can only be dismissed by the members of that region, or by the Advisory Council.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Richard

A loyal member of the party would not let down our activists and voters by resigning the party whip. Nor use the patently absurd black propaganda put out by a group of over ambitious egotists, crooks and plants as the opportunity to try to blackmail the party into giving you another five years in a job in which you have failed.

You do at least have the sad distinction of being the most hated man in the BNP, since both the Butler clique and party loyalists now detest you. If you continue on your present course any longer your situation will be totally unfixable.

All you need to do, howver, is to stop kidding yourself that your walking away has or will achieve anything other than giving you a threadbare excuse to renege on your pledge to give 10% of your salary to the party in London. Knowing that you are, at heart, a good and an honourable man, I cannot imagine that you really take any pleasure in the assorted addictive substances that you are buying with that stolen money.

Please, please, take a deep breath and get back in touch with our man from Alcoholics Anonymous. There is still time to save yourself from two years more guilty excess followed by a short lifetime of unemployable dereliction in the gutter. We still could sort something out that would give you the chance of a job in the Cause after someone else is elected in your stead (as now has to be the case) in 2012.

I am sorry to have to be so blunt, but the time for misplaced politeness has passed. You are a sick man. Your sickness has hurt many close to you and it has damaged the Cause for which you have sacrificed a great deal. But the others and especially the Cause will go along without you. It is you that you are killing.

Your genuine friend

Nick

From: Richard Barnbrook]
Sent: Wed 8/25/2010 4:39 PM
To: GRIFFIN Nick; BNP North West
Subject: 2012 GLA Elections

Here is the email I said I would send you. There will be another following, either today or tomorrow.

Regards

Richard

GLA ELECIONS 2012: LONDON CALLING!

The internal difficulties which are dogging our party should not and cannot be allowed to affect our election chances for the Greater London Assembly here in London in 2012. It is imperative that we all start working towards this campaign now!

I realise that many of you are feeling demoralised. And the 2012 elections may seem to be a long way off. But, the one thing I do know is how to run a successful GLA campaign. And make no mistake, if we are to have any chance in getting a BNP assembly member in to the GLA in 2012, we have to start our action now!

I may have resigned the party whip, but I am still a member of the BNP and I intend to remain so. Indeed, once the issues of concern have been ironed out, I will be more than happy to return to the fold. I am also fully committed to getting a person (whoever it may be that is eventually nominated), and hopefully more than one, elected on to the Assembly. But to do this, we have to create a forceful nationalist presence in London. We have to get the message out to the voters. WE HAVE TO PUT OUT A MILLION LEAFLETS JUST TO EQUAL OUR EFFORTS IN 2008. This is a huge feat in itself. Hopefully, we can better it. BUT IF WE SIT BACK AND WAIT UNTIL NEXT YEAR IN THE HOPE THAT BY THEN, EVERYTHING WILL HAVE SETTLED DOWN AGAIN, IT WILL BE TOO LATE!

WE HAVE TO START NOW OR LONDON WILL BE LOST TO US!

Nick Griffin is now the London Organiser. But Nick is also MEP for the North West with an office in Brussels and a home in Wales. He can’t be everywhere at once.

All I want is the success of this Party. I will not sit back and surrender London or the South East. I, along with other longstanding activists, have the experience and the public profile to lead this campaign. But to do it, we need your help.

Forget all the gripes and the infighting. Let the party big-wigs play their power games if they want to. The future of this country is the only thing that matters.

If you can help, please contact me:

Subject: RE: 2012 GLA Elections
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:05:31 +0200
From: nick.griffin
To: richardbarnbrook

Dear Richard

Since you have let all our voters and activists down by resigning the whip, no-one either wants or needs to hear from you. London BNP will be out and active in a big way on and from 18th September with the Bring Our Boys Home campaign. If you want to take part please contact me to discuss coming back into the fold. Our door will remain open for a little longer.

N

To: Richard Barnbrook,
From: Clive Jefferson,
British National Party
26th September 2010

Dear Mr. Barnbrook,

When you resigned the Party whip in August it was decided to give you time to understand that such an action was disloyal and unacceptable. Our Party wanted to give you every opportunity to consider the significance and effect of your actions and to do the right thing by all the Londoners who voted for the British National Party, and the activists who worked so hard to get you elected, either by resigning your seat and so letting another British National Party list member represent the party in the GLA or by reapplying for the Party whip and rejoining the struggle.

You have in fact done neither. It is now clear that your break with us is final and that you feel no obligation to BNP activists or voters. A Party list seat, as you are fully aware Richard, is not a seat you yourself won, people voted for the British National Party not for Richard Barnbrook.

Even before you left the Party there were concerns about your increasingly erratic behavior. In fact we intended to offer you help and counseling as we were concerned for your mental and physical wellbeing. Many members have urged us, on the basis of your behavior, not to allow you to retake the whip even if you requested this.

Sadly I am now left with no alternative but to assume that you have resigned from the Party. Alternatively, if you maintain that you have not, I hereby notify you that, under Section 9.8 of the British National Party Constitution, you are expelled from membership of the British National Party. The reason for this is that by resigning the Party whip and issuing statements to the media relating to this action you contravened Section 4 of the Code of Conduct.

If you indicate to me in writing within fourteen days that you have not resigned your membership and wish to contest your expulsion a disciplinary tribunal will be arranged for you.

Yours sincerely,

Clive Jefferson
National Organiser.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr Jefferson

Thank you for your communication.

Please take notice that I have not resigned my membership of the BNP and I have no intention of doing so.

I will of course be appealing the matter.

This hotmail account has been corrupted and this the first time I have been able to access it over the last fortnight. .

PLEASE THEREFORE SEND ALL FURTHER AND FUTURE COMMUNICATION TO:
RICHARD BARNBROOK AM
GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY
CITY HALL
THE QUEEN'S WALK
LONDON SE1 2AA

Yours sincerely

Richard Barnbrook AM

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: richardbarnbrook

To: elections
Subject: RE: Richard Barnbrook: Expulsion.
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:29:27 +0100

Dear Mr Jefferson

Further to my e-mail informing you of my intention to appeal against my expulsion, I look forward to hearing from you in writing, addressed to me at City Hall, information as to the following:

Who will decide who will be sitting on the appeal panel?

Who will be on the appeal panel?

When is the hearing likely to take place?

What the procedure for the hearing will be?

Yours sincerely

Richard Barnbrook AM
GLA
City Hall
The Queen's Walk
London SE1 2AA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: richardbarnbrook
To: elections
Subject: FW: Richard Barnbrook: Expulsion.
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:51:42 +0100

Dear Mr Jefferson

I have not had a response from you to the e-mail below either by e-mail or to my GLA address.

I am forwarding you a letter by post to the Spennymore PO. I would be grateful if you would confirm safe receipt and I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely

Richard Barnbrook AM

7th October

Dear Mr Jefferson

To date, I have not received a reply to any of my e-mails, nor to my letter dated 6th October.

I would be grateful for an immediate reply, informing me of the proposed arrangements for my appeal hearing.

If I do not have a response by the end of this week, I will be forced to assume that you are deliberately prevaricating with the specific intention of denying me my entitlement, and will consequently be seeking legal advice.

Yours sincerely

Richard Barnbrook AM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: richardbarnbrook
To: elections
Subject: FW: Richard Barnbrook: Expulsion.
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:26:49 +0100

Dear Mr Jefferseon

I have still not had any response from you, either on this account or at the GLA.

Please reply to the GLA in writing by post as a matter of urgency.

RB
---------------------------------------------------------------------

TRYING TO PULL IT ALL TOGETHER.

2011-06-26T07:33:00.000-07:00

An essay by Mike Wilson

Well, where do I begin to try and unravel all the different facets of world control, world economy, Muslim incursion and the current state of unrest running through the Middle East, Europe and America?

Each one of these seemingly disconnected issues are actually strung together like a chain built link by link by faceless unknown overseers watching mankind’s progress down through the ages.

I was not aware of any grand design as I idly surfed the internet several years ago but then I became interested in what several commentators were saying with regard to ‘New World Order’.

In fact there were and still are many sites talking about this very topic and I became interested in a way that took me to many other sites in order to try and research as much as I could about what was happening in our world. At first I thought that a good many of these web sites were being run by people who had a touch of the sun but as I progressed in my search I started to see familiar patterns and designs and realized that what I had erroneously supposed were simply people having other people on were starting to add up in a way that made a great deal of sense, even though it left me with a very uncomfortable feeling that my previously ordered world was nothing of the sort.

I had to increase my research on this topic and looked into the books of Douglas Reed, Captain Ramsay , William Pelley, Jackie Patru and many others.

The overriding evidence of control going back for hundreds of years was starting to emerge but with the daily expansion of the internet more and more evidence was emerging that what had been scoffed at in the past was and is now incontrovertible fact. There is a world control that is only starting to be seen by people like me who have time on their hands to be able to research it.

Once I had established in my own mind that such indeed is the case then I began to look at other events that were seemingly disconnected from each other but now suddenly started to make sense.
It is hard to make rational sense of things which just seem to be irrational and isolated incidents but now in retrospect most of these things have a rational explanation which in some cases defies belief.
Some researchers have spent a great deal of time doing the background research on many of these topics with a great deal of scholarship investigating the origins of many of these disparate facts which in my mind have now started to come together.

Some of these researchers have come up with different origins for the same end result and I don’t propose to delve too much into each and every one. What I am going to do is to outline what has evolved and how it has affected each one of us in different ways but with one end result – world control.

The starting point.

As a child I accepted the voice of authority whether it was my parents or teachers or community leaders and as I grew older I carried on accepting this authority, mainly without question and listened to elected officials and politicians as they shaped the world around me. If I had to disagree I did so at the ballot box in concert with everyone else. This was democracy at work or so I thought and in general everyone else thought the same.

Now with the benefit of time to explore on my side I realize how much I have taken for granted and how much has been robbed from us. Most of us still believe that we live in a well ordered society and go about our lives leaving the day to day running of local governments and national politics to those elected officials who maintain the smooth running of the engine of society by taking appropriate action as and when necessary.

Unfortunately this ‘ fools’ paradise’ and democratization of the rights of man has been totally usurped from outside sources with a hidden agenda of which very few people are aware. So our well-ordered society is in fact something quite different from what we believe we have and one doesn’t have to look very far to find it.

How many people have asked themselves just what it is that is happening to Britain and Europe generally? Why is it that vast numbers of immigrants from different cultures and races are being allowed into these European bastions of rational thought and democracy?

The answer ties in completely to what I referred to in my opening remarks about a New World Order and if you follow the argument you will see how this is all developing.

In my search for information I came across a reference to a book which had been banned for over a hundred years. That book is called “The Protocols of the Learned elders of Zion”.

This book surfaced in the 1920’s and was immediately condemned by international Jewry as being a fake and they tried in many ways to denigrate it and to make out that it was the utterances of a long forgotten sect that had no current purpose. By the way, the person who brought the book into the light of day died in very mysterious circumstances. This is an ongoing situation in that when someone discusses or leaks important information relating to these matters they somehow end up dead’. Back to the ‘Protocols.

These protocols are a set of 24 instructions which sets out to tell Jews how to dominate and control the world. I know that sounds a bit farfetched and I thought so too but as I looked at events over the last 100 years or so I became convinced that what was set out in these protocols has happened and is continuing to happen right up to this day.

I don’t propose to go into each one of these instructions but let me take you through some of them.

Protocol No 1.

“Our triumph has been rendered easier by the fact that in our relations with the men whom we wanted we have always worked upon the most sensitive chords of the human mind, upon the cash account, upon the cupidity, upon the insatiability for material needs of man: and each one of these human weaknesses, taken alone, is sufficient to paralyze initiative, for it hands over the will of man to the disposition of him who has bought their activities.

The abstraction of freedom has enabled us to persuade the mob in all countries that their government is nothing but the steward of the people who are the owners of the country, and that steward may be replaced like a worn out glove”.

Protocol no 2.

“In the hands of the States of today there is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the Press. The part played by the press is to keep pointing out requirements supposed to be indispensible, to give voice to the complaints of the people, to express and create discontent. It is in the Press that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. But the Goyim ( non-Jewish) states have not known how to make use of this force: and it has fallen into our hands. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence while remaining invisible”.

Protocol no 3.

“Today I may tell you that our goal is now only a few steps off. There remains a small space to cross and the whole long path we have trodden is ready now to close its cycle of the Symbolic Snake, by which we symbolize our people. When this ring closes, all the states of Europe will be locked in its coil as in a powerful vice.

The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The goyim are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium .But the pivots-the kings on their thrones- are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power”.

Protocol no 5.

“Moreover the art of directing masses and individuals by means of cleverly manipulated theory and verbiage, by regulations of life in common and all sorts of other quirks, in all of which the goyim understand nothing, belongs likewise to the specialists of our administrative brain”(Control of Britain from Brussels).

“We shall create an intensified centralization of government in order to grip in our hands all the forces of the community. We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws. These laws will withdraw one by one all the indulgencies and liberties which have been permitted by the Goyim, and our kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions as to be at any moment and in every place in a position to wipe out any Goyim who oppose us by deed or word”.

Here again you have the spectre of the EU government controlling every aspect of life in the previously independent countries of Europe.

Protocol no 7.

“ In a word, to sum up our system of keeping the governments of the Goyim in Europe in check we shall show our strength to one of them by terrorist attempts and to all, if we allow the possibility of a general rising against us. We shall respond with the guns of America or China or Japan”. Does any of this seem familiar in light of recent events?

Protocol no 21.

This protocol covers in detail how these faceless men manipulate and control the money markets of the world. This section finishes with the following paragraph.

“We shall replace the money markets by grandiose government credit institutions the object of which will be to fix the price of industrial values in accordance with government views. These institutions will be in a position to fling upon the market five hundred millions of industrial paper in one day, or to buy up for the same amount. In this way all industrial undertakings will come into dependence on us. You may imagine for yourselves what immense power we shall thereby secure for ourselves”.

The 24 protocols cover most aspects of our lives from religion to freedom of expression and includes control of universities. This in order to change the way we think and act in accordance with the overseers mind control over the general population.

The obvious question at this point is who are these faceless overseers who through these protocols have described every aspect of world history for the last one hundred and fifty years? Well the short answer is international Zionism. That is not to say international Jews since only a very few Jews are Zionists but every Zionist is a Jew. These Protocols were set down in the mid eighteen hundreds and many attempts to bring them to the notice of ordinary people resulted in the deaths of those attempting it or as happened in America the complete banning of the book by the Jewish controlled press. That was almost a hundred years ago and you can imagine just how much further their control is today.

I recently submitted a poem called “World Control” and it ended with a reference to Harold Wallace Rosenthal. He was a Jewish Zionist who was interviewed by an American investigative reporter and he confirmed that what has happened in America was as a result of this Zionist conspiracy and told how the banks, press and America at large was all controlled by the Zionist group in accordance with the principles of the Protocols laid down over a hundred years ago. As a result of this interview he was later killed, another result of people speaking out of turn.

This Jewish Zionist thread runs throughout our recent history and the most famous family connected with it are of course the Rothschilds whose vast banking empire encircles the globe and controls its economy.

I said earlier that I would try to pull together all the disparate situations affecting the world currently and it can clearly be seen that this Zionist global conspiracy is behind everything. Why for example are America and Nato flying missions into Libya, to help the people?

No of course not, it is to help the bankers keep their control of the world economy by fomenting insurrection and then working with both sides in order to wage ongoing wars that no one ends up winning except the global conspirators who protect their empire.
We have seen this with the war against Iraq and currently in Afghanistan. Both sides are funded by the same faceless nameless people who end up with an altered world over which they have more control.

The Europe dominated by a government in Brussels is a good case in point. The Protocols pushed for a union of Europe and now that it is a reality guess who controls it?
Zionist conspirators are behind everything we do and we have been brainwashed into accepting their world instead of standing up and demanding changes from our politicians whilst we still (just only) have a voice.

Why do you think we have a Europe overrun with Muslims, blacks and rainbow people?

It is an orchestrated plot designed to reduce the voice of native born British and European peoples so that their opinion becomes absolutely diluted with foreigners and therefore is of no account in determining
their own fate.

Whether there is still time to change things I doubt very much as the Zionist influence controls every aspect of our lives from what we see on TV to the films we watch produced by Zionist studios in America. A very covert way of changing our lives and accepting values that were once considered anathema to the normal person. Unfortunately we now have generations exposed to this mass brain washing to the extent now that the older generation seem to be out of step with the rest of humanity.

There is no doubt that the current economic climate has been typically engineered by Zionists but unfortunately there are so few people to react against it that we have just accepted that these events happen and we try to get on with our own lives.

I wonder what sort of utopia we would have had had the Zionist influence not infiltrated the very core of our society and changed it to their own design. Perhaps a society where old fashioned values of peaceful co-existence and harmony went hand in hand with religious wonder and freedom of expression?

Who knows?

7th July 2005

2011-04-15T10:37:00.000-07:00

Thursday 7th July 2005

© Frank Ellis 2005

My immediate reaction to the news that Islamic terrorists had carried out a series of atrocities in London was to hurl politically-incorrect abuse at the radio, followed by traditional Anglo-Saxon expletives and a period of sustained two-fingered gestures. Fortunately, the Home Office has not implemented recommendation 39(1) of the Macpherson Report, otherwise MI5 would have been bugging my house and yours truly would have been dragged off to prison as an “enemy of the people”. When I calmed down I realised that while my reaction towards the devils who had murdered some 55 people in London was entirely wholesome and normal, others deserve loathing and contempt as well.

The real culprits here are the multicultural extremists, who over the last thirty years or more have peddled their hatred of the West and white people, so preparing the way for acts of terrorism. These are the same people who have been responsible for the Soviet-style rewriting of our history, the corrupting effects of “anti-racism” and feminism on our language and the multiple failures to deal with the immigrant invasion. They have consistently sought to undermine our ability psychologically, morally and intellectually to resist the tyranny of multiculturalism.

It started with trifling things: banning golliwogs on jars; blackboards became chalkboards; teachers proscribed the singing of ba-ba black sheep; whites had to face up to their colonial past (I have, Africans should stop whining and be grateful). Our great heroes have been systematically and viciously denigrated; Third-World non-entities and gangsters are lauded. As a consequence, children and adults who know nothing of their own history - and ours is a very great one indeed - are ill-prepared to understand and to resist the ideologically-driven rewriting of history and what it means for the present. Looking to the past can be a great source of comfort, steeling our hearts in adversity and danger. Yet, today, too many adults can derive no succour from their past: it has been stolen from them or trampled underfoot.

The education establishment generally, and the universities particularly, have inspired and manipulated this Neo-Marxist pestilence. Consider that nearly all the repressive, anti-white racist measures we associate with political correctness and multiculturalism started life in a university. The most disturbing thing here is the extent to which academics whose very professional existence depends on the institution of free speech and challenging ideas have colluded with those who want to turn the university into a People’s Commissariat for Enlightenment. If the West does fall, future historians (will there be any historians?) may well regard the corruption of our universities, their willingness to embrace the revolution of anti-thought, as one of the decisive factors.

Our political classes have also lost the will to act. This lack of will and a steadfast denial about what has been happening in Britain can be seen in the way in which conservative politicians now queue up to spit at Enoch Powell. Just after the terrorist attacks Boris Johnson tried to persuade readers of The Daily Telegraph that Powell’s ‘catastrophic 1968 tirade’ made it impossible for politicians to talk about immigration and a multiracial society.(2) This is pure evasion. What stops politicians from talking about immigration and a multiracial society is that too many of them - perhaps these days all of them - lack the courage to stand up and be counted.

All three main parties are full of people who either want to impose the multicultural nightmare on Britain, or who harbour reservations, but keep their mouths shut for fear of damaging their careers. They have an obligation to speak out and they are not doing it. Johnson’s swipe at Powell is especially disgusting because when the out-going Tory MP, John Townend, attacked multiculturalism during the 2001 general election campaign, it was Boris Johnson, slavishly following the example of Hague, Dorrell and Maude who attacked Townend. The attacks on Britishness, the cause which Johnson now, belatedly, wishes to espouse, were well under way in 2001. Townend’s justified criticism of multiculturalism provided Johnson with the ideal opportunity to make his own opposition known and stand alongside Townend. Politically, Johnson found it more expedient to lay into Townend. Thus Johnson’s blaming Powell is despicable, and his call for reasserting Britishness utterly dishonest, given that he has made his own contribution to undermining Britishness by staying silent when he could have spoken out, and then attacked someone who did speak out. The time for highlighting the threat of multiculturalism to the integrity of the United Kingdom was not in the aftermath of terrorist attacks - that’s the easy jump-on-the-emotional-bandwagon option - but when the corrosive effects of multiculturalism were demonstrably obvious; and they there for all to see long before 7th July 2005. Far from being responsible for erecting any taboo on race, it was Enoch Powell who broke the cosy establishment conspiracy of silence regarding race and the consequences of immigrants flooding into this country. Powell warned what would happen and since the time when Powell issued his warning every attempt has been made to silence and to vilify any opposition to multiculturalism.

The Islamic terrorist atrocities in London are further evidence that beyond a certain threshold it is simply not possible to accommodate large numbers of immigrants and to preserve the British way of life. Yes, it can be done, after a fashion, but it means the systematic destruction of what we hold dear - our ancient freedoms and customs, monarchy, the-way-we-do-things - so as to compel the white indigenous majority population to accept something that most of us reject. The only people in Britain who tell you that “diversity is our strength” all live in Cornwall, the Somerset levels, Hay-on-Wye, Suffolk and Perthshire, a million miles away, in other words, from all that enriching “diversity”. Like we say, “Enoch was right” and that is why the left and a “Conservative” party, which increasingly resembles a social-democratic rabble, hate him and fear his memory and legacy so much. The turning point for getting utterly ruthless with the cult of multiculturalism should have been immediately after Tuesday 11th September 2001, not Thursday 7th July 2005. How many more people will have to die in Islamic terrorist atrocities, how many more generations of British schoolchildren are going to be denied access to their nation’s history, and how many more British institutions will have to be broken and maimed by the People’s Commissariat for Racial Equality before Johnson and his spineless party stop denying the ugly realities of multiculturalism and start fighting back, behaving, in other words, like a loyal opposition, and not frightened lemmings?

Denial regarding multiculturalism takes many forms. One approach, Niall Ferguson is an advocate, is to argue that the demographic shifts associated with multiculturalism are inevitable; that they are “the tides of history”. Now multiculturalism is not some immutable law of history to which the indigenous white populations of Northern Europe must submit. Let us recall that the ravings of Marx and Lenin about communism’s triumph were once accorded the same status of historical inevitability; that socialism was the wave of the future. This was precisely the Marxist planning fantasy that Friedrich Hayek dissected and exposed as incoherent and inherently totalitarian in The Road to Serfdom (1944). What, I wonder, would Ferguson, surveying Europe in the aftermath of Dunkirk, have told the readers of The Daily Telegraph; that Hitler and National Socialism were “the tides of history”; that we had better do a deal with the Führer whether we liked it or not? There were some who would have done a deal with Hitler, but the Great Man told them to go to hell. We fought a just war and we won. Churchill, like Powell after him, had a sense of history. We resisted Spain, Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin and Stalin’s successors. Resistance to multiculturalism requires the same determination. We must address the questions openly, fearlessly, honestly and rationally, and that means that we must refuse to allow ourselves to be intimidated by accusations of racism from white-hating multiculturalists - the real Neo-Nazis among us - and then we must act, not submit to the self-defeating fatalism articulated by Ferguson and other fainthearts. The response to the threat of multiculturalism is, in essence, one of political will and the belief that Britain, our great country, warts and all, is worth fighting for. Our political classes either support the cult of multiculturalism or derive benefits from supporting it. These people will never suffer from the policies they inflict on the rest of us. Moreover, I predict that the moment the joys of multiculturalism start to impinge on Ferguson’s life he will abandon his fatalism and start very actively to resist “the tides of history”. In America where Ferguson works this resistance to “the tides of history” is known, among other things, as white flight.

The Islamic terrorist attacks should also herald the formal and total rejection by the Home Office of the Soviet-style Macpherson Report. Macpherson’s recommendations have demonstrably hampered an aggressive pursuit of black and Asian criminals and severely damaged police morale. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks we heard Sir Ian Blair talking tough, yet what happened on 7th July 2005 has, for the time being, conveniently diverted attention from Blair’s persecution of three police officers. A race inquiry, which has dragged on for nearly six years, was initiated in the Metropolitan Police Service after a female police officer, a one Shabnam Chaudhri, complained that Detective Constable Tom Hassell mispronounced the word Shi’ites, as “Shitties”, and that he compared Muslim headgear to tea cosies. She then went on to complain about his remark that he would not want to be “that lot”, a reference to Muslims’ abstaining from sex and food during the month of Ramadan. In an echo of the Soviet crime of nedonositel’stvo (failing to denounce an “enemy of the people”) she accused the other two officers, who were present, Detective Sergeant Colin Lockwood and Detective Inspector Paul Whatmore of failing to intervene. Even the employment tribunal concluded that Blair’s main aim was to make an example of the three men so as to parade his anti-racist credentials. The effects of this internal persecution on police morale can only be deeply damaging. Nor is Blair the only senior police officer who bends the knee to the cult of multiculturalism. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick insists that ‘Islamic and terrorist are two words that do not go together’. Something is horribly wrong with the Macphersonised Metropolitan Police Service.

Enoch Powell was not the only one who sounded the alarm. In the 1980s, based on his own direct professional experience as a headmaster of an inner-city school in Bradford, another fine Englishman warned us what to expect. In a ground-breaking article first published in The Salisbury Review Ray Honeyford concluded with the following words: ‘And I am no longer convinced that the British genius for compromise, for muddling through, and for good-natured tolerance will be sufficient to resolve the inevitable tensions’. On 7th July 2005 we were handsomely rewarded for our tolerance and punished for our failure to keep out the hordes of immigrants who came to this country with murder in their ugly black hearts. Macpherson and his flunkeys in the Macphersonised Met, Trevor Phillips, Bhikhu Parekh and the lesser known race bureaucrats and well-meaning mediocrities owe the sage of Lancashire an unreserved and grovelling apology. Like we say, “Enoch was right, so was Ray”.

What further outrages and assaults await us? Here is a prediction. At some stage - I do not know when - the self-appointed leaders of what is referred to as the “Muslim community” will demand an independent Muslim state on the territory of the United Kingdom. They will justify this demand by arguing that Britain is so hostile to Islam, so riddled with “Islamophobia”; that only in their own self-governing territory will Muslims feel secure and be able to lead their lives according to the rules of Islam. This demand would be coupled with a barely-concealed threat of widespread terrorism, the use of suicide-homicide bombers, shootings, kidnappings, executions and murders, as we have seen in Gaza, Israel and Iraq. In the same way that the Israelis have had to trade land for peace so our politicians will be expected to make territorial concessions to buy peace in the United Kingdom. The fact that there may be a peace deal in the Middle East - eventually - would be the ideal time for Muslims in Britain to press these demands. Let us hope that this remains a far-fetched scenario, but if something like this happens, we should not bank on Blair’s successor, or whatever loser happens to be running the Tories, finding the resolve to reject any such demands out of hand, or pointing out the very obvious, that if these Muslims find life in Britain so utterly intolerable, they are free to return whence they came.

Perversely, terrorist attacks help this long-term aim. The more attacks we experience, the more resentment against Muslims in Britain in all its forms will come out into the open. The provisions of the Soviet-inspired Racial and Religious Hatred Bill will count for nothing, and Macpherson will be dumped. Given that very few Muslims will follow the sound advice of Lord Ahmed of Rotheram: “buy into what it means to be British or go”, then the temptation to grant political autonomy to specified regions would seem quite attractive. It would, of course, be an utterly disastrous concession: paying Danegeld never works. Moreover, any kind of self-governing status granted to Muslims in Britain, based on the main concentrations of the Muslim population, would spell the end of the United Kingdom forever. For that reason, the EU can be expected to encourage such measures. Inter-racial and inter-ethnic strife would increase dramatically.

And let’s be clear that this means much more than the riots that took place in Bradford, Burnley, Leeds and Oldham in 2001. If Islamic terror groups can organise carefully coordinated bomb attacks, there is no reason why they cannot organise large-scale attacks on the police, luring them into pre-planned killing zones, using small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. If some three quarters of a million illegals can get into this country, then smuggling in sufficient numbers of weapons presents no problem at all for determined groups. In any case Britain is already awash with illegal small arms. There is also the distinct possibility that not all members of the indigenous population will be content just to watch as the sceptred isle is turned into a war zone and torn to pieces. They will organise themselves, acquire weapons and learn how to use them and then they will fight back. If the security services fail to crush what has all the makings of a full-blown intifada, and thus prevent a violent counter reaction, things will be bleak indeed. For the time being the indigenous population of Britain is on the defensive, but it would be a grave error on the part of the government and the Islamic terror groups and their white Quisling apologists to believe that all Britons will just submit indefinitely to the cultural and physical terror engendered by multicultural extremists. At no stage were white Britons asked or consulted about whether they wished to see their country turned into another Yugoslavia. And that is where we are heading, maybe much faster than most of us realise.

__________________

(1) ‘That consideration should be given to amendment of the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour involving the possession of offensive weapons, where such conduct can be proved to have taken place otherwise than in a public place’

(2) Boris Johnson, ‘This is a turning point: we have to fly the flag for Britishness again’, The Daily Telegraph, 14th July 2005, p.28.

___________________

Click here to return to the main Sarah: Maid of Albion blog

Click here to return to the British Resistance

Eric Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century - A review by Dr. Frank Ellis

2011-03-30T11:35:00.000-07:00

Eric Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? Demography and Politics in the Twenty-First Century, Profile Books, London, 2010, pp. xxii + pp.269 + Notes & Index, ISBN 978 1 84668 144 8

The purpose of the whole evolution of a nation, in every people and at every period of its existence, is solely the pursuit of God, their God, their very own God, and faith in Him as in the only true one. God is the synthetic personality of the whole people, taken from its beginning to its end. It has never happened that all or many peoples should have one common God, but every people has always had its own special one […] If a great people does not believe that truth resides in it alone (in itself alone and in it exclusively), if it does not believe that it alone is able and has been chosen to raise up and save everything by its own truth, it is at once transformed into ethnographical material, and not into a great people.

Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Devils (1871-1872)

The main theme of Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? consists in the empirical fact that the religious are having more children than the non-religious, the secular, and that, if this trend continues, the religious shall inherit the Earth. To quote Kaufmann: ‘Simply put, this book argues that religious fundamentalists are on course to take over the world through demography’.^¹ All the religious groups studied by him – Christians, Amish, Jews and Muslims – are having large families demonstrating an immunity to the temptations of secularism. In Israel, the rise of the ultra-Orthodox or Haredim is a remarkable and moving story in view of the fact that so many perished in the Holocaust. Kaufmann also reports that the Amish, a very impressive religious denomination, members of whom this reviewer has had the privilege to meet, are also thriving.

According to Kaufmann, ‘The most visible aspect of today’s demographic revolution is the changing ethnic composition of Western populations’.^² This is certainly a revolution: more accurately it is an invasion. Kaufmann’s use of ‘Western populations’ as in - ‘the changing ethnic composition of Western populations’ - is misleading since it implicitly accepts millions of Somalis, Arabs and Sub-Saharan Africans who have entered the states of Western Europe legally or in most cases illegally as belonging to Western populations. In any political, economic, cultural, racial, religious, intellectual and moral context Somalis and Arabs are not part of Western populations even if they live in Western states. Indeed, how can they be part of Western populations, when courtesy of Western taxpayers – the secular infidels whom they despise as the godless ones - they live in parallel worlds so as to isolate themselves from the white indigenous population?

At every opportunity in this book Kaufmann attempts to deny whites their natural and legal status as the rightful owners of their lands. For example, he goes out of his way to avoid using ‘indigenous’ when talking about Britain and uses ‘native’.^³ Another evasion is ‘dominant majorities’^⁴ or ‘dominant group’^⁵ instead of indigenous. The use of ‘dominant’ obscures and denies the fact that whites are dominant not because they have suppressed blacks in Europe but because Europe is the land which in evolutionary and historical terms created whites. Europe is white not black. The use of ‘dominant majority’ also implicitly concedes that if whites are replaced as the ‘dominant majority’ a new non-white ‘dominant majority’ will emerge and whites will have to accept it. If in this scenario ‘dominant majority’ is replaced with ‘indigenous population’ the notion that the ‘indigenous population’ should just accept this fact is revealed for what it is: the racial, cultural and physical dispossession of the indigenous population. To allay the fears of the white indigenous population Kaufmann tells us that the Normans fitted in and adapted after 1066. Well yes, they did but the Normans were fellow North-West Europeans. Pat Buchanan made a similar point a few years ago when he asked who would adapt better to modern Virginia: a million Englishmen or a million Zulus. Whatever happened after 1066 and regardless of their genetic propinquity with our Anglo-Saxons ancestors, the Normans still invaded England. I prefer not to be invaded even by my close relatives. The generation of my father and mother felt the same way in the summer of 1940.

Kaufmann speculates on how the struggle between secularists and religious fundamentalists might end: ‘And while fundamentalists can be smashed by Soviet or Nazi-style repression, this contradicts liberalism’s very own principles’.^⁶ I wonder where Kaufmann has been living for the last twenty years. Where exactly is this liberalism that does not act in a manner that contradicts its very own principles? Is it buried in the vaults of the BBC or written in code in secret protocols annexed to the charters of universities and accessible only to a select group? That, to which Kaufmann refers as liberalism, is, judged by its behaviour, a form of soft totalitarianism. So far liberalism has not used concentration camps and tanks to repress opponents yet it has exploited Soviet-style methods of repression in order to silence opponents. Speech codes in American universities, affirmative action, attacks on free speech in both the USA and UK under the heading of combating what liberals call ‘hate crime’, virulent and sustained attacks on white history, culture and achievements, censorship and political correctness (a Soviet term) all bear witness to the fact that behind the mask of ‘we-love-you-all liberalism’ lurks a readiness to use Nazi and Soviet-style methods of repression, above all in the fields of culture and language. And why do Kaufmann’s liberals remain silent about the ANC-sponsored murder, rape and torture of whites in South Africa? There is nothing at all liberal about contemporary liberalism: it is new variant totalitarianism.

Despite the well documented Soviet-style measures adopted by liberalism in pursuit of its goals, Kaufmann nevertheless argues that the great danger comes from religious fundamentalists: ‘from the gradual seepage of puritanical mores into society: restrictions on freedom of expression, science, recreation, the rights of women, minorities, heretics, gays and converts – even a return to barbaric punishments’.^⁷ Bear in mind that all the restrictions on free speech that have emerged over the last twenty years have been based on the liberal agenda and introduced by liberals, measures which are intended to silence and to criminalise any criticism of liberal fundamentalism and its multicultural agenda. Kaufmann’s complaint about fundamentalist puritanism would be more convincing if, for example, he acknowledged the damage inflicted by feminism. Feminism is a creed based on hatred of men. It would not have been so bad if feminists had just seeped into the North Sea but they have unfortunately seeped - to borrow Kaufmann’s term - into every facet of our lives, corrupting and poisoning everything they touch: marriage; love; divorce; education; law and order and the military.

Throughout much of history populations have, Kaufmann notes, stayed stable (the better off had more children who survived). After 1900 increasingly generous welfare provision ensured that more children from the less well off survived. In 2011 this clearly relates to the demography of immigrants from the Third World in First World states. Desperate to avoid any association with eugenics, Kaufmann, in a nice example of attempted neutralisation by clear statement, instructs us that: ‘We do not have to accept the alarmist tropes of eugenicists to see that this has demographic implications both within the developed world and between the wealthy West and poor global South’.^⁸ So, does Kaufmann find this reversal of man’s evolution alarming, and if not, why not? And if he is alarmed just whose tropes is he using? It was after all eugenicists such as Francis Galton and Charles Darwin who noted that the less responsible and the low-IQ were having more children than the more affluent. They sounded the alarm. Kaufmann’s use of ‘demographic implications’ is a just a politically correct way of saying that this is alarming without giving any credit or recognition to eugenicists who have got it right. When Kaufmann notes that if the rate of population growth in Africa ‘goes unchecked, there will come a time when death and starvation readjust the world’s population to its carrying capacity’^⁹, it should be pointed out that eugenicists and others warned about this long ago: Thomas Malthus for example. The danger for the West is that it will continue to waste billions of dollars and euros (if the currency survives) and pounds sterling on top of billions already wasted trying to stop natural, 4-horsemen solutions to population growth in the Third World. As Kaufmann observes, ‘Demographically pressured populations are not free to move, but will fight to do so’.^¹⁰ True, but the West has an army.

Throughout this book Kaufmann repeatedly plays down the nature of Islam and its complete incompatibility with the West. He recognises the totalitarian nature of Islamic societies, especially if you are not a Muslim, yet asserts:

Some argue that fundamentalism is merely another wonderful colour in the multicultural rainbow of liberal society. In the West, they are largely correct, but the argument only holds as long as fundamentalists do not become a plurality or a majority that can restrict the liberties of others.^¹¹

How is Islamic fundamentalism ‘another wonderful colour in the multicultural rainbow of liberal society’? Muslims in the West live in parallel societies funded by unbeliever taxpayers; Muslims are hostile to the West and its institutions and too many Muslims preach hatred and support terrorism. Moreover, as part of their contribution to the paintwork of liberal society they bring with them colourful forms of behaviour such as female circumcision, cruel forms of animal slaughter, crime, honour killings, arranged marriages (with all the medical problems) and terrorism. In Norway and Sweden Islamic immigrants are responsible for the huge increase in brutal and exceptionally violent rapes of indigenous girls. How do these forms of violent, culturally hostile and revolting behaviour possibly enrich Western societies? The question we have to ask here is that if the indigenous population is enduring all these problems now what will things be like when aggressive Islamic breeding, supported by the generous welfare and the superior health provision of Western states provides Islamic immigrants with a large electoral majority? Kaufmann is aware of the political implications of out-of-control Islamic population growth but lacks the intellectual honesty to admit that these problems, present and future, have been caused by a complete failure to police our borders. It is entirely possible that as the Muslim population grows, and forces what is currently the white indigenous majority population into minority status, that Muslims will have their Damascus moment and abandon all the nasty cultural baggage, preferring Burke, Locke and Mill to the ravings of clerics (just don’t bet on it).

Especially revealing in Kaufmann’s assessment of Islamic fundamentalism in the West as another wonderful colour and his reaction to its becoming a majority is a clear example of the totalitarian impulses that are part of modern liberalism. Kaufmann’s point is that as long as Islamic fundamentalists remain an electoral minority – liberals pretend not to see the baggage – they are a wonderful colour. However if their numbers grow and this translates into real power such that Islamic fundamentalists can impose their will on the unbelievers, they lose their wonderful-colour status. Islamic fundamentalists could argue – they will argue – that if they have the electoral mandate of the believers to impose Sharia and much else on the unbelievers they can: and they will do it. Kaufmann’s concerns about the demographic rise of Islam underlines the hypocrisy of modern liberalism: free speech is wonderful (provided it is not used to attack multiculturalism and to highlight low mean black IQ and black crime); and free and fair elections are wonderful (provided the electorate votes for policies approved by liberals. If they do not the result is null and void, illegitimate). Liberals, and this includes a great many so-called conservatives, for all the talk of rights and tolerance are just as intolerant and hostile to individual freedoms as Islamic fundamentalism. The key difference is that Islamic fundamentalism is honest about its goals and aspirations and undoubtedly will impose Islamic totalitarianism on the unbelievers if it can, whereas liberalism preaches tolerance for its chosen causes – multiculturalism, feminism, black-by-popular demand and mass immigration – yet uses censorship, legal and administrative terror, secondary violence and media and legal harassment to impose its totalitarian agenda. Home-grown liberal fundamentalism with its barely concealed hatred of its own indigenous population and its avowed anti-white racism and Islamic fundamentalism are both enemies of Britain. There are some striking parallels here with National Socialism and Soviet Communism, our two main enemies in the last century.

Kaufmann’s explanation for why Muslims in Britain stick to Islam is also far from convincing and betrays a clear refusal to face the empirical reality of Islam all over Europe:

Second-generation Muslims are detached from their ethnic roots but also feel spurned by the white majorities in their nation states. This condition of existential purgatory makes the option of Muslim identity more enticing.^¹²

Second-generation Muslins do not have to remain detached from their ethnic (racial) roots. These Muslims may feel spurned but the nation states in which they are resident are not their nation states. They are free any time to leave Britain and recover their ethnic (racial) roots. Nor do Muslim immigrants have to endure ‘existential purgatory’ in Britain when they are only a five hour flight removed from Pakistan. Why do they exercise the option of remaining in a white, north-west European country if they feel detached from the land and culture of their origin? The answer is that given the choice of remaining detached and enjoying all the benefits of a First World economy or returning to the corrupt and backward Third World slums whence they came, they prefer to remain in a state of affluent, second-generation detachment. Again, why do these second-generation Muslims feel spurned by the white, indigenous majority population? It is surely related to the many bizarre and cruel customs which the Muslim immigrants have brought with them, quite apart from their active, terroristic hatred of unbelievers and striving to make Britain part of some slave state (Eurabia).

On the clear and present danger posed by Muslims in Britain and the rest of Europe Kaufmann is thoroughly evasive and unable to face the threat:

The principal reason that most Europeans worry about the growing Muslim population has less to with sharia and jihad than old-fashioned ethnic nationalism – the wish to see the dominant ethnic majority remain congruent with the nation state. We shouldn’t exhibit the presentist myopia that views Muslim immigration as a greater challenge because Islam is more exotic or conservative than Catholicism.^¹³

First, what is wrong with ‘old-fashioned ethnic nationalism’? The wish of Europeans (ipso facto white) to see their countries remain European and the wish that the white indigenous majority populations remain totally dominant is perfectly rational and wholesome. Why should Europeans want it any other way? Kaufmann provides no answer. He just begs the question: it is bad because it is bad because it is bad because Kaufmann says so. Would the Japanese welcome their being culturally and racially dispossessed in the Land of the Rising Sun or the Chinese in the Ancient Kingdom? No chance. Even Kaufmann concedes that: ‘Global demographic change cannot affect states unless they open themselves up to it’.^¹⁴ The Japanese and the Chinese want none of it. They are not interested in multicultural babble and the menace of diversity. So why should Europeans be expected to welcome their own racial, cultural and physical dispossession; their being targeted for displacement and elimination in their ancient homelands by aliens? Only a person with a cultural, racial death wish would welcome the Islamic invasion – for that is what it is – of white, Christian Europe or pretend that it is something beneficial for whites when it heralds their elimination. Second, given that sharia and jihad and all the other non-European baggage represent the behavioural, cultural, psychological and intellectual manifestations of distinct, non-white racial groups – Turks, Africans, Arabs and Pakistanis – the conflation of Europeans’ fears about the racial origins of the invader-immigrants and the fears that they, Europeans, will be displaced as the rightful majority are logical and fully justified. Europeans are the rightful majority precisely because whites are the indigenous population with effective possession of their lands sanctioned by millennia of occupation. Third, it is not ‘presentist myopia’ for Europeans to worry about the threat posed by Islam to Europe. On the contrary, it demonstrates a sense of the past – recall Charles Martel at Poitiers – and a sense of the future; an awareness that if this invasion succeeds, it is the end of Europe. Fourth, Kaufmann’s evasive assertion that we should not worry about Islam because it is ‘more exotic or conservative than Catholicism’ misses the point (or ignores the point). It is the nature of Islamic exoticism and conservatism that worries Europeans: suicide-homicide bombers, sharia, jihad, the obscene practice of female circumcision, honour killings, stoning women to death, polygamy, the sexual grooming of white girls, extreme censorship, hatred of free speech, hatred of white European host societies and the cruel murders of Christians in the Middle East (and Turkey). Catholicism, with all its faults and demonstrable historical sins, is, for better or for worse, part of Europe’s heritage: Islam’s incursions and invasions have always been unwelcome and rejected as something utterly alien. They remain alien and rejected.

The basic plot of Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? is undoubtedly compelling. When Kaufmann confines himself to the rise of various religious groups in their relevant societies and how they might succeed in inheriting the Earth he adds a great deal to our understanding of major historical shifts and even cyclical changes. For this he is to be applauded. The fatal weakness of this book however is the author’s endless willingness to make concessions to non-Europeans and to refuse to acknowledge the indefeasible rights, history and culture of the white indigenous population. Why should Englishmen tolerate being dictated to by aliens, such as, Trevor Phillips, Bhikhu Parekh, Baroness Warsi, John Sentamu, Andrew Marr and Gisela Stuart who come with a hostile agenda and do not have England’s best interests in their hearts and souls? Parekh and other members of the cult never address the obvious question: why should the English permit England to be invaded and overrun by immigrants? Whenever Kaufmann attempts to integrate the alien Muslim narrative into the narrative of the white indigenous population, he sacrifices the legitimate interests of the white indigenous majority, above all the English, in order to appease Muslim immigrants, so imposing a liberal fundamentalist gloss over much which is very nasty. This means that the full truth, short and long term, remains hidden or only hinted at.

Kaufmann is historically naïve in his interpretation of religious groups making common cause against secularists on issues such as abortion, as if this heralds some kind of permanent rapprochement. This is a mere tactical solution, something analogous to the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact. Once the seculars have been defeated or marginalised then the real business of determining which religion shall rule the Earth can begin in earnest. This question has exercised the minds of men since they invented or received religion and it will not be resolved in endless synods, commissions about the lack of ‘community cohesion’ (the reasons for which are obvious) and the publication of more anti-white tracts along the lines of the Macpherson Report (1999), The Parekh Report (2000) and Our Shared Future (2007). These publications are little more than government-sponsored propaganda assaults which are intended to destroy the morale and to weaken the legitimate status of the white indigenous population, primarily the English. No, war, as always, will be the final arbiter in determining who shall inherit and rule the Earth.

1 Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, p.ix.

2 Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, p.xix.

3 Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, p.68.

4 Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, p.68.

5 Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, p.69.

6 Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, p.xx.

7 Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, p.xxi.

8 Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, p.47.

9 Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, p.47.

10 Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, p.47.

11 Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, p.118.

12 Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, p.178.

13 Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, p.183.

14 Kaufmann, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?, p.62.

The Russian Idea, Lenin and the Origins of the Totalitarian State in Vasilii Grossman’s Forever Flowing

2011-03-19T10:42:00.000-07:00

The Russian Idea, Lenin and the Origins of the Totalitarian State

in Vasilii Grossman’s Forever Flowing

The real significance of the Lenin revolution is to be seen in the fact that it was the bursting forth of the principle of unrestricted violence and oppression. It was the negation of all the political ideals that had for three thousand years guided the evolution of Western civilization

Ludwig von Mises,

Die Gemeinwirtschaft: Untersuchungen über den Sozialismus (1922)

Introduction

Even by the standards of Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost’, the publication of Forever Flowing in June 1989 was a remarkable event. It still seems that way. The long list of dreadful suffering and ghastly cruelty which unfold in the pages of Forever Flowing, overshadowed by the presence of Lenin and Stalin, and accompanied and illuminated by the lives and fates of countless other characters, make Forever Flowing, because of Grossman’s refusal to accept any ideological preconditions, one of the most morally and intellectually inspiring works of the twentieth century. Now Grossman may be wrong when he argues that Lenin was the primary source of Soviet totalitarianism and, indeed, of twentieth-century totalitarianism generally - I shall consider some of the counter arguments in due course – but his arguments are historically based and are consistent with what happened rather than with what ought to have happened or might have happened in some parallel, ideologically-pristine, socialist universe. Moreover, and remarkably for a writer who was initially seduced by Marxism-Leninism, they are based on a great insight which eluded Marx, Engels, Lenin and their Western admirers: individual freedom - that great ineffable and elusively definable - matters. Where individual freedoms have the chance to grow, they can, over time and with a fair wind, set limits to the power of the state - the collective, the party, the commune - to dispose of people as another raw material. Such a political evolutionary path shall most certainly not fashion paradise on earth but there is a good chance it might prevent something infernal and that the beast of arbitrary and tyrannical rule can be contained. In this world man can expect no more.

The Russian Idea

When a nation or an emerging nation attains a certain critical mass in population, wealth, success in war or finds or encounters some unexpected and compelling new expression of religious destiny the effect can transform the way that nation (or eventually empire) sees its place in the world. It acquires a sense of mission: it can believe that it has divine sanction to forge the world anew in its own image and, given this blessing, that it has the right, the obligation, to resort to the sword as well as exhortation in order to accomplish this goal. Rome, the rise of Islam, the Crusades, the Spanish and British empires, Napoleonic France, the Soviet experiment, the empire of the American Republic, and in the early twenty-first century China rising, underline the tenacious appeal and seductions of imperial prestige.

Russia’s history shows that she has not been immune to the follies and temptations of imperial preference and the sense of intellectual and moral exclusivity. When Philotheus of Pskov presented Russians with the doctrine of the Third Rome, he gave them a reason to believe that Russia – Muscovy – was God’s favourite. Rome and Byzantium had succumbed to apostasy. Philotheus interpreted this as a shift in political and religious power and influence. As he famously noted: ‘two Romes have fallen, the Third Rome stands and a fourth Rome there shall not be’. If Moscow fell into apostasy there would be no fourth Rome. Heresy now assumed a sin of barely imaginable proportions and was punished mercilessly. Russia was certainly not unique in the zeal with which heretics were executed and exiled but, and this may be crucial for Grossman’s thoughts on the evolution of nesvoboda, the zeal to punish religious dissenters, and in the twentieth century ideological ones, has never been seriously challenged or ameliorated by Western ideas that individual rights and freedoms matter.

Russia’s collision with the West in the nineteenth century provoked an acute identity crisis in Russian thought and letters, a cultural and intellectual schizophrenia that has been well documented in the writings of Pushkin, Turgenev, Goncharov, Gogol and Dostoevsky. Gogol and Dostoevsky are two famous exponents of the idea that Russian has a special mission to save the world by an example of spiritual excellence and purity. Whereas Gogol’s thoughts on Russia’s sacred mission strike this author as bitter-sweet flights of entertaining hyperbole and imagination running riot, Dostoevsky approaches his subject with deadly seriousness and conviction. In The Devils, Shatov sets out his vision of Russia’s special mission and the place of God therein:

The purpose of the whole evolution of nation, in every people and at every period of its existence, is solely the pursuit of God, their God, their very own God, and faith in Him as in the only true one. God is the synthetic personality of the whole people, taken from its beginning to its end.^² […] If a great people does not believe that truth resides in it alone (in itself alone and in it exclusively), if it does not believe that it alone is able and has been chosen to raise up and save everything by its own truth, it is at once transformed into ethnographical material, and not into a great people.^³

Grossman proceeds to the question of the ‘myth of the national Russian character’^⁴ and, arguably, to the most bitterly disputed part of Forever Flowing in chapter 22 appropriately placed between a merciless analysis of Lenin (chapter 21) and the rise of Stalin (chapter 23). Taken to task are the nineteenth-century prophets of Russia’s brave new world, among them, Chaadaev, Belinsky, Gogol and Dostoevsky, who, according to Grossman, failed to realise that ‘the peculiarities of the Russian soul had not been born in freedom; that the Russian soul – was a thousand-year-old slave’.^⁵ This harsh judgement derives from Grossman’s belief that there exists a crucial difference between Western and Russian notions of freedom. Western notions of freedom enter the Russian body politic as something alien and artificial. They are, to use Grossman’s word, ‘imported’^⁶ (emphasis added). On the all-important question of freedom any similarities between Russia and the West are superficial and in typically relentless fashion Grossman explains why this is so: ‘This chasm consisted in the fact that the West’s development was impregnated by the growth of freedom, whereas Russia’s development was nurtured by the growth of slavery’.^⁷ The only time in Russia’s history, Grossman suggests, when the evolution of Russian slavery appeared to have been weakened was the abolition of serfdom in 1861:

Russia’s revolutionary thinkers failed to evaluate the significance of the emancipation of the serfs carried out in the nineteenth century. This event, as the following hundred years showed, was more revolutionary than The Great October Revolution. The emancipation shook the thousand-year-old foundations of Russia, foundations which neither Peter nor Lenin touched: the dependence of Russia’s development on Russian slavery.^⁸

In his discussion of the origins of the Russian soul and its origins in slavery, Grossman concedes that the physical and topographical conditions of Russia have contributed to the myth and, moreover, had the same conditions that obtained in Russian existed for the Germans, the French and the English, the political outcomes would have been the same. Grossman is right to make this point but ignores the not inconsiderable fact that conditions for the Germans, the French and the English were not the same. Here, I suggest, Grossman succumbs to the fallacious reasoning adopted by some of his critics, who have argued that he is wrong to see any link between Stalinism and Lenin – so blaming the latter for preparing the ground for Stalinism - because Leninism was not the same as Stalinism and had Lenin survived things would have turned out differently and the devastation of Stalinism would have been avoided. We have no way of knowing this at all. All we are left with is what did happen and on that basis an attempt can be made, as Grossman does, to offer an explanation.

Nevertheless, when seeking answers to Russian’s political evolution Grossman touches upon something very important, when he refers to Russia’s ‘tragic vastness’.^⁹ Implicit in this observation is the possibility that Russia’s very vastness has contributed to the conditions which have led to the curse of nesvoboda. In Property and Freedom (1999), the American historian Richard Pipes explores the relationship between freedom and property over the centuries. What makes this study so eminently relevant for Russia and Grossman is that Pipes uses his analysis of Russia and England to argue that the institution of private property is the bedrock of other freedoms. When Pipes considers the size of a state and how this size determines its political and cultural institutions, especially the relationship between ruler and ruled, he offers some substantial support for Grossman’s view that Russia’s ‘tragic vastness’ has contributed to the state of nesvoboda.

In synopsis, when a state covers a vast area and the bulk of the land and its assets are owned by a tsar and a small group of retainers, there is no need to have extensive laws to protect property rights. Conflict and disputes can be avoided by moving somewhere else. Or the tsar adopts the simple expedient of seizing the property and exiling or executing the offending retainer. Clearly, English monarchs, Henry VIII prominent among them, rather liked seizing the property of offending noblemen and removing their heads as well, but they never enjoyed the unfettered powers of Russian tsars and were compelled to seek consensus where in similar circumstances a tsar would have placed his own interests first. The smaller the domain, the greater the need for peaceful ways of resolving property disputes. In a country such as England, in which, over the centuries from Magna Carta onwards a vast corpus of legal wisdom dealing with property has accumulated, the power of monarchs and their successors to behave arbitrarily towards the property of their subjects (citizens) is, unlike in Russia past and present, severely limited and subject to careful scrutiny by the courts. It can also be noted that property rights stimulate, and indeed require, a legal system that is independent of the monarch, so further weakening the options for monarchical privilege and intervention in the property rights of the citizenry. During a broadcast on British radio in March 1976 Solzhenitsyn referred with approval to the English saw, an Englishman’s home is his castle.^¹⁰ The other great freedom that starts to emerge alongside private property is free speech. It is the exercise of free speech which leads to Ivan Grigorevich’s arrest and his long journey through the Soviet gulag system. A man who is secure in his property and his livelihood possesses the confidence to challenge authority. Independence in property predisposes towards an independence of mind or an indifference towards state ideology and propaganda. The state is not seen as the sole repository of political wisdom. All these developments are moves away from the collectivist, authoritarian and eventually the totalitarian ethos of Russian culture and history. They mark the first steps towards a genuine representative democracy with all its well documented strengths and weaknesses.^¹¹

The view of history enunciated by Engels is thus a move away from the role of freedom in human affairs. To quote Grossman:

Mankind’s history is the history of its freedom. The growth of man’s power is expressed first and foremost in the growth of freedom. Freedom is not, as Engels believed, perceived necessity. Freedom is directly opposite to necessity. Freedom is necessity surmounted. At its most fundamental progress is the progress of human freedom. Indeed, you see, life itself is freedom. The evolution of life is the evolution of freedom.^¹²

The view that freedom, according to Engels, is ocoznannaia neobkhodimost’ implies that freedom is something that we deem to be necessary but that it is something that we can create through party political plans and blueprints. Grossman argues that freedom is opposed to this because freedom is not something that can be created by decree or revolution. Freedom exists of itself. When Grossman says that ‘freedom is necessity surmounted’ (svoboda est’ preodelennaia neobkhodimost’), I interpret him to mean that freedom goes beyond the necessity of political programmes and ideology because freedom comes, and must come, before ideology and not after. If that is granted, then the twin abominations of Kolyma and Auschwitz cannot be built. If I have interpreted this all-important passage in Grossman correctly, then there is much in common with the central thesis of Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom (1944): one cannot plan for freedom. And it is certainly impossible to build freedom on the basis of terror, censorship, genocide, famine, secret police, spies and concentration camps.

Lenin

Consolidating the attacks on Stalin and Stalinism which were made in Life and Fate, Grossman then takes the logical but utterly heretical step of subjecting the Lenin cult to the same critical appraisal to which Stalin had earlier been subjected. In fact, this was always implicit in the open and public discussions of Stalin taking place from the mid-1980s onwards. Sooner or later, someone was going to go beyond Stalin and examine the role of Lenin in the October Revolution. In a series of chapters and digressions Grossman shows Lenin as the destroyer of freedom, the man who orchestrated the extermination of so many of Russia’s finest and best and who established the operational principle, never abandoned by the party throughout the Soviet period, that terror, mass terror to begin with, and selective thereafter, was perfectly acceptable when dealing with so-called enemies of the people. Grossman’s truly shocking and - for some - monstrous contribution is to attribute to Lenin the unchallenged status as the founder of twentieth-century totalitarianism. Moreover, if this was not bad enough, Grossman accommodates Lenin and then Stalin firmly within his articulated tradition of Russia’s serfdom and lack of freedom (nesvoboda), so alienating those who venerated Lenin and those who regarded Lenin and the Bolsheviks as an utter aberration from Russia’s spiritual, cultural and historical norms.

The revolutionary ethos of Lenin that leads him to 1917 and which emerges in Forever Flowing is remarkably consistent with the ideals of underground terrorist groups, such as Zemlia i volia (Land and Freedom) and then Narodnaia volia (The People’s Will). Forever Flowing abounds in references to revolutionary figures. Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876), Nikolai Chernyshevskii (1828-1889), Nikolai Kibal’chich (1853-1881), Petr Lavrov (1823-1900), Timofei Mikhailov (1859-1881), Sergei Nechaev (1847-1882), Sof’ia Perovskaia (1853-1881) and Andrei Zheliabov (1850-1881) all add to the portrait of Lenin offered by Grossman. Impatient for change and scornful of the democratic process, these figures accepted the need for violence to further their goals. Revolutionaries were men and women apart. The call of History demanded the expedience of revolutionary violence which was immune to the demands of bourgeois morality. In keeping with the late nineteenth-century revolutionary tradition, Lenin combines this abstract love of the people with fanaticism, and contempt for the suffering of others and a willingness to bow down before abstract ideological principles. Grossman’s vignette of Lenin the revolutionary places the Bolshevik leader firmly in the insurrectionist and terrorist tradition of Nechaev and the members of Narodnaia volia:

Lenin’s impatience, the unshakeable striving for the goal, the contempt for freedom, the cruelty in relation to dissenters and the ability, without any hesitation, to wipe from the face of the earth not only fortresses but also administrative districts and provinces which contested his orthodox truth – all these features did not come to the fore in Lenin after the October Revolution. These features were innate to Volodia Ul’ianov. And these features have deep roots.^¹³

Directed at class enemies, revolutionary violence is an essential weapon of class struggle. The willingness to use violence, the belief that it is justified by the revolution, is something that Lenin imbibed totally and acted on after the seizure of power in 1917. In the words of Grossman: ‘The surgeon’s knife is the great theoretician, the philosophical leader of the twentieth century’.^¹⁴ Lenin, of course, was the ‘great theoretician’ of the Bolshevik cause, who in arguments with political opponents, as Grossman observes, ‘did not seek the truth but victory’.^¹⁵

Lenin’s eristic method of argument and his mode of writing and explication had three profound consequences for political rivals and political discourse in the Soviet Union. First, they justified the creation of a truly unique censorship apparatus, already adumbrated in Lenin’s hatred and fear of the institution of free speech in Chto delat’? (What is to be Done?, 1902) and his deep suspicion of the pecuniary motive in writing, set out in Partiinaia organizatsiia i partiinaia literatura (Party Organisation and Party Literature, 1905). This censorship apparatus which eventually assumed gargantuan proportions and which disfigured all intellectual endeavour in the Soviet Union, lasted until it was formally abolished in 1990. Second, the method of disputation pioneered by Lenin meant that truth now becomes the exclusive property of the party and so the moral compass and wisdom of the centuries, imperfect to be sure, were rendered useless, null and void. Third, critically and murderously for what came after 1917, Lenin created an ideological climate in which all arguments could only be won or lost, often with fatal consequences for those deemed to have lost. Marxism-Leninism made no provision for the fact that there are not always clear cut answers to political problems and that compromise will be required. This win-or-lose approach to political and economic problems could possibly be seen as an advantage in the underground phase where it produced a sense of unity and cohesion under pressure from tsarist enemies. With power seized, a revolutionary ethos that saw the world through the distorted prism of class struggle and History’s mandate, and, indeed, where the fear of heresy and collectivism that had earlier left their marks on Russian history, and which now surfaced in the assertion of virulent party orthodoxies, such as demokraticheskii tsentralism (‘democratic centralism’, ‘partiinaia pravota’ (‘party truth’) and ‘revoliutsionnaia printsipial’nost’’ (‘revolutionary principles’), intra-party struggles were just as likely to follow the murderous precedents set in the French experience of 1789. In fact, they exceeded them by many orders of magnitude that would have left even the French regicides and sans culotterrie aghast.

The depth of Grossman’s perception regarding the power and insidious influence of class struggle and the way it mesmerised otherwise intelligent people stupefying their critical faculties is one of his most significant contributions to our understanding of the Lenin/Stalin state. Class struggle dehumanises the enemy. The danger lies not merely in the fact that the enemy is collectively referred to as a kulak, counter-revolutionary, fashist or any of the countless other names and slogans coined by the Soviet media but rather in the fact that the enemy, whoever he is deemed to be, in losing any obvious signs of recognizable humanity, becomes something abstract. Thus his extermination becomes all the easier to justify. The corrupting effect of conceptualising individuals in terms of class war, so as to justify their physical extermination, is demonstrably evident in Robert Conquest’s account of the genocide by starvation that took place in Ukraine and which claimed 6,000,000 lives. Conquest cites a character from Vtoroi den’ (The Second Day, 1934), a novel by Ilia Erenberg on the nature of so-called class guilt: ‘Not one of them was guilty of anything; but they belonged to a class that was guilty of everything’.^¹⁶ Likewise, in his memoir, Sydney Hook recalls a discussion with Bertolt Brecht about the Stalin show trials. Talking of Zinoviev and Kamenev, Brecht commented: ‘As for them, the more innocent they are, the more they deserve to be shot’. Hook asked him to repeat what he had said and Brecht replied in German: ‘Je mehr unschuldig, desto mehr verdienen sie erschossen zu werden’.^¹⁷ It may well be that when Marx and Engels talked of class struggle that they saw struggle in exclusively economic terms (though the draconian provisions of The Manifesto of the Communist Party suggest otherwise). Lenin – and Stalin – had no such doubts. If the class war were lost the proletarian revolution would be defeated. Enemies were massing to destroy the nascent workers’ state: mercy was a bourgeois prejudice, a form of treachery.

Grossman examines the consequences of real-existing ideological war through the party’s genocidal campaign to collectivise agriculture in the early 1930s. In harrowing details, Grossman uncovers the party’s policy of grain seizures and the mass starvation which followed through the eyes of Anna Sergeevna, the former party activist. She describes people as being ‘bewitched’ (okoldovannye^¹⁸). The party speaks of the kulaks as if they were animals, beasts and bloodsuckers, as something degenerate and poisonous. For her part, Anna Sergeevna admits that she was bewitched by the party propaganda; that she is ready to believe anything bad about the kulaks:

And these words started to have an effect on me, still only a child really, and at meetings and in special instruction and radio broadcasts, at the cinema and writers wrote and Stalin himself, all said the same thing: the kulaks are parasites, they are burning grain and killing children. And it was declared directly: incite the fury of the masses against them, exterminate them as a class, these damned kulaks. I started to feel bewitched as well and it seemed that all misfortune was caused by the kulaks and that were they exterminated, a time of happiness would ensue for the peasantry.^¹⁹

Where the party is the sole provider of information and physically prevents all attempts to break its monopoly of information dissemination by censorship and incarceration, superior intelligence or education will not automatically prevent people from believing what the party-controlled agitation and propaganda apparatus tell them. During the campaign to expose the so-called Doctors’ plot Grossman notes that people who should have known better were only too willing to believe the lies and slander. The disturbing realisation is that under the right conditions one’s critical faculties can be neutralised and hysteria induced. Then anything becomes possible. Rational explanations for what is happening fall away and vague, supernatural forces seem to be all too plausible an explanation. Anna Sergeevna’s recollections of the Terror Famine suggest the end of the world: ‘And people became somehow confused, and the animals became wild, frightened, bellowed, moaning and at night the dogs howled. And the earth started to crack […] ‘Mothers looked at their children and started to scream from fear. They screamed as if a snake had crawled into the house. And that snake was death, starvation’.^²⁰ ‘The countryside started to wail, it saw its death’.^²¹ As portrayed in Platonov’s Kotlovan (The Foundation Pit, 1987), collectivization is not only a war waged by the party against so-called enemies of the people: it is a war against the land, the fields, the totality of rural life, against mother Earth herself. In his portrayal of the Ukrainian genocide Grossman makes an explicit comparison between the extermination of the peasants, dehumanised in conditions of a totalitarian media monopoly, and the fate of the Jews in the Vernichtungslager. Anticipating their national-socialist colleagues by a decade, Soviet communist party killers demonised, dehumanised, deceived, isolated and then exterminated their victims, the peasants.

Responses to Forever Flowing and Grossman

Forever Flowing launches a sustained assault on three vested interests. First, Grossman pays scant regard to the sensibilities of those who loathe Lenin and Stalin and see both as an aberration from Russia’s true path. Second, Grossman highlights the fact that large numbers of Soviet sympathizers in the West, Western politicians, historians and others who made a living from studying the former Soviet Union colluded in the suppression of the truth and so played their part in the denial of Stalin’s crimes. Third, by attacking Lenin he denies the possibility of holding Stalin solely to account for what occurred after the founder’s death as a consequence of which Lenin and the Leninist project are indicted ab ovo.

Generally sympathetic to much of what Grossman covers in Forever Flowing, especially the author’s depiction of the Terror Famine, Arkadii Stolypin is however not impressed by Grossman’s vision of Russia as a thousand-year slave. ‘If Russia’, he asks, ‘is an eternal slave and is fit for nothing other than the condition of a slave, then perhaps no other system other than a totalitarian one is possible in our country? Is there any point in struggling against the contemporary system?’^²² The first and most depressing answer to Stolypin’s question is that some form of rule on a spectrum oscillating between authoritarian and totalitarian may indeed be Russia’s political lot. It is a Western conceit that every nation and state aspires to some form of liberal democracy, even if Russia can produce individuals of the calibre of Grossman, Vasil’ Bykov, Boris Pasternak and Alexander Solzhenitsyn. That Grossman, isolated from the West, and subjected to all the immense ideological and collectivist pressures of Soviet society can arrive at a conception of individual freedom in Forever Flowing which recognizably has so much in common with Western thought, and is so diametrically opposed to what was ideologically correct in the Soviet Union, is inspiring. It suggests to this author that Grossman’s ‘tragic loneliness’, to use Stolypin’s words, had a liberating effect on Grossman. It enabled him to see more clearly and fearlessly. Moreover, the freedoms that citizens in Western liberal democracies take for granted were not found ready made. They have evolved over many centuries, and Russia, assuming her people aspire to something similar, will also have to pass through its own unique time of trials.

Writing in the Soviet journal, Nash sovremennik, just after Life and Fate was published in 1988, and discussing the novel, A. Kazintsev was also far from impressed by the vision of Russia that has known nothing but slavery for over a thousand years.^²³ He points out that there was a strong free-trading tradition in Tver and Novogorod for a long time and one which stimulated and supported various freedoms. Unfortunately, it was also the case that Ivan IV destroyed forever the privileges and prerogatives of these cities, because they were independent and, among other things, served as conduit for Western ideas.

Martin Malia’s observations on the growth of totalitarianism are also an explicit rejection of the Grossman thesis. Malia notes:

The totalitarian nature of Communism is not to be explained as the prolongation of traditional Russian authoritarianism or Oriental despotism; nor is the collectivist nature of Soviet society to be construed as the continuation of traditional Russian communal and servile relations. It is difficult to find any such agencies of transmission from the old to the new Russia in the actual policies pursued by the Bolsheviks after 1917, but it is very easy to find the origins of these policies in the socialist purposes of the Leninist party.^²⁴

The agencies of transmission are not required to survive the transition from Tsarist to Soviet in order to create a totalitarian state. It is the historical, cultural, psychological and political norms (or the absence of the latter in any Western sense) and precedents that are crucial. They survived 1917 and Marxism-Leninism was grafted on to them. I suggest that Malia concedes this point when he argues that ‘What traditional Russia contributed to the Leninist project was a lack of social and cultural antibodies sufficiently strong to resist it’.^²⁵ And the lack of ‘social and cultural antibodies’ was a direct consequence of the long history of an authoritarian state which after 1917 no longer had the moderating influence of the Church.

In chapter 14 of Forever Flowing, Anna Sergeevna recalls, among the many horrors, the Potemkin villages set up for the French politician, who went away and declared that he had seen no starvation in the countryside. Robert Conquest suggests that this was the French radical, Edouard Herriot.^²⁶ This incident hints at something which even now, many years after the genocide, should be, but is almost certainly not, a cause for great shame among Western academics, politicians and writers. Genuine ignorance is not a crime, but a perverse willingness to ignore the truth, a refusal to ask hard-headed questions in the presence of strong circumstantial evidence, or knowingly suppressing the truth most certainly is. One of the worst of the many Terror-Famine deniers, possibly the worst, was Walter Duranty, the Sovietophile foreign correspondent of the New York Times, who knew that the death toll ran into millions yet lied about it in his dispatches. In 1932 Duranty was awarded the Pulitzer Prize. In spite of demands in 2002, the seventieth anniversary of the Terror-Famine, that the award be withdrawn, the Pulitzer board took no action against Duranty.

The scale of the Terror Famine is truly daunting. In Ukraine, six million people were quite deliberately starved to death, possibly another four-five million died en route to Siberia, in Siberia and in mass shootings and in the camps. Moreover, this happened ten years before Heydrich and Eichmann convened the Wannsee conference to plan Die Endlösung der Judenfrage. As the indefatigable Robert Conquest has pointed out, the famine was covered extensively in some of Europe’s most famous papers: Manchester Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Le Matin, Le Figaro, Neue Züricher Zeitung, La Stampa and Austria’s Reichpost. Even today, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Ukrainian genocide seems curiously and deliberately ignored. With some 11,000,000 murdered, Stalin’s Terror Famine confirms the genocidal nature of socialism, be it national-socialism or the allegedly more internationalist versions of Stalin and Mao. The people who deny the Holocaust and the scale of Stalin’s Terror Famine belong to one another. They are Molotov and Ribbentrop celebrating the odious Non-Aggression Pact: they are joined together in lies and wickedness.

The publication of the first Russian-language edition of Forever Flowing in 1970, with the English translation in 1972 failed to make the impact that a work of this importance should have made. Again, the reasons may be in Grossman’s relentless exposure of Soviet crimes at a time when may Westerners in the academy were still willing to ignore Lenin’s and Stalin’s crimes and were even sympathetically disposed towards the Soviet state. Again, intellectual fashions, especially a growing acceptance among Western academics and intellectuals that the Soviet state did not merit being considered “totalitarian”, and that truth was relative or even that there is no such thing as truth, cannot have produced a climate in which Grossman, who was obsessed with the truth, as only people who have lived in the Land of the Lie can be, would be given a fair hearing. In such circumstances it is far better to ignore the troublesome messenger or misrepresent his warning. A striking example of the attempt to kill Forever Flowing by omissions and misrepresentations can be seen in a review published in of all places the Times Literary Supplement in 1973. The anonymous reviewer completely ignored Grossman’s analysis of Lenin and his role in the creation of the Soviet totalitarian state and Grossman’s thoughts on the nature of freedom.^²⁷ An attempt by the author of this article who wrote to the Times Literary Supplement in order to ascertain the identity of the reviewer met with no success.

That publication of Forever Flowing in 1989 was accompanied by an exceptionally long article^²⁸, written by G. Vodolazov, a senior Soviet academician, suggests that Grossman’s views on Lenin, Stalin and the course of Russian history inspired a mixture of fear and loathing among a certain segment of the soon-to-be-rendered redundant, Soviet literary and party establishment. It is a reasonable assumption that Vodolazov’s accompanying article was the necessary concession demanded of the Oktiabr’ editorial board were Forever Flowing to see the light of day in the Soviet Union. The main task of Vodolazov’s article was to explain the nature of Grossman’s ideologically incorrect thoughts for the benefit of the Soviet reader and so blunt the full force of Grossman’s analysis of Lenin and his role in the creation of the Soviet state.

Vodolazov begins by trying to justify the need for such a long article (implicit recognition of just how dangerous Grossman’s ideas were still regarded in 1989) and while he acknowledges that Forever Flowing is - ‘magnificent, veracious and merciless’^²⁹ – he objects to Grossman’s analysis of the causes, reasons and roots of Stalinism and rejects Grossman’s identification of Stalin with Lenin and Leninism with Stalinism. Above all, he, Vodolazov, intends to defend Lenin from Grossman. One contemporary consideration for this defence of Lenin in 1989 is to be found in the late perestroika slogan of ‘socialist pluralism’. The ideological inspiration for this is seen to be Lenin and so Lenin must be defended from Grossman’s uncompromising assault.

The problem is not pluralism per se, but socialist pluralism. By its very wording socialist pluralism is self-limiting, as in Lenin’s infamous example of “democratic centralism”. Vodolazov cites other nouns whose essential meaning and therefore the range of permitted responses to them is drastically changed by converting them into socialist categories: ‘socialist realism’; ‘socialist humanism’; ‘socialist internationalism’; ‘socialist democracy’.^³⁰ Vodolazov’s style remains loyal to the man he wishes to defend: socialism, asserts Vodolazov, is democracy taken to the end. Unfortunately, we are not instructed by Vodolazov on how any impasse between those who desire socialist democracy and those who do not want socialism (with or without any preceding adjectives) is to be resolved. Are the advocates of socialist pluralism/socialist democracy deemed to possess superior, decisive wisdom to which the ideologically ignorant masses must defer, or is the matter to be decided by a free and secret ballot?

By socialism Vodolazov means universal equality in all spheres of human behaviour:

“To the end” – that is to the actual equality of people not only in the political-legal area (the foundation of this was laid by the great French Revolution of the 18^th century), but also in the economic, cultural and scientific spheres – that is to equality in relation to the means of production of material goods and control, to cultural wealth, to the means of the production of scientific knowledge.^³¹

In other words, at this stage in his defence of Lenin, Vodolazov implies, later he is quite explicit, that socialism envisaged by Lenin was the pure form of socialism that was corrupted by Stalin who created the world’s first totalitarian state.

The goals which Vodolazov sees as being crucial for socialism are to be achieved on the basis of the common ownership of the means of production. Equality throughout the areas noted by Vodolazov cannot be achieved when human beings, who are not all equally endowed with intellectual, physical and moral faculties, are left to pursue happiness in their own way and without trespassing on the rights of others, as envisaged by the Founding Fathers of the American Republic. This can only mean that the goals of socialism (without adjectives), as envisaged by Vodolazov, can only be achieved by coercion (compulsory socialism). It is at this point that the socialist enterprise takes its first steps to the Lenin/Stalin state described by Grossman. Sentimental appeals to the “common good” will, inevitably, fail to achieve the Brotherhood of Man. At some point, the socialist ideologues and planners will have no choice but to use the coercive powers of the state to impose their objectives; or they must abandon their attempt to create some socialist commonwealth. It is possible, the example of Britain in 1945 bears witness to this, that electorates will select a government which openly proclaims its intention to secure the common ownership of the means of production. But what happens when those who voted for socialism change their minds and want to remove a government committed to the foundation of a socialist state? Marx provides no mechanism for the proletariat to get rid of such a government and Lenin, like Hitler after him, had no intention of relinquishing the levers of power seized in a coup d’etat in 1917. Lenin, Vodolazov’s unsullied leader, simply crushed Russia’s incipient democracy. Those who had doubts about socialism after 1917, even if it was just confined to Lenin’s version, were declared “enemies of the people”. For example, in an article published in 1918, Lenin denounced Karl Kautskii (1854-1938), the German social democrat, as a renegade for criticising the Bolshevik Revolution.^³²

Vodolazov’s attempts to postulate ‘socialism as democracy taken to its conclusion’ and to differentiate it from “socialist” democracy, a Stalinist aberration, are far from convincing. Vodolazov describes the Stalinist aberration thus:

“Socialist” democracy frequently signified not that democracy which is higher, broader and deeper than the non-socialist and pre-socialist (“bourgeois”, “feudal” and so on) but that, which is narrower, which is “not for all” and which led, as a result, to the creation of “man-as-cog-in-the-machine”, which easily accommodated itself with the destruction of the peasantry, the crushing of the intelligentsia and the deification of an omnipotent Leader.^³³

The question that is so clearly begged by Vodolazov (and many others) is that Stalinism must be an aberration because “true”, “genuine”, “real”, “proper” or “correct” socialism would never lead to the extermination of 11,000,000 peasants who resisted the party’s attempts to steal their land and property; it would never reduce the workers to cogs in the machine; it would never lead to a totalitarian state, control by an unaccountable party, sham elections, a ubiquitous secret police and labour and death camps for dissenters (real or mainly imagined). Only violation of socialism, it is claimed, could lead to these things. And because “real” socialism never leads to anything like Stalinism, Stalinism cannot have anything in common with socialism. What Vodolazov fails to consider, or possibly cannot bring himself to consider, is that the basic assumptions of Marx, Engels and Lenin, encapsulated in the common ownership of the means of production, may be, are, deeply flawed and that the attempt to build the socialist commonwealth based on them is the cause of all the genocide, penury and human misery that has always resulted whenever the socialist experiment has implemented. This point is dealt with by the heroine of Ayn Rand’s novel, We the Living, set in Russia immediately after Lenin’s seizure of power, who asserts her right to be intellectually and morally free. She tells a party activist why she hates his socialist ideals:

For one reason, mainly, chiefly and eternally, no matter how much your party promises to accomplish, no matter what paradise it plans to bring mankind. Whatever your other claims may be, there’s one you can’t avoid, one that will turn your paradise into the most unspeakable hell: your claim that man must live for the state.^³⁴

Again, the Vodolazov assertion that - ‘The Marxist slogan: the working class, in liberating itself, liberates everyone. The liberation of mankind – that is the highest imperative of Marxism’^³⁵ – simply ignores the countless examples of where states built on some form of socialism, above all in the absence of any liberal-democratic tradition, create some version of hell for everyone including the workers in whose name the middle-class revolutionaries have seized power.

Whenever Vodolazov uses the term “objective truth” you suspect that what he means that this “objective truth” must be congenial towards the “Leninist tradition” otherwise it cannot be considered to be the “objective truth”. What he cannot accept is the overwhelming evidence that “objective truth” is not necessarily – and frequently never – the same as the “Leninist tradition” or “socialist pluralism”. Despite all the attempts to argue for a free discussion, one can note Vodolazov’s attempt to site that discussion within a framework that will be implicitly friendly to socialist pluralism (Note that he completely ignores Lenin’s hatred of free speech and the fact that Lenin introduced a vicious censorship)

Only in such a free atmosphere - which is limited by nothing (apart from perhaps the requirements of democratic legislation) – of discussion can the true (that is those which are consistent with the objective logic of history and the interests of the overwhelming majority of people) judgments be formed (although not immediately and not without a struggle).^³⁶

If by the “objective logic of history” and “the overwhelming majority of people”, Vodolazov means, respectively, Marxism and the working class, then what happens to arguments which are inconsistent with the “objective logic of history”? And what, in any case, does Vodolazov mean by the “objective logic of history”?

Vodolazov tries to discredit Grossman by arguing that he gets details about Lenin wrong. For example, Lenin, according to Vodolazov, did not order a search of Plekhanov’s house at the time he was dying. According to Vodolazov this was done without Lenin’s permission and he was angered by the search. The other comments are too trifling to be taken seriously.^³⁷ Note, too, the following remarks by Vodolazov concerning Ivan which are wide of the mark:

Well, indeed the author of the diary, the same Ivan Grigor’evich, who returns after many years of Stalinist hard labour, does he really admire “God’s world”, which runs past the window of the train, is he really concerned by the small joys of God’s world (and in actual fact a world without God), by means of which his fellow travellers in the carriage live? How sullen he is, how one-sided he is thinking about one and the same thing, this Ivan Grigor’evich! And in the diary there is nothing about rivers, about birds, not a word: it’s all about Ul’ianov and Dzhugashvili. A proper monster and not a person!^³⁸

This is a wholly inadequate riposte from Vodolazov. It ignores the desperately moving fate of Masha, Anna Sergeevna and the genocide of the peasants. If a man has had his life blighted by Leninism and Stalinism, is he not entitled to ponder their origins? According to Vodolazov, ‘Grossman’s story and all its pages are not a scientific treatise, but an artistic work and must be perceived and evaluated in accordance with the canons of art’.^³⁹ If that is granted, then why does Vodolazov devote such a vast amount of space and effort in an attempt to detoxify Grossman’s ideas? In fact, his whole article is a desperate ideological package designed to rescue Lenin from Grossman’s truly devastating analysis and, therefore, explicit recognition, despite his attempt to relegate and to confine any discussion of Vse techet to its artistic merits, of the immense power of Vse techet and its historical, philosophical themes and, ultimately the deadly threat it poses to Leninist hagiography and the state he founded. In this regard, note the equally clumsy attack to weaken Ivan’s observations by arguing that Ivan has spent his life ‘a long way from the archives and the special stacks of libraries’.^⁴⁰ Ivan is a living archive, a repository of knowledge about the Leninist-Stalinist state. That Soviet libraries had a spetskhran (introduced in the 1920s and fully in accordance with Lenin’s banning of the free press) merely underlines the scale of the censorship.

Vodolazov informs us that the first attempts to come to terms with Stalin were killed by censorship. Indeed they were: but who founded Soviet censorship? By stating the obvious – neutralisation by clear statement - Vodolazov once again tries to give the impression that Grossman has failed to do what Vodolazov claims must be done:

It is misleading to see the main cause of our social deformations in some specific views, in Stalin’s specific theoretical constructs. For what purpose do we deceive ourselves by mythologizing Stalin and his cause? One needs to dig deeper. A critical analysis must address “our theoretical foundations”, “the initial drafts”, so as to explain “the doctrinal causes of deformation”. There, in “the foundations”, in “the doctrines” we will find the sources of the terrible illness.^⁴¹.

But Grossman does not mythologize Stalin and his cause and he most definitely and demonstrably does examine the theoretical foundations of what led to Stalin, so finding the cause of the illness.

Vodolazov then moves to attack Grossman’s view that Stalin created a state based on Leninist foundations; that people were reduced to cogs; that the party promoted itself as an elite order of sword bearers; that the closer the state moved towards socialism, the more the class struggle would intensify. Vodolazov maintains that:

For the classics of Marxism [Marx, Engels and Lenin] the essence, the meaning, the main aims of socialism were repeatedly connected with putting an end to the idea that man is a silent, helpless cog of the economic and political machine and that he would be transformed into a sovereign, free, universally and many-sided developed being. Socialism, in their conceptions, is the result of creativity, the historical independent activity of the masses and each person.^⁴²

Again, we note the question-begging: because these were the conceptions of the classics the fact that real-existing socialism did not lead to these conceptions being implemented can only mean that Stalin and Stalinism were deviations, deformations and ultimately had nothing to do with socialism. Vodolazov fails to consider the possibility that socialism, conceived by Marx, Engels and Lenin, contains within itself the seeds that lead to genocide, penury et al; that the Marxist-Leninist view of history as class struggle is wrong and leads to hell on earth. It is the theory of socialism that is the problem. Grossman’s claim that the party was “an order of sword bearers” is essentially correct. The CPSU had a view of itself as an elite organisation dedicated to a special mission. In this regard one can make comparisons with the SS, Nazi Party and any number of twentieth-century terrorist groups. In fact, the special sense of purpose is a feature of the Russian terrorist groups Zemlia i volia and Narodnaia volia.

In offering us what he believes is Grossman’s rhetorical view of the party, in order to highlight Grossman’s false depiction of it as ‘a closed medieval order, a privileged caste which dominates the people and decides all questions concerning the fate of the people in secret’^⁴³, Vodolazov describes what is all too obvious: the party was indeed all those things and the rhetorical device merely confirms what Grossman has correctly described. Vodolazov then invites the reader to consider that the party was in actual fact ‘an open, democratic organisation, which voluntarily assumed the obligation to carry out the will of the people and to be accountable to, and controlled by, the people at every step’.^⁴⁴ Such an assessment of Communist Party behaviour underlines the immense and unbridgeable gulf which separates Grossman from party apologists. Given what, by 1989, was known about the CPSU, Vodolazov’s assessment is not merely wrong but mendacious and perverse.

When Vodolazov tries to discredit Grossman’s portrayal of the party-state under Stalin his rhetorical attacks paint an accurate picture of what existed. Grossman’s observations on socialism are confirmed not just by what existed in the former Soviet Union but also in other parts of the world which copied the Soviet model.^⁴⁵ Vodolazov has no understanding of the vital differences between socialism and the market economy. He ignores the fact that it was Lenin who introduced censorship and the censorship apparatus survived intact until it was dissolved by Gorbachev’s Press Law.^⁴⁶ He would have the reader believe that Lenin was well aware that the conditions for socialism did not exist in Russia. So can it be that the use of terror, censorship and executions were intended to prepare the ground for socialism? One of Grossman’s most important insights in Vse techet, namely the all-important link between economic freedom and other freedoms (free speech et al) remains completely disregarded by Vodolazov.

In a section headed ‘Concerning the Essence and Roots of Stalinism’ Vodolazov turns to the nature of Stalinism:

Mature, developed Stalinism, which had been formed by the middle of the 1930s, can be seen as the anti-humanistic, voluntarist ideology of a bureaucratic elite which glorified violence and took it to the highest degree in all its underlying structures. That was its ideological essence. And as for Stalinism as a system of social-political relations it was a bureaucratic dictatorship and, one, moreover, in its most barbaric and in its most terroristic forms.^⁴⁷

Stalinism did not just appear from nowhere. Grossman sees it as being part of Russia’s long history, the lack of any rights accorded to the individual: the state is everything. Vodolazov’s attempt to brush Stalin and Stalinism off as some kind of deformation is unconvincing. He asserts: ‘The most difficult - and of course the most important – thing is to understand the sources of this shift from the norm to a deformation’.^⁴⁸ Again, we have returned to the begged question that since socialism is noble et al the problem lies not with socialism itself. Could it be that socialism itself is the deformation from which all else follows? Terror against so-called “enemies of the people” was sanctioned by Lenin. Stalin merely continued the tradition.^⁴⁹

The most striking thing about Vodolazov’s long article is the lack of any detailed discussion based on Forever Flowing. Not only does Vodolazov fail convincingly to account for the rise of Stalin – in the absence of any explanation based on what Marx and Lenin contributed - the rise of Stalin becomes removed from Soviet and Russian history, acquiring the status of some supernatural event, but he also ignores the demonstrable parallels with other totalitarian socialist states in Eastern Europe and China. If, ‘Stalinism is, in its essence, against the people’^⁵⁰, what is Leninism? The growth of a massive, all-pervasive state bureaucracy is unavoidable when all non-state institutions are destroyed. He then tries to excuse the growth of the state bureaucracy by arguing that the peasants lacked education. They may well have done at the start of Soviet power but the brutal truth is that the no matter how educated the peasants were they would never have been welcomed as equals in the running of the country. Vodolazov concedes that the bureaucracy was inevitable but that Stalinism was a terroristic bureaucracy. This ignores the fact that organisations such as the VChK and the OGPU, both based on the use of police terror, had emerged and were preparing the way for the NKVD and its successors while Lenin was still alive. Vodolazov’s case against Grossman fails, in my opinion, to withstand scrutiny, whereas Grossman’s case against Lenin is upheld: Lenin is guilty as charged.

Conclusion

Forever Flowing and the earlier Life and Fate belong to a select group of books which are indispensable reading for any student of Soviet and Russian history and letters seeking some of the answers to Russia’s apocalyptic twentieth century. The most striking feature of Forever Flowing is Grossman’s relentless honesty and his willingness to confront the nature of the Soviet state and its origins: the deification of Lenin and his role in preparing the totalitarian state; the failure to grasp the nature of human freedom; the rise of Stalin; and the consummation of the Soviet project initiated in 1917. Had Grossman confined himself and his wide-ranging analysis in Forever Flowing to Russia’s twentieth-century woes, instead of describing a historical trajectory which explained the course of Russian history in terms of the evolution of slavery (nesvoboda) and which explicitly rejected the view of so many nineteenth-century Russian thinkers that Russia was destined to carry out a special mission (easily co-opted by Lenin), Grossman, today, in the opinion of this author, would be more deeply embedded in the Russian national consciousness.

If Forever Flowing is uncomfortable, at times, even shocking reading for Russians, it should also be seen as a warning to the West. If, according to Grossman, the difference between the political evolution of the West and Russia, lies in the way freedom has evolved in the former and been ruthlessly sacrificed first to the prerogatives of the Tsars and then to the ideological programme of Marxism-Leninism in the latter, then it is a proper question to ask whether freedoms, once won, can be lost. Can the historical and intellectual evolution of the centuries towards what we take for granted as inviolable and inalienable freedoms be reversed? In the presence of evil and those who would deny truth any special status individual freedom can never be secure. Nor can any society survive that accepts the notion that good and evil are outdated religious prejudices. Good and evil are eternal, at the very heart of man’s nature. Each age must confront them anew.^⁵¹ I suggest that this is implicit in the very last word of the novel which, evoking the title, Grossman uses to describe Ivan Grigorevich, his soldier in truth: neizmennyi (unchanged). Everything flows but the constant, the irreducible in all ages and in all times is freedom: its duties, its burdens - its sacrifices.

________________

1 This article is based on a paper that I presented at the second conference in Turin which was dedicated to the life and work of Vasilii Grossman. The conference – Vita e Destino: Vasilij Grossman: tra ideologie e domande eterne – was organised by the Centro Culturale Pier Giorgio Frassati. I would like to thank the conference organisers for having invited me, the superb organisation and the generous and warm hospitality that was extended to all the participants.

2 Fedor Dostoevsky, The Devils, trans., David Magarshack, Penguin, Harmondsworth, England, 1982, p.256.

3 The Devils, p.258.

4 Vasilii Grossman, Vse techet, Possev-Verlag, 2^nd edition, Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany, 1974, p.173.

5 Vse techet, p.175.

6 Vse techet, p.175.

7 Vse techet, p. 178.

8 Vse techet, p.179.

9 Vse techet, p.182.

10 The broadcast was made on 24^th March 1976 and was published in Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Warning to the Western World, The Bodley Head and BBC London, 1976, p.43.

11 In chapter 10, Ivan realises that economic freedom and free speech go together: ‘Earlier, I used to think that freedom was freedom of speech, the press and conscience. But freedom, well, it is the entire life of all people. It is the freedom to sow what you want, to make shoes, coats, bake grain which you have sown, sell it or don’t sell it; and the metal worker, the steel worker and artist work, live as you please and don’t be ordered about. And there’s no freedom either for those who write books or among those who sow corn and make boots’, Vse techet, p.85.

12 Vse techet, p.178.

13 Vse techet, p.169.

14 Vse techet, p.167

15 Vse techet, p.169.

16 Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine, Hutchinson, London, 1986, p.143.

17 Sydney Hook, Out of Step: An Unquiet Life in the 20^th Century, Harper & Row, New York, 1987, p.493.

18 Vse techet, p.117.

19 Vse techet, pp.117-118.

20 Vse techet, p.124.

21 Vse techet, p.128.

22 Arkadii Stolypin, ‘Oshibochnaia istoricheskaia kontseptsiia Vasiliia Grossmana’, Grani, № 80, 1971, p.217.

23 See A. Kazintsev, ‘Istoriia – ob’’ediniashchaia ili razobshchaiiushchaia’, Nash Sovremennik, 11, 1988, pp.163-184. Kazintsev is responding to the remarks made by Chernetsov (see chapter 70, part 1 of Life and Fate, Sovetskii pisatel’, Moscow, 1990, p.228) and Mad’iarov (see chapter 66, Part 1, Life and Fate, p.214). At the end of his article Kazintsev notes that the editorial board of Oktiabr’ intends to publish Vse techet the following year (1989) and various extracts from Vse techet on the theme of the Russian soul and freedom are cited (chapter 22). Kazintsev’s response to the impending publication of Vse techet is worth noting: ‘It goes without saying that the journal Oktiabr’ is free to print everything it considers to be topical. I would merely question how the extracts cited can be reconciled with the principles of international brotherhood?’ Kazintsev, p.184. In response to Grossman’s assertion that the growth of the West has been impregnated with the ideas of freedom and that Russia’s growth has been characterised by the growth of slavery, Kazintsev asks whether this means that Russia is excluded from the history of mankind (p.184).

24 Martin Malia, The Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991, The Free Press, New York, 1994, p.134.

25 Martin Malia, The Soviet Tragedy, p.134.

26 Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine, Hutchinson, London, 1986, p. 315.

27 ‘Synthesis with Slaves’, Times Literary Supplement 23rd February 1973, 197.

28 G. Vodolazov, ‘Lenin i Stalin: filosofsko-sotsiologicheskii kommentarii k povesti V. Grossmana Vse techet’, Oktiabr’, 6, 1989, pp.3-29.

29 Vodolazov, p.3.

30 Vodolazov, p.4.

31 Vodolazov, p.5.

32 V.I.Lenin, ‘Proletarskaia revoliutsiia i renegat Kautskii’, (1918), Sochineniia, vol 28, 4th edition, OGIZ, Moscow., 1950, pp.207-302.

33 Vodolazov, p.4.

34 Ayn Rand, We the Living (1936) Signet, New York, 1983, p.80.

35 Vodolazov, pp.4-5.

36 Vodolazov, p.6.

37 Vodolazov, p.7.

38 Vodolazov, p.7.

39 Vodolazov, p.9.

40 Vodolazov, p.9.

41 Vodolazov, p.11.

42 Vodolazov, p.11.

43 Vodolazov, p.12.

44 Vodolazov, p.12.

45 See, apart from anything else, Viktor Kravchenko, I Chose Freedom: The Personal and Political Life of a Soviet Official (1946), Czesław Miłosz, The Captive Mind (1953) and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (1973-1975-1978) and subsequent to the publication of Vodolazov’s article, Harry Wu, Bitter Winds: A Memoir of My Years in China’s Gulag (1994) and The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (1999). Nor is there any reference to Life and Fate where the beginnings of Grossman’s unravelling of the Lenin cult can be sen.

46 The law - Zakon o pechati i drugikh sredstvakh massovoi informatsii - was signed by Gorbachev on 12^th June 1990 and took effect on 1st August 1990.

47 Vodolazov, p.16.

48 Vodolazov, p.17

49 Vodolazov, p.19.

50 Vodolazov, p.22.

51 Solzhenitsyn identifies another failing on the part of the West: ‘How is it that people who have been crushed by the sheer weight of slavery and cast to the bottom of the pit can nevertheless find strength in themselves to rise up and free themselves – first in spirit and then in body – while those soar unhampered over the peaks of freedom suddenly lose the taste of freedom, lose the will to defend it, and, hopelessly confused and lost, almost begin to crave slavery? Warning to the Western World, pp.28-29.

______________

Click here to return to Sarah: Maid of Albion

A few of my older articles, which I hope you will take time to read

2011-03-11T03:23:00.000-08:00

Genocide by Stealth

2011-03-10T08:39:00.000-08:00

Part One

If one were to set out to destroy a race or ethnic group, history offers a selection of options as to how this can be achieved.

You can starve them to death in their millions, as Stalin did, and as Lenin had before him. You can force them to march through the desert until they drop dead through hunger and exhaustion as was the Turks' preferred method of dispatching some one and a half million Armenians, whilst the world was distracted by the first World War. Alternatively if you wish to speed up the process you can shoot them, bomb them, gas them as Saddam Hussein did to the Kurds, or merely hack them to bits with machetes, by which means the Rwandans slaughtered 800,000 people in a mere 100 days during 1994.

The problem with all those tried and tested means of eradicating large groups of people, is that it is almost impossible to hide what you have done from a world community, which, in the main, considers most forms of genocide to be morally unacceptable and a breach of international law.

The exception, of course, is the ANC government in South Africa, who have, so far quite effectively, managed to portray the racially motivated slaughter of members of an ethnic minority as being merely “crime related”, painting repeated acts of genocide as an unending series of “botched burglaries” or multiple “car-jackings gone wrong” . However, their success in hiding their own brand of blood stained ethnic cleansing, has been dependant upon the very special set of circumstances relating to South Africa, and, crucially, upon an outside world not wishing to know the truth.

As such the South African model is unlikely to translate as successfully beyond the dark continent's southern region, and the violent slaughter of a selected ethnic group in any other part of the world, particularly the West, would be less easy to conceal.

However, although there is effectively only one word for genocide, it can come in many forms. To commit genocide, it is not always necessary to perpetrate acts of violence, or indeed murder. There are many definitions of genocide, all equally effective, albeit not all as speedy as the ones chosen in Rwanda.

If one was prepared to take time and if one was sufficiently ideologically committed to embark upon a genocidal enterprise, the conclusion of which one might personally not live to see, then it is entirely possible to achieve the gradual genocide by stealth of a vast target group without the perpetrators ever having to reveal their blood stained hands.

One need only create the conditions in which the target group will cooperate with its own destruction, and, with any luck, not awake to what is happening until too late.

Travel with me now gentle reader and I will explain to you why some believe that the greatest act of genocide in human history is currently being attempted, and how that act may already well on its way to being achieved.

First we need to understand what genocide is. Amongst the United Nations definitions of Acts of Genocide (1) you will find along with the acts of war and violence, the following two definitions which also constitute genocide:

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the targeted group

Deliberately inflicting on the targeted group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Bearing the points above in mind I invite you to consider where we, the native peoples of Europe have been brought to, in particular over the 65 years since the guns fell silent at the end of a war which our grandfathers were told they were fighting in order to save the future for their children.

Far from saving the future for their children, I would suggest to you that, since World War II, conditions of life have been introduced by those who hold power over us which are calculated to bring about the destruction, at the very least in part, of those very children, the native people of Europe. Meanwhile measures have been introduced intended to significantly reduce the number of Native European births.

Seen in isolation, much of what has happened appears quite harmless, in some instances even beneficial, however, when viewed all together a far darker picture begins to emerge:

A victim will the more willingly drink his poison if it's made to taste sweet, and what was sweeter than a sexual revolution without the inconvenience of pregnancy. Forms of contraception have existed with varying degrees of effectiveness for hundreds of years, but never before has it been so easy to avoid getting pregnant. Many will argue that the avoidance of an unwanted pregnancy is beneficial, they will point to the shame and social exclusion of unwed mothers in the past, to prematurely aged women brought to early graves by repeated child bearing, to the financial burden which large families can cause and of course they are correct in some degree, albeit certainly not in the numbers they inevitably claim.

I will not deny that effective, and easily accessible, contraception has benefits for individuals, however, millions of indigenous European children, whom nature intended to be conceived, have not been conceived as a direct result of the contraceptive pill, and the benefits, if any, of that loss to us collectively as European people are less easy to quantify.

As I type this I can already hear the shrill squawks of derision from the trolls and intellectual pygmies at forums such as fstdt.net, who monitor this blog from time to time, and, no doubt, some more grown up readers will raise a sceptical eye-brow at the linkage of oral contraception to genocide. However, I would ask you to put your prejudice to one side and consider these things in context. This is but one aspect of many and, when so many coincidences lead in one direction it is hard to ignore a design.

The contraceptive pill, initially available to married women as a means of family planning, is now celebrated as a weapon of female liberation and heavily promoted within white western nations. It is, of course, also a means of not having children in the numbers which any race needs in order to survive.

Even when the pill fails, it is now, for the first time in history, easy and, in almost every western nation, legal to terminate unwanted pregnancies. As a result of laws passed at the same time that the contraceptive pill was being made widely available, across the West millions upon millions of unborn children have been killed, mainly, to a huge degree, for reasons of convenience rather than medical necessity (including what might be called the “dump the boyfriend, kill the kid” scenario)

Again as with contraception, abortion is portrayed as both a right and a further means of liberating women, in fact it is implied that to be opposed to abortion is to be anti-women. Indeed, popular culture regularly depicts those who are pro-life as being evil or unbalanced, meanwhile, people who are pro-choice/pro-death are portrayed as decent, rational and even rather heroic. As we all know when the media resort to propaganda, they have an agenda.

Is it just coincidence that the two greatest social changes, affecting human reproduction, in the second half of the 20th Century resulted in tens of millions of western children not being born? If so, then here is another coincidence.

There are, of course, other, less obvious ways of preventing births than merely preventing conception or by killing foetuses, you need only create an environment which discourages the target group from reproducing. As a result of successive deliberate economic policies during exactly the same historical period during which the changes described above were taking place, the vast majority of women are now forced to work, rather than stay at home and raise families.

They are, of course, told that being away from home anything up to twelve or more hours a day (and for most of us remote linking or bringing work home at night) is liberating, whereas, in fact, they have no option.

What has changed? It has far less to do with social attitudes than it has with the new economic reality. As recently as the 1960's the average man's take home pay was sufficient to support his home and his family, which was, on average, larger than a modern western family. That is no longer possible for anyone under executive level and only then if the husband commutes for hours each day.

This didn't happen by accident, it didn't happen due to natural progression, it was the result of deliberate political acts and government policy.

For instance, one of the reasons why men's wages have not kept pace with the cost of maintaining a home and family is mass immigration, which has been cynically used to depress wages.

A recent study (2) in America estimated that by pushing down wages, immigration triggers a substantial redistribution of income from native-born workers to native-born owners of capital. It was calculated that this redistribution amounts to about 2 percent of GDP, or a whopping $250 billion annually at current levels. And it is the native elites who gain this sum at the expense of native workers, whose wages are kept artificially low.

A similar figure will certainly apply to Europe, where mass immigration is also forcing down wages. Consequently, most men can no longer support their families single handedly. As a direct result most woman now work, and most working woman put off having children and have less children than previous generations. I repeat, it is a lie to say women now have the “choice” to work, they have no choice, they have no option but to work. That is not liberation.

Whatever your views on contraceptives, abortion and working woman (I am certainly in favour of women being free to choose to work) it is impossible to deny that, as described above, whether deliberately or otherwise, measures, resulting from deliberate government policy, have been put in place in every Western Nation all of which have drastically reduced the birth rate amongst native Europeans. None of it occurred naturally, and none of it was unavoidable.

That sounds very much like one of the UN's definitions of genocide to me.

Meanwhile, Western governments pump billions of dollars each year into aid programmes designed to increase the birth rate non-European countries. The same ministers who promote abortion at home celebrate reductions in child mortality in third world countries, is this not a double standard?

Whilst our population ages and our birth rate falls, the non-European population of the world is increasing to unsustainable levels

At the time of the Live Aid appeal in 1984, the population of Ethiopia was 42 million, it is now almost 81 million and projected to reach 145 million by 2050, and that is all Ethiopians (there is not much immigration into Ethiopia).

Zimbabwe apart, similar examples apply in almost every third world country. In 1950 the population of Pakistan, another recipient of significant European aid and a net exporter of immigrants, was 40 Million, it is now 169 million and expected to reach 295 million by 2050 (3).

Meanwhile the native population of Europe is plummeting and in both respects the cause of the demographic change can be traced to the deliberate acts of Western governments.

Siren voices whisper moral blackmail into our Western ears “We must reduce our population further to save the planet” but this propaganda is only aimed at us, the white west, the only single group on the planet which desperately needs to increase its population in order to survive.

Why? Is it not obvious to anyone with the ability still to think that, if our overlords are deliberately pursuing policies designed to reduce the population of Group A whilst massively increasing the population of Group B, they have an agenda?

Our shrinking birth rate, which our governments have arguably conspired to create, is the excuse they then give for importing millions upon millions, upon million, upon millions of immigrants into our homelands in order to replace what we have not produced, that is to say, in order to replace us.

And this brings us to the second of the two definitions of genocide the deliberate infliction on the targeted group of conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. It is that second act of genocide which I will address in part 2 of this essay

_________________

(1)1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2
(2) http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/costofdiversity.pdf
(3) http://www.prcdc.org/globalpopulation/Population_Projections/

________________________

Part Two

In the first part of this essay I argued that vast social changes resulting from deliberate acts by the governments of Europe and all other, one time white, Western nations have succeeded in meeting at least one of the United Nations definitions of what constitutes an act of genocide against an ethnic group.

Easy, free, and officially encouraged access to oral contraception, the legalisation of abortion, effectively on demand, and changes to the economic structure which have forced the average family unit to cease consisting of one breadwinner and one child carer, but instead to become formed of two breadwinners, have resulted directly in a catastrophic reduction in the birth rate among whites of native European origin.

All three changes have resulted directly from deliberate social or economic engineering on the part of post war governments, and it is impossible to argue that a reduction in births was not a primary aim, at least of the first two or that a reduction in births has been a direct result of the third.

Therefore, I would submit for your consideration the fact that, whether through ill will or otherwise, measures have been put in place intended to prevent births within the targeted group. That targeted group being white native Europeans. This means of Genocide is clearly defined in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Meanwhile, as I argued in part one, during the same period, monumental efforts have been made, by those same western governments to increase the birth rate amongst other races and ethnic groups.

Some may argue that counter measures, such as welfare benefits, and, indeed child benefit itself, have been put in place which actively encourage childbirth. However, as the figures clearly demonstrate, they have not had this effect, at least, they have not done so amongst the target group. White wage earners may welcome child benefit, but it is only those whites at the very lowest social levels who might consider welfare benefits an incentive to breed.

On the other hand, given that the welfare state in Britain and similar welfare arrangements Europe are among of the primary incentives for mass inward migration and that it is primarily amongst immigrant families in receipt of welfare and child benefits that a significant growth in birth rates has been seen, far from counterbalancing that damaging effect of other policies, this has, if anything, in fact added to the damage done to the native European people.

That is because, the inward migration honey pot created by a free for all Welfare state is one of the many ways by which a further act fitting the description of genocide has been committed. That is the deliberate infliction on the targeted group of conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

I would contend that the mass third world immigration into every single Western nation has created conditions which will lead to the destruction of the native European peoples, at very least in part.

How do you destroy a people if not by starving them, shooting them or marching them to death? There are many ways, but you can start by outnumbering them and forcing them out of their homelands. When it happens to other races in other places we call it ethnic cleansing, it is only when it happens to us, here that we call it progress.

Whatever you call it, it is happening, even the media have now been forced to admit that the native white population of Britain will have become an ethnic minority in their ancestral homeland by 2066. Many suspect that estimate is a conservative one, and that is likely to be much sooner than that, in much of England it most certainly will be sooner.

We should not forget that the annual “net” immigration figure, which the government publishes, does not take into account how many of those leaving the country are indigenous Britons who are replaced by immigrants, and the numbers classified as British born who are of foreign ancestry. As a consequence the official figure seriously underestimates the overall demographic change.

London only remains a majority white city if you include the furthest outer suburbs and the fact that non-Europeans are less likely to register on census forms. There is compelling evidence that in reality London has already passed the tipping point and that the native population are already a minority. Whether that is true or not it is certain that it soon will be and that without a shadow of a doubt, with one hundred years of the end of World War II, the descendants of those, the blitz generation, who flocked the streets to celebrate VE day, will be a racial minority in the city they fought to defend.

This will have resulted from a deliberate policy, which was never put to a vote. How is this not ethnic cleansing? How does this not equate to the other great displacements which history now condemns?.

In Birmingham, a city with one of the smallest remaining white majorities in Britain, the change may come even sooner. Certainly the native population have long ago been driven out of vast swathes of that city, as they have in many UK cities, including London.

It is often lamented that the sparrows are vanishing from London, but who dare admit so are the Cockneys?.

If the indigenous population of any other region of the word were being deliberately replaced, the word “genocide” would be on the tofu stained lips of every liberal. The UN security council would be in session and Hoxton high street would echo to the shrieks of horror, as Giles and Penelope recounted tales of vacations in Cairo or Bangkok where the locals had been forced out and replaced by people from Porthcawl and Billericay. However, as it is the people of European origin who are being supplanted it's considered acceptable.

The same situation extends across the Western World. In fact European nations, such as Sweden, which have smaller native populations may well become majority non-white before we do. Even in the larger countries the problems associated with mass immigration are becoming obvious, however, their leaders do not see the solution to the problem as stopping immigration, but rather by getting rid of a homogeneous native population. This was made clear by French President Nicolas Sarkozy when he said "the only way to stop the violence and hatred of a multicultural society is through inter breeding between the races", what else was he calling for other than the irradication of the original French people?

This view echoed those expressed by so many of the social elite, and those who see themselves as opinion formers, such as journalist, political commentator and over-paid television personality Andrew Marr when, in a 1999 Guardian article, he encouraged "widespread and vigorous miscegenation”, or race mixing, to make the British public to accept the multicultural 'Utopia' he, and his kind are seeking to force upon us. Marr admitted that this might be “tricky to achieve as public policy”, however, the fact that he viewed miscegenation as the “best option” reveals a great deal about the attitudes of such people. (1)

There is a vast difference between a free society permitting interracial sex and the active promotion of mass miscegenation for a political aim, yet Sarkozy, Marr and the other mixed race proselytisers are too blinded by ideology to that what they are in fact advocating is ethnic cleansing. Or am I being to generous to them?

So, what caused this attitude? A view which would have been so alien to every generation before the 1960's? Why is it considered as acceptable to do to us what would cause shock and outcry were it done to anyone else? The reason is clear, Europeans have been taught to think differently about themselves, and make no mistake, they have been deliberately taught to view themselves in the way they now do.

It may sound bizarre to claim that our media and our educators have created a fake history and then set about brainwashing us into feeling guilt about things which never happened, or which did not happen in the manner in which our children, and indeed most of the post 1960 generations are taught, but that is actually what is happening.

What our children are being taught in school about our history and our society are lies, pure and simple, and that has been the case now for decades.

This is accompanied throughout childhood and into adulthood by a constant barrage of propaganda forced upon us day and night through our entertainment and news media. Not only are we relentlessly confronted with depictions of the same fake history with which our children are being indoctrinated, but also a fake present, depicted in popular drama, entertainment and through the heavily sanitised and selective spin which now passes for news.

The news is arguably more shameful even than the drama, because it pretends to be objective and truthful when it is the exact reverse. Anything which can be spun to support the fantasy of a multicultural Utopia, the perpetual narrative of non-white victimhood or intrinsic white badness is highlighted with great prominence. Meanwhile anything which could undermine the multicultural dream, reveals whites as victims or exposes badness amongst non-whites is distorted, lied about or suppressed altogether.

I could go into great detail on this aspect, but wish to avoid this article becoming overly long, however, it is a subject I have addressed frequently, with numerous articles in previous posting which can be found in the blog archives. However, I have added links to a number of my previous posting on the subject of media propaganda and misinformation at the bottom of this article (2).

Once one appreciates what is happening you are confronted with it relentlessly, but sadly very few actually realise what is happening, it is, after all, what they have always known and what they have been taught to believe. They hardly even notice when they see themselves being replaced, not least in TV commercials, where progressively the average Briton is portrayed not by a white person, or indeed a black person, but by someone of mixed race, with the subliminal message that this is the new reality they should aspire to.

The outcome is the a flabby, bovine, nation of people who care only for trivia and possessions, who actively believe that the history of their race is shameful, that their country owes a debt of guilt to other nations, and crucially, who do not care if their people were to vanish from the face of the earth.

Worse than that, for many, something in their subconscious tells them it might even be racist to care.

And here I have mentioned the word which has become one of the most deadly weapons used against the European race and the most poisonous agent of their destruction.

"Racist", that dishonest, multi-purpose, multiple application little word has been used to bully, intimidate and hector our people for decades now as a means of forcing a cynical political agenda upon us which they would never have achieved democratically. We, the most tolerant and benevolent race on Earth, the people least guilty of racial, tribal or xenophobic animus on the planet, have, exclusively, been so terrorised by that little word to the point where we would rather see our own race destroyed than dare be called it.

If any of us do overcome the terror and speak out against the lies, then laws have been set in place enabling the authorities to hunt them down and prosecute them, cheered on by a baying controlled media.

In Britain, and elsewhere in Europe it has now been established in law that telling the truth can be a criminal offence (and we laughably still call ourselves a free society)

It is all now stacked against us. We are the victims of hate don't you see, we are not, and have never been the main perpetrators.

This is a huge subject, and there is so much more to say. We are assailed on all sides by so many different forces, all seemingly calculated to undermine us as a homogeneous race of people. I could continue for a dozen more postings and still not have covered all issues.

However, I hope that, in these two postings I have been able to demonstrate that over the last half century, measures have been imposed upon the native people of Europe, and, worldwide, upon those of European origin, which fit the internationally accepted definitions of genocide, and which are inextricably leading to the destruction of us as a race. (In some areas, such as South Africa, as I have explained in previous postings we are even further down the blood stained road)

As pointed out in part one of this essay those definitions of genocide are:

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the targeted group

As I have stated, deliberate measures have been put in place intended to prevent births amongst us, and which have successfully prevented many millions of births amongst our people. At the same time, deliberate measures, taken by the same governments, have increased the birthrate of non-Europeans by billions (four billion since 1950).

Whilst their numbers grow, ours are shrinking, taken across the western world this has led to the loss of potential lives among those of European origin greater than any previous world war and previous natural disaster other than possibly the black death in the 14th Century, and certainly greater than any previous genocide.

Deliberately inflicting on the targeted group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Mass immigration, never in any state agreed to by democratic vote, is replacing the native peoples of Europe and those of European origin across the planet. Britain and North America are predicted to become majority non-white states at some point between 2050 and 2066, and the same will apply to the rest of Europe, with the possible exception of northern Russia, by the end of the century.

Some would argue that the very replacement of one race or culture with another is an act of genocide in itself. However, in addition, the inevitable mass displacement and interbreeding which is already occurring will further undermine Europeans as a homogeneous ethnic group. (an outcome, some so brainwashed and mired in their foetid ideology actually view as a desirable outcome)

Furthermore, given the evidence that significant numbers of immigrants are actively hostile to the native population and its culture, the effect on the native population when those groups become a majority can only be guessed at .

Meanwhile, for decades now our people have been subject to unremitting indoctrination, propaganda and, many would argue, brainwashing. They have been fed lies and disinformation designed to undermine their sense of identity, their pride in their identity, and ultimately their will to survive as a people.

By means of the above, and many other examples I could point to, conditions have been inflicted upon us which can not fail to bring about our destruction in whole or in part, and, in fact are already doing so.

It is happening, that cannot be denied. I have not made any of this up, I have merely laid the facts before you and the conclusion screams its own name without any prompting from me.

Only two questions remain:

why is it happening? To be truly genocide there needs to be intent. Is there really a mass conspiracy by evil people determined to destroy the white race? The acts are deliberate, but is their inevitable outcome their purpose? Or are there other factors, other agendas and other motives which have brought us to where we are?

It makes little difference to us of course, if you are killed by murder or by manslaughter you are still dead. However, it does change how one judges the perpetrators.

And the most difficult question, what, if anything can be done to change course on what appears to the inevitable road to our destruction?.

I will seek to explore these two questions in the third and final part of this essay.

____________________

(1) http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Uk/uk.politics.misc/2008-07/msg00247.pdf

(2) Prior articles touching on media lies, disinformation and propaganda
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/ripped-from-headlines-and-ethnically.html
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/05/broken-news.html
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/09/age-of-disinformation.html
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/04/hoary-old-stereotype-sold-to-us-as-new.html
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/disinformation-news.html
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2009/09/guess-those-missing-words.html
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/08/lies-of-political-correctness.html
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/06/bloody-liars.html
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2008/03/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics.html
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2010/03/claims-reported-as-facts-again.html

_______________

Part three

In the first two parts of this essay I set out to demonstrate that acts have been committed against the white European race, over the last half century or more, which meet at least two of the definitions of genocide as laid out under Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Measures have been put in place intended to prevent births amongst white Europeans and which have resulted in the termination or prevention of the birth of, at the very least, tens of millions of white children. Taken altogether across the western world, the number of potential births amongst our ethnic group which have been prevented either by chemical means or by active physical intervention is in the hundreds of millions.

Meanwhile, conditions of life have been inflicted upon us which are already leading to our destruction, at least in part.

That these acts have been committed, that they were deliberate and are resulting in the outcomes I described in parts one and two is self evidently true. Furthermore, the fact that, in combination theses acts, measures and policies have brought us to the brink of a tipping point beyond which, we cannot, as a people, recover, is also beyond question. They have.

It also can not be denied that, although as a people we, native Europeans, have faced war, famine pestilence and catastrophe we have never before come so close to our own annihilation.

What is, however, open to question is why is it happening, who is doing it and what they are actually seeking to achieve.

Up until now I have laid facts before you, however, in an attempt to make sense of those facts I can now only give you my own view, my analysis if you prefer, of what has happened and why.

To the question “Is there a conspiracy to destroy the white race?”, I have to say in my view the answer is considerably more complex than some of my fellow travellers would like to believe. What we face is not a single malevolent conspiracy, but a many headed hydra formed of any number aims ambitions, hatreds and ideologies, all of differing degrees of malevolence, which have come together, on the coat tails of a historical conspiracy, to attack us at a time when we are at the least able to defend ourselves.

Not all which has been done has been with malevolent intent, I rather placed my credibility on the line by linking the contraceptive pill to genocide in an earlier part of this essay, and I know that, on at least one of the other sites where my earlier articles have been republished, some people who have not done what I asked, and viewed these things in context, have mocked me for it. I do not necessarily believe that, in isolation, the pill was developed or legalised with the deliberate intention of damaging the native European race. However, I submit that it has done so, and as I stated previously, its introduction on the scene coincided with other factors which in combination have been unremittingly negative.

The pill, together with abortion, and what one might call “breeding unfriendly” changes to the economic model, have not only speeded up the pace of our decline but they have provided succour to attitudes which were most certainly encouraged with malevolent intent. The pill has been used far less to regulate the size of families as it has been used to put off childbirth, often altogether, and that has been of inestimable damage to us, collectively, as a people.

Some of my critics may wish to argue that the decline of the greatest civilisation the world has ever seen is a worthwhile sacrifice in order to enable a rapidly reducing number of individuals to enjoy the transitory pleasures of a child free lifestyle. However, it is for them to make that case, but at this point I do not buy it.

However, in other areas there is no doubt as to the malevolence of the forces ranged against us. Some of the most savagely malign of those forces exist within the arts and academia, where many do not even attempt to disguise their genocidal intent. Who can forget the words of Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev, (1) author of “When the Irish became White” and co-editor of the “Race Traitor” magazine, when he said: “The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.” or “The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.” and of course: “we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed--not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”

Ignatiev is not alone, his brand of poison pervades learning institutions throughout the West. Anyone who followed the attempts to rail-road three innocent lacrosse players at North Carolina's Duke University, following the false rape claims of black “exotic dancer” in 2006 as closely as I did, could not fail to be shocked by the levels of mindless, visceral hatred towards white males which exists within American academia. It would be hard to exaggerate how passionately so many eminent members of the Duke faculty, journalists, media talking heads and so called “community organisers” wanted those boys to be guilty. For many, guilt or innocence was not an issue, they simply craved blood in order to slake their hatred.

However, how is it that the views of such unattractive and ideologically diseased individuals such as Noel Ignatiev and so many members of the Duke faculty have gained such purchase and become so all pervading within Western culture? To find an answer to that question we need to go back a century and a half, or even more, and there we do find a conspiracy.

The conspiracy against Western Christian / capitalist society began in the 19th Century, if not before. It did not start as a conscious attack on white, Europeans, however, it inevitably became one, initially for no other reason than that Western society was white, European, society.

It is at this point in the narrative that I must nod in the direction of those of my critics who accuse me of being an apologist for Zionism, and admit that it is impossible to ignore the Jewish role in the early efforts to undermine Western Society. Jews featured disproportionately amongst those who took Marxist theory forward and set up the great and deadly Communist monoliths which crushed vast sections of humanity, throughout the twentieth century. A significant majority of those who formed the subversive Frankfurt School of thinking in the 1930's, those who developed critical theory and that most evil and damaging of all ideologies, political correctness were Jewish academics and Jewish political thinkers.

It was by no means exclusively Jewish, but it was overwhelmingly so. It is also impossible to dismiss the current role of Jews within academia not to mention the Jewish anti-white propagandists within the media and, of course Hollywood.

However, although it would be ignorant and dishonest to dismiss the role Jews played in the early efforts to undermine Western society and the role which many eminent Jews still play within the massed ranks ranged against us, it is also possible to overestimate their role. When those within the Nationalist community blame all the attacks on the white European race on the Jews and on some vast Zionist conspiracy they are addressing a single, historical and rapidly shrinking foe, while ignoring many far more vicious and, now more dangerous adversaries.

Marxism is at the root of all our problems and it was those early Marxists, Trotskyites, Stalinists, Maoists and sundry Socialists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries in general certainly who set the great ball of anti-white genocide in motion when they set out to destroy Western Capitalism. However, we are certainly not, today, where they once planned to take us.

I would liken the early communist conspirators, malevolent as they may have been, to a deluded scientist who created a faulty chemical weapon, which once injected into its victim takes on a life of its own, driven on mindlessly by the flaws within its design and independent of the plans of its designer.

Those, including many Jews who conspired against our grandfathers imagined that we would today be living under universal Marxist rule, not that we would be facing the prospect of a Universal Islamic caliphate.

I suspect that were those who first sowed the seeds of our destruction alive today, they would look on in horror at the monster they have created, for it will devour them, and their plans no less ravenously than it will destroy us. At the risk of reigniting the anger of my critics against me, I would argue that, whatever, past difference there may have been, now is the time for Jews, together with gays and true feminists to join with White Nationalists, for it is we, not what is coming to ensure their protection, freedom and very existence.

As I say, the aim was to destroy Western capitalism, but with the demise of what was intended to replace it, the agenda has morphed into the destruction of the European race, and without any other ambition, the destruction has become the purpose rather than merely the agent of change.

Before the fall of the Soviet Union the Marxist cause had made huge advances. Nobody living in the 1950's or 1960's would have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist had they claimed that there were people within our society working for its destruction, because there were. Communism made no secret of its sworn aim to dominate the world and, unlike with Islam today, there were no politically correct scruples against acknowledging it.

Marxist theory exercises a powerful pull on the hearts and minds of elite Western Intellectuals. Through their compliance over the decades the Soviet system's tentacles gradually infiltrated the West, gaining control within many of our most powerful institutions, most spectacularly within the media and within education, two areas in which they correctly assessed they could do the most damage to the system they were seeking to overthrow.

Having gained control within the two most powerful means of forming opinion, they set about, first gradually, but later more rapidly, indoctrinating the western public with the aim of making them less willing or able to resist their eventual overthrow, whilst simultaneously removing anyone within the targeted organisation who did not share the approved ideology.

The indoctrination was aimed at undermining senses of patriotism and national identity essential to preserving a culture and it took many forms such as the debasing and re-writing of European history, the debasing and trivialising of our culture.

As first this was viewed as a form of class war, where the original targets were the middle and upper classes who would be annihilated when the workers rose against them, as occurred in Russia.

However, outside Russia the class war was abandoned when the white working classes failed to play the role allotted to them and joined the middle classes as targets for destruction. Race became the new weapon in undermining a culture through national guilt. Anti-racism aimed exclusively at the target race and intent upon instilling a sense of shame and guilt for a past which had, in fact never taken place, exploited a weakness within a tolerant and benevolent people always anxious to do the right thing and protect the underdog. As a consequence, the dishonest drum beat of “white oppressor”, “black victim” accompanied by the altogether more sensuous “black sexy”, “white surrender” became the constant theme music behind popular culture, throughout the 1960's, 70's and 80's.

This was an even more deadly poison, our enemies knew from history that nothing undermines a society as effectively as does multiculturalism. Hence they cynically recast the melting pot as grail of our age.

Other “isms” were deployed, such as a deceptive form of feminism designed, in the guise of “liberation”, to undermine the family whilst imposing a new sexualised slavery upon women, which sold us aspirations which could only be achieved spread legged and child free. At the same time siren voices convinced young women that a life of unnaturally induced sterility, with abortion as a back up, offered the means of achieving fulfilment. It was in this way that developments such as oral contraception, abortion and social change began to become instruments of genocide.

In few areas has the indoctrination designed at the destruction of Western Society been more cruelly effective than what it has done to women. In a few generations a sex which once valued honour, virtue and motherhood, now finds themselves either grasping at the Muslim veil of their own subjugation or, tragically with some merit, viewed as “easy meat” by our nations new colonisers, leaving many of the most vulnerable in huge danger.

The damage done to the white male was perhaps even crueler, however, I have addressed that subject often in my previous writing, links to which I will add at the bottom of this posting. (2)

Enemies of the West also infiltrated various other areas, such as the law, politics and the security services, but it was within education and within the popular media that they seized their most powerful weapons, and they have used them against us relentlessly for at least half a century

The people responsible for this did not go away when Communism fell, the aim of overthrowing the West and replacing it with a soviet style utopia was no longer an option, but that did not change the aim of overthrowing the West. Indeed, as the years had past a new more anarchistic breed had joined the old Stalinist, for whom the destruction of the West was more important than any subsequent reconstruction.

They had been well schooled in the belief that the West was evil and needed to be destroyed and they saw nothing within the demise of communism to change that belief.

Hence they have continued with their mission of undermining our culture, indoctrinating our people and nurturing new generations of indoctrinators. However, the emphasis had changed, Western society could no longer be destroyed by soviet communism, so anti-racism, multiculturalism and immigration, tools so long used as a means of softening up the culture for its eventual take over, would now become the means of its destruction.

However, we have still but touched on half the picture, acts have consequences which are not always anticipated. A one hundred and fifty year old conspiracy aimed at the converting the capitalist West to Marxism had developed into an exercise of ethnic and cultural cleansing.

In the process Western society's resolve and sense of its own identity had become so undermined that other groups with other even less wholesome aims and agendas began to smell blood in the water, and they in turn began to close in on a weakening prey.

--------------
I had intended this to be the final part of this essay, but I find that I have so much more to say, hence, I will post the final part, together with my conclusions later this week.
__________
(1)
Harvard hates the white race (VDare)
(2)
White boys in the Jungle
The Lost Boys

____________________

Part four

I am sorry I have taken so long to return to this subject, this is partly because other things, the stuff of everyday life, have got in the way but to a far greater degree the delay was because this is a much bigger subject than even I had imagined. Hence, I as the writer have struggled to express the magnitude of my subject.

Describing a crime so vast is ugly work, to open this ghastly casket is to expose a massive rank and sulphurous morass of tangled conspiracies, lies and plots, some dating back two centuries or more, mingling with others which are far more recent. There are many half formed, ill conceived which have been long abandoned, but others, chilling in their cold hearted and deliberate brilliance, still gnaw away at the substance and foundations of the common and ancient prey. To look too deeply into what is taking place is to glimpse an evil in the souls of our fellow men which is not easy or comfortable to contemplate, and it for that reason too that I have chosen to put this subject to one side for a while.

When I started writing this essay I had not fully appreciated quite how complex it would be or quite how much there was to say. The more one peels away at the various layers, schemes, lies and agendas, it becomes frighteningly clear quite how all consuming the assault upon the white race has been, quite how many enemies we have and how long they have been at work.

Here I must, again, repeat the warning I have given before. We make a fatal mistake if we only see one enemy amongst the legion closing in around us. Yes there were Zionist Jews amongst them, and there certainly still are some, but they are not alone, and in truth they never have been. We will die by many other swords if chose to only fight against a single foe, especially as there are now far greater dangers than those still posed, or maybe ever posed, by Zion.

We have many other enemies, and amongst them some, the most deadly, hate us mostly for the good that we have done.

We are paying the penalty for having been the most successful, the richest, the most creative, the most powerful and, indeed the most benevolent civilisation to have ever bestrode our Earth. We are unmatched in history, and I suspect that we will never be equalled. We are resented not, as some would have it for the alleged crimes of our race, but for what we are, for what we have achieved, for the good we have brought to the world, and there are many who can never forgive us for it.

Our enemies point to wars and weapons, but ignore our role in spreading education, justice, health care, technology, benevolence and humanity to the darkest corners of our planet. They blame us for crimes, such as slavery, which every other people also committed but which we alone are honest enough to acknowledge, and which we alone fought to bring to an end.

We are also paying for our good nature, we are accused of sins which the rest of the world commit with far more ferocity than we do. If you wish to see prejudice and discrimination go to Asia, the Indian sub-continent in particular and you will find it in every street in every village. For cruelty and bigotry go to the middle east. For homophobia and hate crimes the options start before Iran and end beyond Angola to the south and Malaysia to the east. For racism, in its most blood thirsty of forms try anywhere in black ruled Africa and you will find it there far more ancient and at least as cruel as anything ever seen in Europe.

Yet it is we who, though our good will carry guilt for that of which we are no more guilty than any other and for which, in many cases, we are the least to blame.

We allow this to happen in some measure because a flaw in our racial character whereby we are more modest and generous than is good for us. However, in greater part we carry that guilt because we have been taught to do so through the decades of indoctrination which I described earlier, in part three of this essay.

Initially that indoctrination, together with so much else was aimed at undermining our society, however, over the years the aims have metamorphosed into something far more based on animus and iconoclasm than it is on ideology. The aim is no longer merely the destruction of our society and has become the destruction of us as a people.

As a people we have been worn down and weakened to the point where we have allowed others who hate us to come amongst and some now mingle amongst those who rule us and have been granted positions of power. Black and Asian racists have become journalists, commentators, politicians and lawyers, they sit in parliament, on Quangos, governmental bodies within our courts, our education system, within the plethora of so called human rights organisations or as political agitators. They have their own agendas, and I challenge you to point to any who work for the well being of the indigenous white population.

If anyone reading this truly believes that the likes of Trevor Philips, Diane Abbot, Keith Vaz, Darcus Howe, Bonnie Greer, Tariq Ali, Weyman Bennett, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, or even the sainted Shami Chakrabarti, care for the future of the native British people and have not used their privileged positions within our society to advance the interests of their own races over those of our race, I really suggest you are perhaps to naïve to be abroad unchaperoned at this most deadly of times.

The elevation of such people for the sake of diversity has not improved our country, it has further undermined it, for they are, quite naturally working in the interests of their own races, which is something we, as Europeans, are no longer permitted to do.

However, there are some amongst them and among the legion of our treacherous white enemies who are working to advance a cause far more malign and infinitely more deadly than anything which has threatened Europe in almost four hundred years.

Islam, the blood thirsty and repressive ideology which has threatened Western Civilisation for fourteen hundred years is back in the ascendant after a period of relative calm, and it is as poisonous now as it ever was.

The latest rise of Islam came quickly, coinciding with the fall of the last great threat to the west, the cold war, a coincidence among many which we ignore at our peril.

Of course, Islam has threatened us before, many times, but this time it is different, this time the enemy is not at the gate it is already living within the castle walls. This time they are amongst us and we will not be fighting them at our borders, but on our streets.

And we have allowed it. We are the first civilisation in history who have meekly opened our gates and permitted those who actively call for our demise to come amongst us, and in many areas moved without resistance when they drove us from our homes.

The race which gave the world so much is now so meek, so broken, so deluded it has ushered its assassins into its own home, whilst all but handing them the weapons with which to dispatch us. So brainwashed are we now that we would first condemn those of us who warn of the danger before we face the threat.

I fear we are not the West we were, no longer those who fought World War II, and that we may not the same people. Unfortunately for us, the east is still the same east which fought our Crusaders nine hundred years ago, but better armed and better placed.

Islam it seems is now in a better position to deliver the final blows of our destruction than even the old soviet union ever was. Our ancient adversary has been imported back by our modern foes to deliver the coup de grâce when we are at our lowest, our numbers diminished, our spirit broken, our history lost and our lands invaded.

Is there any hope for us, what can we do? is there any way back?

Salvation can we save our race and how?

Some look to the future and see a civil war, but that is not the answer, certainly its not the answer now. The time may come when war is inevitable, it will be imposed upon us and by then it may be too late. Before then, with all that is ranged against us we could not win a civil war fought now. Violence is not the answer and all those who have tried it so far have failed and have merely made our situation worse.

It would be nice to think that democracy held our a chance of salvation, and it would if it was possible to get elected, however, the controlled media make that almost impossible. Were any nationalist to stand the remotest chance of winning a national election, the press would turn on him or her in a manner which would make the assault on Sarah Palin in 2008 look positively gentle, and the lies would be even more outrageous.

Media lies continue to hamper the BNP's efforts to get elected, and the corrupt media would bury any individual nationalist who appeared capable of overcoming that barrier in a landslide of lies.

We have not had an honest media in the west for decades, every news reporter lies constantly and with the accustomed ease of an aged harlot relieving a drunken businessman of his wallet. Every presenter or dramatist has become a propagandist and every commentator an advocate. Even those who are secretly sympathetic to our cause must deny us and lie about us for they would never work again if they did not.

This is the barrier we must overcome to succeed. If we could achieve that we might be granted one last grasp at our salvation. For it is in breaching the shark infested moat of lies that we find both our answer and also our greatest dilemma.

The potentially most fatal blow ever struck against the white European race was when our advocates lost control of the main means of mass communication to our enemies, and is only by winning that control back that we can effectively start to fight back.

It is through the mass media and what currently passes for education that our enemies are waging their war against us and it is because of their total control of both that they are winning. When the left gained control of the means of broadcasting news, and, in many ways more crucially, broadcasting entertainment, they gained control of the most powerful weapon known to man, a weapon which enabled them to change attitudes, form views and beliefs and create new truths.

For over 50 years the left have controlled what we know and equally what we don't know. The have told us their truth about history, about Communism, their truth about Viet Nam, about crime, about race and right now we are being told their truth about the uprisings in the Middle East.

Far more deadly even than the ability to distort news coverage has been the overwhelming control which the left have over entertainment, drama, culture and the visual depiction of history, it is through these medium that the last two generations have been taught what to think and what to believe.

The left make TV shows, we don't, the left make movies, we don't, they tell teenagers what music to like and adults what books to read, and whilst we do not do these things, they, our enemies, have a huge, and deadly, advantage over us.

The only mass communication means we have of getting our message out is via the internet, but, valuable tool as it is, we have restricted ourselves to serious political sites, forums and blogs where we debate serious issues amongst ourselves. We don't go where the young folk go, and when we try, we get thrown out because we don't know how to behave.

That is not to say that people are not doing great things via the internet, the latest exposé (1) of NPR (US National Public Radio) by James O'Keefe is a further example of brilliant investigative journalism by a man, who in an honest world be in line for a major journalism award, however, because the left control what people are allowed to know, only a tiny number of people ever get to see his work.

We must take back the media or find a new means of mass communication, and we must learn how to communicate in a way that people beyond the narrow sphere of nationalism understand respond to and enjoy. These are our enemy's weapons and we must learn to use them against them.

We must rediscover the power of ridicule, the lampoon brought down the Bourbon kings and the Romanov tzars. In our own time, mockery became Sarah Palin's greatest liability, but it, could have done the same to Obama had the Right known how to deploy it, sadly we didn't.

To the more high minded reader it may seem bizarre to suggest fighting genocide with humour or through entertainment, yet these are the tools which our adversaries have used so effectively. We need to get the truth out, and sadly a joke or a wacky video will get to far more people, and will be responded to by far more people, than any number of serious articles like this one. That's how the left do it.

Being able to communicate with the wider public directly is vital, after all what is the point to anything we do if either nobody knows about it, or if those who report it lie?.

Before they can save themselves the European people need to realise what is being done to them, and they will not awake until they hear our voice.

We must find a means of communication which enables us to break though the iron curtain of lies which the corrupt media and our equally corrupt leaders have spent the last fifty years constructing and expose the truth to the wider world. How we can break our enemy's grasp on the communications media I do not know, but I know we must find a way, for it may be our last chance of salvation.

I believe it will happen, who would have thought even ten years ago that, sitting in my own home, I could write something, press a button and reach thousands of people in an instant. Now we need to take it a step further.

It must happen soon. The destruction of our race is well advanced, we are not yet at the eleventh hour, but we are close to ten and the time grows short.

In the meantime there is something we can all do and that is to enlighten someone, even if you only awaken one person to the truth, then there are two of you, and that way leads to thousands. We do not need a majority to change the world, only enough to be heard, and then we'll have a majority.

If you do not have the words yourself use other people's words, there are great writers whose words we must spread to those who remain blind to what is happening. On this blog we have Mister Fox, August Pointneuf, Robin Hind, Reconquista (how I wish I could convince him to start writing again) Tim Hayden, Dr. D, Alan O'Reilly and others, please spread their words.

We also have the great Frank Ellis, not only a brilliant academic and a superb writer but a man with the authority to command attention he is a man able to change minds. For instance, Frank's outstanding letter to David Cameron, published here last month, briefly went viral on the internet, it can do so again and it can get to a wider audience. Copy it, link to it, send it on, people need to read his words. This is something we can all do. Here is the link from this blog
http://sarahmaidofalbion.blogspot.com/2011/02/response-to-cameron-by-dr-frank-ellis.html
and from the British Resistance
http://thebritishresistance.co.uk/guest-writers/675-a-response-to-cameron-by-dr-frank-ellis

We must also stop bickering and fighting among ourselves, it is unity, never diversity, which is our strength, and together there is nothing we can not do.

We are the descendants of the greatest achievers, the greatest thinkers, the greatest scientists and the greatest pioneers this world has ever seen. We share the genes of the greatest writers, the greatest artists, musicians and inventors. Our forefathers spread knowledge, technology and enlightenment to the most benighted corners of this planet.

We alone ended slavery, we alone reached the moon, we discovered the cures for many of the great plagues and diseases which have blighted mankind for millennia and are working with others now to eradicate more.

At the root of 99% of all the great inventions from which the world now benefits you will find a person of European blood. We conquered the sea, the sky, outer space and the very airways.

For every bomb we built we made ten million pills to cure twenty thousand diseases. We are the most benevolent race on earth, the main givers to charity, the majority of all fund raisers, aid workers and philanthropists.

Our race has done more good in this word than any other yet born, and we must not die, we shall not die.

Against the most vicious enemies and the most terrifying odds we can find a way to save our race, we have the ingenuity, we have the ability, if only we can make our people see the truth.
__________
(1) http://www.westernyouth.org/articles/what-they-really-think-about-us/

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO SARAH MAID OF ALBION
or
CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO THE BRITISH RESISTANCE

Postings touching on Media lies and disinformation

2011-01-03T04:26:00.000-08:00

Prior articles touching on media propaganda

Ripped from the Headlines and Ethnically Cleansed