Vote No To The BNP

Guest Post: Guy Halsall

I received my lovely BNP election leaflet today, with Griffin’s horrifying mug juxtaposed with [for any BNP supporters reading this, that means 'placed next to'] the only-slightly-less-frightening face of Winston himself. This makes me very angry.

As an old socialist I don’t have much time for Churchill, outside his ‘finest hour’ in 1940-43 (which forgives a lot of sins) but still, as a professional, academic historian it makes me furious to see his image abused and history distorted in this way.

Why? Because in 1940, after the fall of France it would have been easy to make peace with Hitler. Hitler was very keen to make peace with Britain. And most of the Conservative Party (for all that they claimed Churchill as their patriotic poster boy in the 80s) and especially Lord Halifax, Churchill’s main rival for the leadership of the party, were against continuing the war.

Many of them were on what is known as the ‘white list’ that the Nazis had of British politicians whom they could get to work with them. Only a month or two before the German invasions of Norway and France, many had been in favour of sending an armed force to help Finland against the Soviets, even while in the middle of the war against Nazi Germany!

They’d have been overjoyed to let Hitler get on with his campaign against the Bolsheviks. There are modern right-wing historians to this day who actually say that this is what Britain should have done (and to hell with the Jews etc., presumably). So, when Churchill was making his classic speeches in the House in the darkest days of 1940 the loudest cheers were on the Labour benches – after all, if the Nazis won they’d be up against a wall, so it’s hardly surprising even if it is forgotten. More bizarrely still, perhaps, at this point Churchill’s strongest ally on the (coalition, remember) War Cabinet was the labour legend, Aneurin Bevan.

Basically, then, Churchill in his finest hour was not ‘defending Britain against Europe’ as the BNP (and UKIP, and the Tories) like to say; he was keeping Britain in War IN Europe, FOR Europe, FOR the principle that there were larger issues at stake in confronting the Nazis than petty nationalism. What Churchill was doing in the Battle of Britain and in the years afterwards was PRECISELY the OPPOSITE of what the BNP claim he was doing. They have NO claim to the mantle of Winston Churchill.

This matters to me immensely for many reasons. Please help get this message out there. Thank you.

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Guy Halsall

Guest Post From: Not My Voice

British National Party (BNP) Contradiction and Race Wars

The first point of the BNP Defence policy states that The British Army Must be Used to Defend Britain, setting out its policy and strategic vision. However, the article goes on to completely contradict itself and shows very clearly that British forces are to be used for a racial war and perhaps only racist based war.

The BNP declare that;

Britain must be prepared to launch limited operations where it is necessary to protect our citizens abroad

However, not just British citizens, but actually BNP approved whites.

More recently there were clear grounds to rescue people of British descent from the murderous regime in Zimbabwe.

So a Griffin government would use the forces to help people of British Decent in Zimbabwe, i.e. whites not blacks, Asians etc and NOT actual British citizens at all.

The BNP do not explain how they would do this. Zimbabwe is a landlocked country; the closest points of entry are through Mozambique and South Africa. Both those countries would not tolerate a racist force (whose only aim is to protect whites) from operating on their soil and the South African forces would be a considerable match for any British Expeditionary force.

Mozambique has a limited conventional army and it is but a short hop from the port of Biera to Mutare in the Eastern Highlands of Zimbabwe (a terrain more like the green Scottish Highlands). This would quite clearly involve war with Mozambique and the other SADC members will see this as a blatant re colonisation of Zimbabwe, a Rhodesia Pt II. Should the army get to the Zimbabwean boarder, the poor transport infrastructure and Zimbabwean forces would not allow a white mass to unite with invading forces. Therefore the only way to rescue the whites in Zimbabwe would be for total control of the county.

Zimbabwe has NO “strategic or commercial interests to defend nor were British citizens threatened”. But these are the exact reasons why the BNP claimed to have opposed the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The BNP clearly set out;

The purpose of Britain’s armed forces is to protect British interests at home and abroad – and nothing else. During the recent Iraq War, which the BNP opposed, there were no strategic or commercial interests to defend nor were British citizens threatened.

And in Zimbabwe…? None of those apply either. The only reason for invading Zimbabwe and its neighbours would because of race.

Rejecting Collective Security

The BNP appear to be against our forces training working and fighting alongside her Allies, contrary to some 2,500 years of military philosophy and experience from such masters of military strategy like Sun Tzu to Clausewitz etc. As part of Rejecting Collective Security they are against having a continued presence in Germany and very clearly this utter Rejection of “Collective Security” refers to NATO.

NATO is an organisation whose roots were laid down by Churchill, with the Atlantic Charter, an agreement between the US and Britain who stood against Germany in Europe although with assistance from the Free French and other uprooted allies free Polish Forces, Belgians, Dutch and ALL nations of the Commonwealth – i.e. Collective security.

The Atlantic Charter brought closeness between Britain, France and the US. After the defeat of Germany the unity of forces was still essential to the democratic forces of Western Europe and Northern America, and the formation of NATO.

Today, NATO is very much needed. Although the Cold War is over, NATO has expanded further east into the former Soviet Bloc (Warsaw Pact) countries. This provides mutual protection for all because democracies do not fight each other.

However, geopolitics always comes into play, regardless of the political ideology of some of the key players. Russia, is coming back into its own as its economy is rebuilding from the Soviet era, through the cleptocracy of the last 20 year. It has restarted its policy of sending bombers on recognisance mission into British airspace to test our capabilities and more frightening than most people recall, Russia appeared quite prepared to go to war with NATO over the conflict over Georgia and Ossetia.

We also face a very real prospect of Nationalist and ultra nationalists having an actual and dominant influence on Russian Politics. It is not un-imaginable that we could have a nationalist Russian government in the next 10-15 years.

To understand the importance of this, and why Britain needs to remain in NATO we should only consider the political difference in Europe between 1933 and 1939.

A failure to understand geopolitics and Russian is perhaps the reason why the BNP declare that;

We shall recall our troops from Germany, where we see little purpose in their continuing presence. The Cold War has long since passed and our troop presence in Germany is superfluous and little more than an insult to the Germans.

Should there be a war between Russian and NATO Countries (excluding a full nuclear exchange) the most likely place for combat is central Europe. British forces being familiar with these areas and training in such terrain remain crucial to the strength and competency of British forces and the Germans appear to be welcoming to the British.

Spurious Claims of Degradation

The BNP set out that twice during the 20th century, the “UK came close to the brink of destruction because of the neglect of our defences”.

Wrong. They have not given any example, but it is fair to presume that one of those examples would be early WW2.

The British defences were not neglected, during the interwar period Liddell Hart continued with huge and expensive experiments in what was later called Blitzkrieg (when German Heinz Guderian put into practise what had been developed by the British armour on the plains of Salisbury). Britain developed Radar, mono-winged aircraft, advanced interceptors, developed strategic bombers and kept a modern naval fleet all in the face of no real peer of military threat in the World. There is no sign the armed forces were neglected at all. Scaled down and modernised in the face of no peer threat? Yes. But neglected? no

The BNP also appear to think that the ‘armed forces’ consists of just the land forces (infantry, armour etc) and this would help explain why The UK did not come close to destruction. The Royal Navy had such a heavy and total presence that the British Isles have not EVER had any realistic prospect of amphibious invasion, not since at least the Spanish Armada. Although Germany had dominant land forces up to about 1943 it didn’t have a surface fleet (not a single aircraft carrier, nor full battleship, only their ‘pocket battleships’).

Further, they did not have invasion barges to carry their army across the Channel. The best it could do was to ‘borrow’ private industry barges from the Rhine (halting their own transport, temporarily crippling their own industry in the Ruhr-Rhine Region) and have them stacked together to give the impression of a pending fleet.

The RAF soon quickly destroyed most of them in their ports. The RAF also had total dominance of airspace over the British Isles. German Blitzkrieg relied on tactical airpower (don’t forget the main weapon of German PZ III wasn’t their 57mm cannon, but the supporting dive bombers and artillery). The Germans would not have been able to use their tactical airpower to support their ground forces, in the face of strong RAF airpower, and so their Blitzkrieg would have been halted quickly out of fuel or ammunition as the Royal Navy prevented any re supply.

The above shows that the BNP have no strategic vision nor understanding of how crucial combined service branches (air force, navy and army) are to the outcome of warfare. There was therefore NO ‘Brink’ that the UK was brought to, due to any claimed neglect of ‘armed forces’.

Using historical analysis the BNP cannot claim there is any current “degradation” nor is there any example of this, they have not provided any details. The UK has been fighting a war on two fronts, and the way British Mechanised forces sliced through Iraq 1,000’s of miles away from home shows the UK armed forces as clearly competent. On the battlefield the UK forces dominate, in the harshest of terrains and environment. The biggest threats are from booby traps and IED’s

However, the British forces are not suited for nation building, and the BNP could not give any example of how they would pacify non state terrorist threats, bearing in mind the Clinton era appeasement failed. Even if the BNP do give an increase defence spending 1% above inflation for every year (this year they would by 4.5%) they cannot show how to stop global terrorism. 911 killed British people too, and other cells have targeted British people abroad.

Despite their claimed pledges, the BNP policy is almost child like – to pull the blanket over your head, to hide from the real world and imagine there are no monsters under the bed .

A clear indicator that the BNP operate a hide-under-their blanket policy, is that the BNP do not believe the Taliban actually operate outside of Afghanistan. Just to show you how clueless the BNP strategy is here is Andrew Brons, debating on the Taliban;

“The Taliban….is killing British soldiers…… However, it is not extending its battles beyond Afghan borders. We could stop it from killing British and allied soldiers tomorrow by removing our troops.

The Taliban is not battling beyond Afghanistan? WRONG. The Taliban have considerably infiltrated Pakistan and taken ground there (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8312932.stm ). It is of the utmost importance that Pakistan does not fall to the Taliban. This would result in a Taliban armed with Nuclear weapons with a competent missile delivery system.

However, rather than committing against the Taliban Brons also appeared to be discussing lightening sanctions against the Taliban. This ignorance and unjustifiable appeasement of the Taliban, one of the most abhorrent and dangerous organisations shows how incompetent any BNP Defence policy is and will make the world a more dangerous place.

However, the Battle for Afghanistan could be discussed for decades but the BNP do appear to have lied when they declare “During the recent Iraq War, which the BNP opposed”. Despite many requests there does not appear to be a single example of BNP opposition. Contrary to this, there are many examples of BNP members protesting against the stop the war coalition. We await strict proof that the BNP did actually oppose the War.

In fact, we await strict proof that the BNP have a credible Defence policy.

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP

Another installment from the new guest poster Gregg Smith (USob), this time taking a closer look the the British National Party (BNP) Foreign Policy

This is going to be a doozy.

► Introduction from the BNP Website

British foreign policy must be driven by one guiding principle alone – to serve British interests above all else. This iron principle will be strictly enforced by a British National Party government.

In reality, this means that Britain’s foreign relations should be determined by the protection of our own national interests — and not by our like or dislike of other nations’ internal politics.

Britain has no right to dictate the internal politics or social configuration of any other nation. We would also expect all other nations to grant this same right to Britain.

We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British interests. In this regard, a BNP government will:

►Is It Viable?
Most Foreign Policy is determined by our national Interest. And Yes it is Viable, Look at China.

►Policy #1.
- Reach an accord with the Muslim world whereby they will agree to take back their excess population which is currently colonising this country, in exchange for an ironclad guarantee that Britain will never again interfere in the political affairs of the Middle East or try to dictate to any Arab or Muslim country as to what their internal government form should be;

►Is It Viable?
Yea, good one. Let’s get Statistical
-According to the UK Census there are currently 1,591,000 Muslims living in the UK

(Current Estimates say around 2.5Million but for simplicity let’s use the last census numbers as they are the most accurate and reliable)

-1,536,015 Live in England and Wales
-This makes 3% of the Population of Both countries
-42,557 Live in Scotland
-This makes 0.84 of the Total Population
-Muslims make up 2.7 of the total population of the UK.

Ok so you want to send 2.7-3% of the population back to the Middle East, ignoring the fact some could be 3rd Generation immigrants (Mass Immigration in the modern sense began around the turn of the 20th Century) and have no connection be it Family or cultural to the country they will go back to. Also how the hell would the countries cope with such a sudden influx of half a million people in the area, Even a Rich country like Dubai would struggle to meet the cost of rehousing and finding jobs and feeding and seeing as the BNP would cut Foreign aid completely they ain’t getting a penny from us.

Also let’s look at the effect on the Country. Loosing 3% of the population would mean a massive gap in employment that would be a nightmare to fill. Also a loss of revenue from Taxes (Coupled with the massive spending I made in the defence post) would cripple the economy of the country. Also What about the Asian immigrants? or those from Central\Latin America? Or Africa?

Basically their main Policy is Muslim bashing. And not a very good one at that.

►Policy #1a.
- Maintain an independent foreign policy of our own, and not a spineless subservience to the USA, the ‘international community’, or any other country.

►Is It Viable?

When was our foreign policy Dictated to by the US or anyone else? Also Seeing as Nick would turn us into a Pariah State with his Nuclear Project, you wouldn’t need to worry about this one, as we’d be the 51st State in a week.

America Bashing. Popular in 2003 when I assume this was decided on.

►Policy #2.
- Resolutely oppose the single European currency;

►Is It Viable?
Yes. Hence the other main parties also oppose it.

►Policy #2a.
- Support the overwhelming majority of the British people in their desire to keep the Pound and our traditional weights and measures.

Repeating the Euro promise but using a more “Democratic” phrase. Also Traditional weights and measures?
Yea good because we haven’t used them in what, 40 years, and I refuse to walk a League into Durham city Centre. Again Harking back to the Age of Empire.

►THE REST
At the same time, a BNP government will strive for the best possible relationship with our European neighbours. The nations of Europe should be free to trade and cooperate whenever it is mutually beneficial without being forced into a straightjacket of political and economic unification — which is neither desirable, ultimately practically unfeasible and which is guaranteed to create conflict rather than avoid it.

Accordingly, a BNP government will withdraw from the European Union.

In place of the EU, a BNP government will aim towards greater national self-sufficiency, and work to restore Britain’s family and trading ties with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and to trade with the rest of the world as it suits us.

Following our withdrawal from the EU, the BNP government will use the £43 million per day net contribution Britain at present makes to the European Union to fund many far more useful projects at home.

In addition, a BNP government will reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with financial aid.

Only once poverty and deprivation amongst British people has been eliminated, can any thought be given to foreign aid — and even then, a BNP government will link foreign aid with our voluntary resettlement policy, in terms of which those nations taking significant numbers of people back to their homelands will need cash to help absorb those returning. The billions of pounds saved every year by this policy will also be reallocated to vital services in Britain.

►Oh god!
“In place of the EU, a BNP government will aim towards greater national self-sufficiency, and work to restore Britain’s family and trading ties with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and to trade with the rest of the world as it suits us.”.

I wish I was joking, I really do, but this is their policy. They are seeking to achieve autarky on an island with very little remaining natural resources, and to only trade with countries that we rather slowed the trade with because of small matters such as, oh, you know, the fact that they only make up a tiny share of world production of goods, and the ever-so-slight geographical discrepancy.

They also decide it would be a good idea to treat the rest of the world as if their entire purpose was to form some mystical, ethereal Walmart where they were the only customer. Oh, and to top it all off, they threw in some racism (this isn’t even a revival of the old imperial preference system; this is one with all the darkie-heavy countries such as South Afrika taken out.).

They do not even have the good sense to keep it cordial with the nations that they are going to be RELIANT upon if they ever want to achieve autarky through capital investment and the like, too. They demand an immediate withdrawal from NATO and the expulsion of all foreign troops. Now, whether this is a good thing is debatable; yet, what is true is that, for a government that isn’t causing an outright revolution and throwing off the chains of capitalist oppression, you’re not going to be able to sever ties with every other fucking country in the West. I do not wish to dwell on this, though; although unrealistic, it is nothing compared to their greater defence policy.”

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP

A new guest poster to the Vote-No-To-BNP.org.uk website Gregg Smith (USoB) starts his series of articles with an analysis of the British National Party (BNP) Defence Policy, an interesting read.

Ok so we all know the BNP Policies on Immigration and their opinions of Minorities, But what about the other policies the BNP have. Are they Viable?, What’s wrong with them? I’m going to begin with Defence.

*All policies come from the BNP website. I’m not making these up

*Defence*

►Policy #1.
- Strengthen our conventional forces;

Ok a good one considering the situation we’re in at the minute with minimal turnaround between Tours and a shortage in troops. Currently the UK has a military of ~240,000 (Not including Reserves that number 195,000) of which:

39,000 are in the Royal Navy
112,000 are in the Army
43,000 are in the RAF

The Number has increased from 189,000 in 2006.

The BNP don’t really expand on this policy (Shock Horror) So let’s assume Strengthening means increasing manpower. That means paying for more personnel their training, food, uniform, accommodation and equipment. Now the Economy section of the BNP makes no real mention of budgets for individual departments but going off their other defence policies they will be saving some money by pulling out of operations however this still won’t cover the cost for multiplying the military.

Also at this time for the Royal Navy alone the waiting lists for Ratings (Non commissioned) go from 9 months to 30 months.

►Is It Viable?
Well yes and No.

Assuming you funnelled the money into the military (Although looking at their other policies It’s hard to see where the money will come from) you can put infrastructure in place to get more people through the system. But to be frank. The money required will be insanely high. At most I think this is just a way to claw back some superpower status.

►Policy#2
-Retain a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent and produce all our weaponry in Britain;

It’s hard to see what they mean by Independent, there was reports in the papers over attempts by France to share the Deterrent but even an infant can see that wouldn’t work. At the Minute the Deterrent is ran by the Royal Navy and the Trident system, and has a pretty effective fail-safe should Brown lose the plot and want to Nuke the Sun Headquarters.
It could be argued that by independent they mean “home made”

Firstly A British made nuke, We can’t even make a bridge without it wobbling and you want US to make a WMD. It also goes against pretty much all the Nuclear treaties, will cost an astronomically high amount and put simply. We don’t have the know how. Also let’s not forget the many NATO bases that have the Early warning system WE will need.

As for British Made weapons, clearly just an extension of the “British Jobs” BS. The Challenger 2 MBT is British, as is the AS90 Self Propelled gun. Our ships are made in Britain. The BNP haven’t quite grasped the Idea of equipping soldiers. It’s not about where it’s from but it’s about getting the Best, our Missiles are all American because they’re tried and tested and work. Our Fighter comes from a European consortium because it would be cheaper than getting a home grown plane Designed and built and guess what? It’s the best.
Our New vehicles are Italian but again because they fit the criteria the MOD were looking for and again worked out cheaper than getting BAE to design, build and test it.

►Is It Viable?
Well Yes, but why bother when there is better kit out there.

►Policy #3\#4
-Refuse to risk British lives in meddling ‘peacekeeping’ missions in parts of the world where no British interests are at stake;
-Only commit British forces when British national interests are at stake;

A sound Idea considering the Situation in Afghanistan and what happened in Iraq. However this seems to be another “We hate brown people” message. Peacekeeping is what stops ‘Peacekeeping’ becoming ‘having to go over there and kick arse’. It’s there for a reason, and I really shouldn’t have to explain why stopping peacekeeping is bad.

But I will say
The reason the British Military is so good is because the training has come from 60 odd years of having to do ‘peacekeeping’ it’s what stops us turning into the US Military – ‘good for a fight, piss poor for anything else’
As for ‘British Interests’ any event will inevitably harm British interests, be it an oil company in Nigeria or an engineering firm in Bosnia.

►Is It Viable?
Yes. But keeping our head in the sand means it’s easier for something to bite you in the arse.

►Policy #5
Preserve and restore our historic County Regiments;

The county regiments were an easy way to raise troops, you get them from a specific area and you don’t have to waste time getting them to know each other, it’s also a hanger on from when we had Scotland breathing down our necks and the French. The County regiments were amalgamated into more flexible units.

►Is It Viable?
Yes, but to be honest it’s just a policy to hark back to the days of ‘Queen Victoria and Michael Caine shooting a few ****’ before breakfast. A pointless idea that will cost a lot increase paperwork for the sake of tradition

►Policy #6
Bring our troops back from Germany and withdraw from NATO, since political developments make both commitments obsolete;

NATO was formed after WW2 to protect Europe from the Soviet Threat, It’s also why there’s a sizeable presence in Germany. It could be argued that since Soviet Russia is no more and there’s no imminent threat to Germany there’s no reason to be there. However at the minute there is no place in the UK to house them. Also NATO was engaged in the Balklands and is in Afganistan now.

►Is It Viable?
Yes.

As a result of Policy #7 there will be plenty of space to stick the Germany forces back in the UK, although I think becoming a pariah state for going it alone with our Nukes means we won’t bring them back, more like Dunkirk II: Electric Boogalloo.

As for NATO, It can be said that pulling out would work as there’s no Soviets. However let’s not forget it’s more than a big organisation it’s an actual military alliance. When New York was still on Fire NATO sat and said “Yes it’s a deceleration of war, we’re all in it so let’s go” Hence you have all these other countries in Afghanistan. NATO whether they like it or not is relevant.

►Policy#7
Close all foreign military bases on British soil;

Nice wording from our Nick. In reality they’re not Foreign bases, they’re ours but we let them out to the US so they have somewhere closer to all the action. Although as I said with Policy 6, they’ll be abandoned once we go all Dr. Strangelove on the world. Currently the ‘Bases’ include RAF Mildenhall and RAF Menwith Hill (Vitally Important Intelligence facility (Joint UK-US) In reality the number of bases is minuscule and are in the process of being scaled back.

►Is It Viable?

Given the BNP’s other Foreign/Defence policies It would be a case of the US Pulling out to avoid the cataclysmic s*itstorm that would head our way. Also seeing as the BNP are against the US/UK alliance. The US will simply redeploy what’s here to other bases in Europe. A minor inconvenience at most.

►Policy#8
- Restore national service for our young with the option of civil or military service.

Straight out of the Daily Mail this one. It’s clearly tied in with policy #1 in strengthening our forces. However the Idea is shouted down by the top soldiers. Many argue (Mostly those who have done it or those who are too old to avoid the draft) that it will help straighten out the youth of today. Many other countries have a conscription style system in place and in some it does work.

►Is It Viable?

Yes. However again it will be a victim of Costing an arm and a leg. However in the event of a major war who would you rather have on side; A group of motivated volunteers -or- A group of people who don’t want to be there.

►And there we have it.

The BNP clearly have no Idea what they’re talking about on yet another Issue of national importance. The BNP will essentially turn us Into a rogue state with a massive Army but with shoddy gear and a lot of Pissed off people.
The Economy would never be able to take the strain of these policies let alone ALL the policies.

I wouldn’t trust these guys to run a toy army, let alone An armed army that are fighting Al Qaeda (Which Apparently Andrew Brons thinks doesn’t exist) Give them a nuke.. Brilliant get ready to be invaded by the US.

No wonder they focus on Immigrants.

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Vote-No-To-BNP

Sunday World, March 21, Brian Whelan

THE RACIST British National Party have their sights set on Ireland, Sunday World can reveal.

The controversial party have been building links with right-wing extremists across the island and even offered money and training to supporters living here.

A group of Irish BNP activists from the UK have been looking to make contact with the recently formed Irish National Party.

One BNP member even spent a frantic three-day trip to Dublin desperately trying to find the INP leadership this week.

However, we can reveal that since Sunday World exposed INP leaders David Barrett and Ollie Allen as Nazis, the pair have abandoned their planned anti-immigration party.

BNP activist, Paul Ryan, revealed that his party are desperate to get a foothold in Ireland and already have a network of contacts across the country.

While trying to make contact with the INP, Ryan inadvertently revealed his plans to our undercover reporter.

He explained that party Deputy Chairman, Simon Darby, spends much of his time traveling to the North, where former orange man, Jim Dowson, runs the party’s call centre.

“Darby is very interested in getting a group going in Ireland that we can work together with,” Ryan declared.

“I can get loads of people to join you from Irish community as well as our people living in Dublin.”

“In the past the BNP had a problem with Irish people but there is a group of us now who support the party and they are very open to the idea of a similar party in Ireland.”

Ryan offered the party money and advice on security as well as issuing an invitation to attend the BNP’s annual red, white and blue festival, which draws in far right groups from across Europe.

He ranted about the threats posed to Ireland and the UK by Muslims and mass immigration.

“I promise you that I can help you out as a party, financially with fundraising and to give you advice,” he added.

“We are as determined as yourselves. Frank O’Brien (BNP election candidate) from the BNP is good friend of mine and he is of Irish descent, I want to put him in touch with the INP.”

“We are in touch with Swedish groups and want to get a network across Europe of nationalist parties.”

BNP leading member Darby recently commented that he would be “overjoyed if an Irish National Party was set up and we would do all we could to help it.”

His comment came just weeks before the Irish National Party publicly announced their existence.

A leaked email from BNP Solihull Councillor, George Morgan, to the INP pledged support for the group.

“As a fellow nationalist I believe that, regardless of whether we are of Celtic, or Anglo Saxon stock, we face the same basic threats to our heritage, culture, identity and ultimately our future,” the Cllr declared.

“I further believe that as nationalists we must fight these threats on a united front, albeit different peoples but with a common ancestry.

“I would suggest that in the first instance you contact the regional organiser for the West Midlands.”

Following a recent Sunday World exposé the emergent Irish National Party were exposed as an anti-Semitic far-right thugs.

The group’s website was taken down within days and anti-Semitic party leader, paediatric nurse, David Barrett, has been keeping a low profile.

The party was unable to meet with the BNP to get vital funding and training as the BNP’s contact was intercepted by this paper.

However, a new website was hastily launched this week to replace the INP’s failed project – the London registered Irishnationalparty.com site is believed to be linked to British attempts to gain a foothold in Irish politics.

The BNP say their plan for Ireland is to “end the conflict” by making the North and South part of the United Kingdom.

BNP have links to Irish pro-life group, Youth Defence through their main fundraiser, Jim Dowson.

Dowson runs the BNP’s Belfast call centre and is believed to be bankrolling the BNP, providing hundreds of thousands in funding, according to recently leaked accounts for the party.

The former Orange Man has links to the loyalist murderer Michael Stone and has been described as a “rent-a-cause extremist”.

He formed Precious Life Scotland, later the UK Life League in 1999, and has been in regular contact with Youth Defence since.

Article Used With Permission of BrianWhelan.net

Vote No To The BNP in 2010

©2010 Brian Whelan