The closure of the steel plant at Redcar, near Middlesborough, has resulted in another 1,700 British workers – most of them skilled – joining at least two million industrial workers whose jobs have been lost by Tory and Labour government’s embrace of globalisation.

They told us that the jobs and national income we would lose through selling our manufacturing industry to overseas bidders would be offset by increasing our service industries and specialising in high tech manufacturing. The reality is that the service sector brings in less than ten per cent of overseas earnings – and employs virtually zero ex-steel workers, coal miners, or Birmingham metal bashers. As for high tech manufacturing, they soon found that Germany and Japan had cornered most of the market.

It is only the BNP that is committed to protecting the remains of our manufacturing g industries, by tariffs where necessary. In the case of a vital sector such as steel making we believe that the costs of keeping it running would be offset by keeping its workers in employment – who would also be paying their NHS insurance and income tax.

Britain’s loss – India’s gain

Corus (formerly British Steel) is a subsidiary of the Tata Group, India’s largest business empire. What you won’t read in our national press, or hear discussed on mainstream TV, is that by closing down the Redcar steelworks it will receive around £600 million  in ‘credits’ from the World Bank because of the carbon emissions this is alleged to save. The financing of these ‘carbon credits’ (all part of the global warming scam) comes under the United Nation’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

Now what is really outrageous (apart from not hearing one word of criticism from the Lib-Lab-Con or the UKIP clowns) is that 1,700 British jobs have been lost on Teesside so that in India the same £600 million in UN CDM credits could be received by Tata for building a steelworks of similar capacity to Redcar in Orissa.

By John Bean — The ever expanding EU regulations will cost the British taxpayer at least £184billion over the next 10 years (this is in addition to our £6.4billion annual net contribution).

According to ‘Europe Open’ the second most costly regulation is the Climate Change Act which will soon add £130 to £200 a year to the annual energy bill for a typical UK family. Much of this is going into the installation of costly windmills as a power source.

None of the above costs will be reduced, let alone eliminated, by the LibLabCon parties despite the enormous black hole of national debt which has to be tackled by any incoming new government – and if it is headed by Cameron it will also continue with an increased total overseas aid programme costing in excess of £10billion.

The effectiveness of what the old discredited parties are offering to tackle the gigantic debt  that their globalist, multiculturally-obsessed  policies produced can be equated with the value of the  power generated by our expensive national array of windmills. For ten days of this winter’s deep freeze when temperatures were at their lowest, not one windmill blade turned from the Suffolk coast to the Scottish highlands.

The problem was that when a high pressure area settles over Britain in the winter it gives two weather effects. Very cold temperatures and low wind speeds. And as they were below 7.5 mph, the windmills did not work.

Yet Brown – fully backed by the evergreen Cameronite Tories and the politically pointless Lib Dems -  has committed us to a £200 billion dash for wind. Power companies have been awarded contracts to build 6,400 wind turbines off the British coast. Not one turbine has been built in Britain so far – they are either imported from Germany or Denmark. As for the much-heralded “extra British jobs” this will bring, the only major source will be the redundant fishermen whose jobs have been taken by the French and Spanish and for the future can crew the service boats for the offshore wind farms.

If all these proposed 6,400 wind turbines were installed by 2020, which at present engineering capabilities is an impossible target, then as long as the wind blew at the right speed the peak capacity would provide 25 per cent of our power needs. The variability of the wind being what it is means that there must always be a conventional power source back-up, whether it be coal, gas, oil or nuclear power.

But the EU has already said that we must close our coal-fired power stations in six years and that they will not give exception to the proposed clean coal operated power stations. Led by the French and German owned companies, the UK power companies have now said they will require £100billion investment to build a “super-grid” connected to Europe to guarantee a steady power supply.

Having led the way five years ago in pointing out that we had reached “peak oil”, the BNP supports development of alternative energy sources, which includes wave power, nuclear power, solar energy panels and, as we still have millions of  tonnes of coal deposits, effective clean-coal operated power stations.

We recognise that there is a definite place for small wind turbines which have been proven as an effective back-up source for power generation for individual homes, farms and small manufacturing units. But it is the fact that they will always need back-up that makes them a financial disaster on the mass scale envisaged by the LibLabCon.

Recommended reading: The Wind Farm Scam  by John Etherington.

Dr Etherington argues that wind turbines cannot generate enough energy to reduce global CO2 levels to a meaningful degree; what’s more wind power is by nature intermittent and cannot generate a steady output, necessitating back-up coal and gas power plants that significantly negate the saving of greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to the inefficacy of wind power there are ecological drawbacks, including damage to habitats, wildlife and the far-from-insignificant aesthetic drawback of the assault upon natural beauty and the pristine landscape, which wind turbines entail. He argues that wind power has been, and is being, excessively financed at the cost of consumers who have not been consulted, nor informed that this effective subsidy is being paid from their bills to support an industry that cannot be cost efficient or, ultimately, favour the cause it purports to support. 300 pages.Paperback.  £9.99

Click here to order online.

By John Bean — Prior to Nick Griffin’s appearance on what was alleged to be a BBC Question Time programme, he had previously distinguished himself as a quick-witted interviewee when confronted by such figures as Jeremy Paxman, Gavin Estler, Andrew Marr, et  al. In responding to their efforts to trip him up, Nick “took them to the cleaners”. Several establishment media journalists acknowledged this ability.

How come that following Nick’s appearance on the travesty of a programme that had more resemblance to a Spanish Inquisition than a democratic exchange of political viewpoints, the Lib-Lab-Con lickspitalls described him as being nervous and hesitant? This is in addition to crowing: “Aren’t we marvellous? We saw off the wicked Griffin and democracy is safe”. They hope this may offset the growing public sympathy for Nick at being the under-dog at the lynch-mob’s circus.

In 1994 I appeared on a BBC Timewatch programme looking at the history of post-war immigration to Britain. There were ten participants who thought it was good for us, and Enoch Powell and myself who stated otherwise – a typical BBC idea of a fair balance. I had had plenty of experience in public speaking, often to a hostile audience who wished to dismember me, but to begin with I was indeed nervous (petrified almost) and certainly hesitant. And this was with no demonstrators crying for my blood outside the Television Centre and no purposely-picked hostile audience to boo every word I was to say!

When David Dimbledum’s brother Jonathan glowered at me over his glasses and fired off a hostile question all the facts and figures I had tried to memorise over the previous 48 hours had vaporised. And I resorted to some hesitant ad-libbing. However, when questioned later the facts started coming back and my delivery improved.

The point of this reminiscence is not vanity over a past minor success, but to give some indication of what it is like to have to face such a BBC set-up (perhaps ‘stich-up’). Of course, Nick must have been nervous to begin with – and even he is not super-human. But the significant thing is that in the latter third of the farce arranged by that so-called chairman David Dimbledum, Nick Griffin managed to get out several well put points that registered and were delivered in his normal , almost laid-back, style – unlike some he has never tried to mimic the tones of a Thirties orator such as Oswald Mosley. I only wish the programme had lasted another half an hour. He had already overcome the efforts of the man of Straw and he would possibly have even silenced the rent-a-mouth Baroness of the Tory Party.

I do have some idea of what Nick faced and I think in these circumstances he was brilliant.

As editor I am pleased to report that preparation of the first quarterly issue of Identity magazine in its new 64-page format is well under way and will be available to subscribers and all BNP members towards the end of the month.

It contains easier- reading short reports on the political scene as well as the in-depth ideological articles that subscribers have associated with Identity over the past  nine years. In other words it will have something for everyone.

From the sample page-proofs I have received so far, Mark Collett has again shown his talent for attractive display.

The reappearance of Identity is another aspect of the BNP coming out of what appeared to be a doldrum period following the reorganisation that was necessary after our outstanding achievement in getting two MEPs elected (the BBC’s commitment to Nick Griffin having a slot on Question Time is another).

As Martin Wingfield so ably expressed it in his blog, “Everything just got much harder for us because we had made the transition from a big small party, to a small big party and we just didn’t have the infrastructure to cope.”

A key report in the new issue of Identity will cover the developments so far as we go to press of our response to the move by Trevor Phillips and the Labour Government to force the BNP to accept non-European people as members.

To fight this in the courts would cost us a minimum of £1million, without any guarantee of success. Party leader Nick Griffin has indicated that the BNP will probably have to adapt to the undemocratic Orwellian ‘equality laws’ or it will die.

For the benefit of any “hardliners” who might find difficulty in accepting this, I have pointed out that as someone who has no remorse for holding a Trafalgar Square meeting back in 1959 under the banner ‘Keep Britain White’, I give Nick Griffin my full support if this decision has to be made.

We again apologise to subscribers for the delay in publication of Issue No.100 of Identity magazine – originally planned for publication in March. It has been a question of priorities, with key personnel giving all their time for the BNP Euro Election campaign with its once in five years chance of a major breakthrough. On top of this our printers had a major problem which led to this centenary issue having to be reprinted (at their expense). It should now reach subscribers next week. It will contain details of the proposed change of format to a wide circulation quarterly.

I hope readers will agree that the following extracts from my “Nationalist Notebook” have not lost their relevance since they were written.

British Jobs For British Workers

The BNP belief that the so-called differences offered by the established party triumvirate is a myth has again been justified in their attitude to the recent British workers’ wildcat strikes in an attempt to protect British jobs from unfair foreign competition. The Lib-Lab-Con has unanimously warned our workforce that they must not be xenophobic and that the very concept of protectionism in relation to jobs is an evil that “plays into the hands of the BNP”. They tell us that global action is the only way out of the economic disaster facing us, yet it is globalism itself that caused it. It is globalism that has seen 250,000 Britons lose their jobs in the last three months – bringing a total in excess of 2 million unemployed – while 200,000 immigrants have come in to take most of the remaining jobs.

Like the majority of the strikers at Total’s Lindsey oil refinery, where the wildcat strikes first began, the BNP has nothing against fellow Europeans such as Italians, Portuguese or Poles, but it is through EU rules that we have seen the influx of European welders and pipefitters to take jobs that have been refused to British unemployed refinery workers with years of experience. It should be noted, however,  that more than 151,000 people from outside the EU were given permission  to work in Britain last year. That was a 17% increase on the 140,000 handed out during the whole of 2007. Indians were the largest recipients of work permits at almost 50,000.

The Daily Telegraph recently reported that almost all the growth in new jobs over the past seven years could be accounted for by immigrants. There were 1.34 million more people in work than in 2001 but the number of British-born workers fell by 62,000 over the same period. It also emerged in January that there were at least 170,000 more migrant workers than official figures suggest because of undercounting in the employment statistics.

Since Lindsey and the supportive wildcat strikes that took place elsewhere, including Scotland and Wales, there has been the abrupt dismissal of 800 agency workers at BMW’s Mini production plant at Cowley, and the growing resentment  at Cammell Laird’s Birkenhead shipyard, where ship fitting contractor Trimline is bussing in Polish workers for work on a Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel.

What do the established trade unions say about all this? Their response has been to  conform to New Labour’s globalist doctrine. The Unite union sold the workers a pup when they got the strikers to return to work because the union had got the Total management at Lindsey to allocate 102 jobs to local British workers. The fact is that these 102 jobs were already secure and the management had expected that they would have to allocate as much as 700 jobs to locals!

The BNP, and the independent new trade union Solidarity  have been very active in supporting the wildcat strikers. As Scottish Herald writer Ian MacWhirter wrote in his paper on February 2: “In the 1930s, the Jarrow Crusade marched on London to demand work; now in 2009, they will be marching to demand foreigners are sent home. The British National Party is finally in from the cold – inheritor of the great tradition of British industrial militancy.”

‘I’m Progressive – Not a Right-winger’ says Cameron

The following comment, written before Paul Golding won the Sevenoaks Council by-election, is also relevant as when it was written.

With the mounting unpopularity of Gordon Brown and the Labour party one would expect to see the Tories sweeping the council by-elections that have been held this year. Where BNP candidates have stood, notably in Sevenoaks, (a win)Newcastle-on-Tyne, Cumbria, Manchester, and Bexley it is the BNP that picked up the dissatisfied former Labour vote to propel it into second place. In fact in Bexley, where BNP’s Michael Barnbrook lost by only eight votes, he also picked up many former Conservative voters in this Tory stronghold.

The reason for this lack of enthusiasm by former Tory voters must be that they are beginning to see that there is no “clear water” between any of the major parties, who fully justify the BNP’s generic label of the Lib-Lab-Con party. Their leader, Dave hug-a-hoody Cameron, in a speech to think-tank Demos on January 21^st last, made a direct pitch to Labour and Lib Dem voters and declared himself a “progressive Conservative”. He said that its four aims were a fair society, a green environment, safety for citizens and equal opportunity.  Well, there is nothing wrong with any of that, but it hardly represents the key political issues of the day – although, being generous, ’safety’ could mean more attention to controlling crime.   Surely, people would want to see that a party is going to give main emphasis on doing something about: the economic crisis with its growing unemployment; the  problems  related to mass immigration; whether or not we should try, at a minimum, to modify the effects of EU legislation which now supersedes anything from our Parliament. The BNP answer of withdrawal from the EU is, of course, the only real way out of this last problem.

Now that the ‘big beast’ Ken Clarke is back on the front bench as the shadow business secretary, it is a fair bet that the Tory  party will now be more pro-EU than ever. In a speech at University of Nottingham last month he said: “Obama doesn’t want his strongest European ally led by as Right-wing nationalist, he wants them to be a key player inside Europe, and he’ll start looking at whoever is in Germany or France if we start being isolationist”.

In case you are still falling about laughing at the suggestion of Dave boy being a ‘Right-wing nationalist’, he quickly made it clear at his speech at Demos that “I’m progressive, not a Right-winger”.

By John Bean, editor of Identity magazine–Our apologies to Identity subscribers for the delay in publication of the March issue – the 100^th edition of the BNP magazine. This is due to key personnel (not least our Chairman !) working flat out on the all-important “Battle for Britain” campaign which after much blood, sweat and tears is approaching our target of raising sufficient funds to fight all areas in the June 4^th Euro elections. Here is one of the items in the latest “Nationalist Notebook” pages which can have a bearing on the election campaign.

The BNP belief that the so-called differences offered by the established party triumvirate is a myth has again been justified in their attitude to the recent British workers’ wildcat strikes in an attempt to protect British jobs from unfair foreign competition. The Lib-Lab-Con has unanimously warned our workforce that they must not be xenophobic and that the very concept of protectionism in relation to jobs is an evil that “plays into the hands of the BNP.” They tell us that global action is the only way out of the economic disaster facing us, yet it is globalism itself that caused it. It is globalism that has seen 250,000 Britons lose their jobs in the last three months – bringing a total in excess of 2 million unemployed – while 200,000 immigrants have come in to take most of the remaining jobs.

Like the majority of the strikers at Total’s Lindsey oil refinery, where the wildcat strikes first began, the BNP has nothing against fellow Europeans such as Italians, Portuguese or Poles, but it is through EU rules that we have seen the influx of European welders and pipefitters to take jobs that have been refused to British unemployed refinery workers with years of experience. It should be noted, however, that more than 151,000 people from outside the EU were given permission to work in Britain last year. That was a 17% increase on the 140,000 handed out during the whole of 2007. Indians were the largest recipients of work permits at almost 50,000.

The Daily Telegraph recently reported that almost all the growth in new jobs over the past seven years could be accounted for by immigrants. There were 1.34 million more people in work than in 2001 but the number of British-born workers fell by 62,000 over the same period. It also emerged in January that there were at least 170,000 more migrant workers than official figures suggest because of undercounting in the employment statistics.

Since Lindsey and the supportive wildcat strikes that took place elsewhere, including Scotland and Wales, there has been the abrupt dismissal of 800 agency workers at BMW’s Mini production plant at Cowley. There is also growing resentment  at Cammell Laird’s Birkenhead shipyard, where ship fitting contractor Trimline is bussing in Polish workers for work on a Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel.

What do the established trade unions say about all this? Their response has been to conform to New Labour’s globalist doctrine. The Unite union sold the workers a pup when they got the strikers to return to work because the union had got the Total management at Lindsey to allocate 102 jobs to local British workers. The fact is that these 102 jobs were already secure and the management had expected that they would have to allocate as much as 700 jobs to locals!

The BNP and the independent new trade union Solidarity (see p.2) have been very active in supporting the wildcat strikers. As Scottish Herald writer Ian MacWhirter wrote in his paper on February 2: “In the 1930s, the Jarrow Crusade marched on London to demand work; now in 2009, they will be marching to demand foreigners are sent home. The British National Party is finally in from the cold – inheritor of the great tradition of British industrial militancy.”

By John Bean:

The full financial burden to Britain of EU membership has been set out in the latest report from the Bruges Group. The February issue of “Identity” shows that it amounts to £55.775billion per annum, which is a net cost to every UK tax-payer of £1,799 p.a. Our withdrawal from the EU would give an economic boost of at least 2 per cent which would help our economic recovery.

To the three out of four voters who agree that we should withdraw from the EU the question is who do they vote for in the June election? The Lib-Lab-Con is united in supporting our continued membership, whatever individual spokesmen might say in trying to woo our votes.  That leaves UKIP and the BNP.

The BNP has made it clear that it respects the good intentions of the bulk of UKIP’s patriotic membership. But with few exceptions its MEPs appear to have looked upon their sojourn in Brussels as a non-stop gravy train and have become part of the EU system. This applies particularly to its leader, Nigel Farage, the preening performer so beloved by the BBC’s Question Time and The Guardian because of his role as a safety valve that diminishes the flow of support for the BNP.

UKIP members, who admit to more and more support switching to the BNP, inform us that there is growing concern about the party’s finances and Nigel Farage’s silence on a number of questions relating to them. Apparently the South West Region is refusing to hand over their cash to Farage in case it disappears into another black hole in the manner of the former Ashford, Kent, call centre where no full accounts were ever presented and the sum of £200,000 was merely attributed to ‘other expenses’. Although the MEPs are pocketing £84,000 p.a. basic salary, there are also considerable expenses available, which Farage has refused to comment upon.

Unlike UKIP, BNP MEPs would commit themselves beforehand to donate a proportion of salaries and expenses to the Party.

Immigration is Changing our National Makeup

We could fill  two pages of “Identity” magazine (the February issue is now published) every month with the latest immigration statistics and how it is putting ever increasing pressure on housing for our own people, health services, education, policing and travel and transport.  Perhaps most important in this time of increasing business failures is the effect of unscrupulous employers (such as the Asian-owned Manchester clothing manufacturer supplying Primark) paying low wages to immigrants rather than the going rate to indigenous British workers. All this does, of course, is help stack up more votes for the BNP.

On this question of immigrant workers, and also statistics, the Daily Telegraph, 03.01.09, revealed that at least 170,000 more migrant workers are taking British jobs each year than official figures show because of undercounting in the employment statistics.

It may still surprise some urban readers to know that rural areas could be seeing the highest increase of immigrant workers, where it has increased 186% since 2002. Living near the Fens, where so many East European workers have arrived, I can confirm that the work is hard, and often cold and wet, and many young native Britons won’t do it.  Although some readers may not agree, although there is this pressure on housing, education and some aspects of health services, most of the young Poles and other mainly Baltic States people go home when they have made some money and those who stay are at least fellow Europeans who are not really going to alter our ethnic makeup.

Now ‘ethnic makeup’ is what our opposition to Afro-Asian immigration is really all about.  We are seeing our British, Western European, makeup changed beyond repair in nearly every city in Britain. It is not just because of immigration and the fact that  most immigrant families – and certainly Muslims – have considerably higher birth rates, but because white women in all western societies as well  as Britain  are producing  on average less than 2.1 children per woman – the number required for the maintenance of a population. As things stand the white race in the West generally is a dying breed. Our people today find themselves trying to live by a combination of rules that are partly remnants of our old system, partly alien rules imposed upon us by the Marxist-inspired liberal-left of all the old parties, including those coming from the EU. This haphazard combination does not make sense to many of our people as a framework for life. So increasingly the will to reproduction flags, because it does not make sense to bear children into a senseless life.

In an attempt to halt the progress of the BNP, Labour has made much of its “Points Based System” (PBS) to restrict the high rate of immigration. Yet in its new Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Bill published last month it is going to hand out up to 275,000 passports to foreigners every year under new rules on “earning citizenship”. Even criminals can get a passport after five years without re-offending.

Migrationwatch UK, which has done so much to expose the disaster of mass immigration, has produced a briefing paper showing that Labour’s PBS policy, and by implication the vague restrictions suggested by the Tories, cannot prevent this demographic disaster from overwhelming Britain. Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch UK Chairman, said that the population of the UK today is already 61 million. “According to official projections, it will rise to 70 million by 2028. Seventy per cent of this growth is thanks to immigration – now running at a net level of 237,000 a year. If the UK’s population is not to hit 70 million later in the century (within 20 years), there must be a reduction  in net migration of the order of  75 per cent from the present level to about 60,000 a year.” Importantly, the paper adds: “Even so there would be a population increase of nearly 10 million – almost all of it in England – roughly equivalent to adding the population of Sweden to that of England.”

As much as one can commend the work that Sir Andrew has done over the past five years, we cannot agree with his proposal for dealing with the immigration nightmare with a “balanced migration” option (also supported by UKIP). This means that the numbers leaving the country, mainly Brits escaping from the effects of Afro-Asian immigration, are balanced with those entering. Because of the higher population growth of most immigrant families already here over native Britons, we would still be demographically overwhelmed even if it takes a little longer.

This commitment to preserving the majority indigenous makeup of Britain is what divides the BNP from all other political parties in Britain.

John Bean’s Nationalist Notebook January 2009– Since the indications last month from the UK Border Agency that at least 180,000 asylum seekers are likely to be allowed to stay in Britain, we are seeing an upsurge in calling for an amnesty on illegal immigrants.

This is not just confined to the Labour Party – who would not be in power without immigrant  votes – or the pointless politicos of the Lib Dems, but now has the not-so-secret backing of the Cameron Tories. London Mayor Boris Johnson has been chosen to act as the mouthpiece for this “floodgate opening” move, because he too is partly dependent on immigrant votes, but if it creates too much opposition, Cameron can always distance himself by saying: “Oh that is just an idea coming from Boris, and Boris is Boris as we all know.”

Following the foreign prisoners scandal of two years ago (where it was found that murderers, rapists and paedophiles amongst more than a thousand inmates wrongly release were allowed to stay here), some 450,000 files on illegal immigrants and so-called asylum seekers were unearthed.

Among them are claimants who should have been deported years ago. At the time of the discovery it was promised that all the cases would be worked on by 2011, but so far only 130,000 files have been examined, reported Lin Homer, the chief executive of the UK Border Agency on December 9.

Of these, more than 50,000 who were found to have slipped under the net back in 2006 have so far been permitted to stay. If the 40% approval rate continues, then at least 180,000 of these “asylum seekers” will have been freed to stay once the backlog is cleared. It does not include, of course, all the new entries and the estimated one million illegal immigrants who have arrived here over the past twelve years or more, with most of them having joined all the others, including our home-grown benefit scroungers, who are living off the British taxpayers.

Thus the easy way out for the government is the temptation to declare an amnesty.

Even if this does not happen applicants whose cases have been ignored for up to a decade or more are now expected to be given the green light because sending them home after such a long period would breach their “human rights”.

It is now over ten years since New Labour brought in the Human Rights Act 1998, which is acknowledged as having stemmed from the European Court of Human Rights. As if this was not inflicting enough harm on Britain – and the rest of Europe, the EU has now set up a special immigration deal with Africa to invite more than 50 million Africans to Europe by 2050.

A job centre for this has already been set up in Mali, with several others to follow in West and North Africa. And once in Europe we all know where their favourite destination will be, unless a BNP government is in power.

Even more reason why any one truly concerned for our children’s and our grandchildren’s future in these still just about ‘British’ Isles can only vote BNP in the Euro Elections on June 4th.

BNP ‘Criminality’ is Half National Average

Certain national papers indulging in smear campaigns against the BNP have tried to emphasise that of the 12,500 members whose names were illegally displayed on enemy websites, 30 had criminal records.

Imagine the time taken by some NuLabour hack or Searchlight saboteur in obtaining this startling revelation.  Didn’t the half wit know that to have only one member in 625 with a criminal record is less than half the national average!

For example, Home Office figures released in September tell us that over the past three years one person in 300 was arrested annually for shoplifting alone.

Not only does the BNP have a lower percentage of people with criminal records (which are often through fights several years ago defending themselves against Red Front assailants, or acts of foolish football hooliganism as teenagers) than the public at large, but compared with some police forces they are whiter than white – if I may use such an expression.

In July 2006 Hampshire Police, which employs about 3,800 officers, admitted that about 30 of its serving officers had criminal convictions for offences including theft, benefit fraud, assault, breach of the peace, and possessing a cannabis plant.  The Met too has had its share. Seventy-four of its officers have received either a criminal conviction or caution for offences ranging from drink-driving to minor assault or criminal damage. All 74 have been kept on, according to a report by John Steele, 28 July, 2006.

As we go to press, it is worth noting that only one BNP member has lost his job through his name appearing on the stolen membership list. He is a Police Support Officer who, we are told, is likely to appeal.

As far as the Merseyside Police Officer is concerned, this looks like an attempted stitch-up, in that he has never been a BNP member, but his wife is.

Obviously, our sympathies go to those members, past and present, who have been threatened and/or abused through phone calls and abusive mail as a result of their details being made public. For most of them, it is just dirty water off the proverbial duck’s back.

From the desk of Identity editor, John Bean: Symbolic of the cut-cost approach of the Government when it comes to equipment for our armed forces, the Snatch Land Rover widely used in Iraq and then in Afghanistan has acquired the nickname among our soldiers of ‘mobile coffin’.

It was designed for peace-keeping missions and its thin-skinned armour will only withstand small arms fire, not roadside bombs, which in the past five years have killed more than 30 of our soldiers in Afghanistan.

Most notable of these were Cpl Sarah Bryant and three male SAS soldiers who were killed when a roadside bomb destroyed their Land Rover on June 17th this year.

On November 1st Major Sebastian Morley, the SAS reservist commander in Afghanistan resigned in protest on “chronic under investment “ in equipment generally supplied for our forces by the Ministry of Defence.

A week later Major Will Pike, who led a company of the 3rd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment in Helmand Province two years ago, said that our forces were sent into Helmand on a “half-cocked” campaign to “con” world opinion about the country’s military strength.

How right the Major is, for the BNP has consistently opposed the use of our armed forces in non-British interests in order for the Lib-Lab-Con parties to posture upon the world stage as the bringers of democracy, and the joys of global banksters, to the heathen nations. However, whilst our men and women are giving their lives in these dubious campaigns, they should at least have the very best equipment.

According to a Daily Telegraph report (10.11.08) Major Pike said “rival agencies” were being pursued in Afghanistan by different government departments while the forces on the ground were left with inadequate air cover and poor equipments such as the Snatch Land Rover. Having had a spell in Whitehall before leaving the Army, he thought it remained unclear whether the mission was being run by the MoD, the Foreign Office or (this is significant) the Department for International Development.

From the desk of Identity editor, John Bean: In the December issue of Identity we have stated that some radical right and nationalist commentators may be reading the situation wrongly when they believe that the massive support given to Barack Obama by young white American voters means that the United States is irrevocably destined to be subjected to multiracial rule.

The overwhelming majority of those liberal whites rarely mix with blacks beyond the campus gates of the colleges and universities, no more than their parents do who also voted for Obama and who mainly live in gated safe white areas, whether it is in multi-ethnic California or New York State.

Their vote was a protest against the policies of George W Bush and the economic meltdown with spiralling unemployment, and who can blame them? Fortunately for the Democrats they chose a candidate with charisma, intelligence and oratorical powers against which the 71-year-old war hero McCain’s sole weapon was his patriotism. Yet he still picked up 55% of the white vote to Obama’s 43%, plus 95% of the black vote and two thirds of Hispanic and Asian votes and 77% of Jewish votes.

Note also that in the traditional Southern States, which have the highest black population, the whites voted overwhelmingly for McCain, and with the exception of Virginia the States all remained Republican. Generally Obama did not play upon his ‘blackness’ (more on this later), but for those in the know the exceptional amount of time he spent in winning over Virginia showed that he was very much aware of it.

This was the former capital of the breakaway Southern Confederation and Obama knew that the symbolism of winning the State was in the same manner as Lincoln sending in black Federal troops when its Capital, Richmond, fell in June 1865.

How effective Obama can be as a president can only be seen with the passage of the next twelve months or so. But when America’s blacks in particular see that little has changed for them then he will no longer be regarded as Saint Obama but as another Uncle Tom. It really depends upon his backers, which include the remaining banks and finance houses of Wall Street. Much play was made of the two million or more small donations to Obama’s war chest via his excellent internet campaign, but more than half his record $650 million funding came from big business.

His appointment of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff is interesting. Much of the global financial collapse can be traced to the granting of cheap mortgages to immigrants and poor blacks, with little chance of paying them back, by the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac. Emanuel served on its board of directors when scandal was first brewing.

According to a complaint filed by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002, although Emanuel was not accused of being personally responsible for this. His father, Benjamin M. Emanuel, now living in Chicago, was an active member of “Irgun” or the Stern Gang fighting the then British rule in Palestine.

The BNP, whose website already has more visitors than all other UK political parties added together, can still learn much from the brilliant use of the internet by the Obama team. Its mastery of the internet as a campaigning tool was key to his victory. To give a few examples, as well as sending out millions of e-mails to potential Democrat voters, in particular first time voters, his team brought in the co-founder of Facebook, Chris Hughes, and created its own social networking site. This attracted over 1.5 million members who organised themselves into separate activists’ groups to ensure the election, if not the deification, of their idol.

Finally, one could not help noticing the joy upon the news announcers faces, both ITV as well as BBC, when after 48 hours devoted to the second coming they were able to announce that Lewis Hamilton, our “black” Formula One racing driver was now world champion – which he fully deserved. The point is that both Lewis Hamilton and Saint Obama have white mothers. Is this another form of racism disregarded by the liberal intelligentsia who apparently consider that only the black blood counts? I am not suggesting that we should return to Kiplingesque terminology of “half castes”, or even accusing the parents of having “warped biological instincts”, as was once fashionable, but surely “mixed race” would be more accurate?

In the November issue of Identity I wrote that it is disheartening to see that although their lead has slipped the so-called ‘Conservative’ Party, which now conserves ever fewer British interests, still leads in the polls. This is at a time when they have failed to come up with any answer to the economic problems facing this country as thousands more lose their jobs every week, and they still manage to kid some of the electorate that they “will do something” about escalating immigration. On the economy we would recommend you to read Nick Griffin’s article this month, and the editorial on page 3.

We already have a good idea of how a future Tory Government would deal with immigration and the ethnic ‘minority’ community in the statements made by Cameron glossing over Muslim extremism and refusing to commit his party to any effective restrictions on immigration in general. His comments are best described by that rather basic term, “wind and piss”, particularly when one recalls his commitment on asylum seekers “to taking them to our hearts, and feeding and clothing and schooling them”.

Now his potential rival, the jolly London mayor Boris Johnson has said “I will carry on Livingstone’s work on diversity”. This was in an interview for the Muslim News.

Promising them to “celebrate the achievements of communities”, he said: “One thing I decided very early on was that the only way to run London is to support diversity and to recognise that you have got to be proactive and give encouragement and support to all communities.”

To the Muslim News’ concerns that festivals such as ‘Eid in the Square’, ‘Diwali in the Square’ and other faith base events would not be funded or supported under his regime, Boris was adamant that he was “totally behind that” and would “support that completely”.

Boris Johnson’s Policy Director in London is Anthony Browne, who in the past did not endear himself to Cameron when he showed a modicum of concern with the current rise in immigration. Now that’s all changed and he has suggested that illegal immigrants who have been living in Britain for seven years should be offered an amnesty, which would allow them to become residents and earn citizenship. And this is from a person who is considered to be on the “right” of the Conservative Party. When jovial Johnson was questioned in his interview with Muslim News about Browne having allegedly making critical comments about Islam, he went into pc overdrive saying Browne was “utterly committed to a glorious multiracial, multiethnic, multifaith London”.

Over in Wales the local Tories are keen to show the Londoners that they too know how to pander to the Muslim electorate. Nick Bourne, the leader of the Conservative Party in Wales has formed the Welsh Conservative Muslim Forum. Speaking at its inaugural meeting last month he made these enlightening comments.

“On his election as Leader, David Cameron promised to reach out to minority ethnic communities and to recognise the contribution immigrants have made to our prosperity and culture. And I am determined that we should do so in Wales as well.

“In many ways, Muslim values are Conservative values. We all believe in strong families, in enterprise, in self-reliance and in individual responsibility. I believe that diversity is a positive force and should not be a barrier to social cohesion.”

Several contributors to Identity (the October issue is now published) have in recent months explained how the Marxists, having failed to export their Soviet revolution, founded the Frankfurt School in the twenties with the objective of the ‘long march through the institutions’ to maintain their constant onslaught on western culture. With this in mind, it is easy to see the objective of our Socialist government’s education policies, and not least the recent announcement that black history is to be made compulsory in our schools – as it already is in the USA.

Pupils will be taught about the slave trade and the British Empire to “help them understand modern-day issues such as immigration”. The two subjects will join the two world wars and the Holocaust as periods that must form part of the history syllabus. The objective here, of course, is that by devious means it will be shown that if you oppose mass immigration into 21st Century Britain, you somehow support the abomination of slavery and also condone the killing of Jews by the Nazis in World War Two. Although children will be taught about the achievements of several minor black people from history, Sir Winston Churchill is now omitted from the list of figures that must be studied. How the history of World War 2 and the British Empire can be taught without mentioning Winston Churchill beggars belief.

Remember the names of those responsible for pushing this Marxist nonsense through. They are Kevin Brennan, the children’s minister, and Mick Waters, the director of curriculum at the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Primarily because of the pressure on space in this column, I will give just one example of how today’s Marxists ( no matter what labels they masquerade under) invent an ethnicity for a figure from history in order for the gullible liberal-minded to accept that Africans have contributed much to British and European history and culture. A favourite, particularly with the BBC’s children’s programmes, is Septimus Severus, who became Roman Emperor in AD 193 and during his visit to Britain was instrumental in having Hadrian’s Wall repaired.

Because Septimus Severus was born in Carthage, what is now Tunisia, our children are told he was a “Black Emperor”. He even appears on a website entitled “100 Great Black Britons”. Wikipedia and other sites all agree that his mother was of Roman descent from an ancient clan and his father came from a distinguished local Berber family. The Berbers lived in North Africa for at least 2,000 years before the arrival of Arabs or any sub-Saharan black Africans and are described as more akin to modern Spaniards, Sicilians or even ancient Egyptians. A glance at the photo of a bust of Septimus Severus that appears on both of the above mentioned websites shows that he is about as black as I am!

Yet the Daily Telegraph (hardly a Marxist paper) can publish a letter from Chris McGovern, Director, History Curriculum Association, commenting on the new ‘black is beautiful’ history curriculum in which he said: “Slavery has been a shared human experience. A dark-skinned African emperor, Septimus Severus, was prominent in enforcing enslavement in Britain at the start of the third century AD.”

By the time the October issue of Identity is published (from which this comment is an extract) there will be several thousand more City workers losing their jobs in addition to the 4,000 former employees at Lehman Brothers. Whilst we have sympathy for them, particularly those who have not even been paid for their month’s work, the media seemed to have less concern for the many thousands who lost their jobs in British industry. As our manufacturing capability was exported East, we were told that the service industries and the financial sector would provide our future employment and national wealth. How wrong was this forecast.

Like Merril Lynch, Lehmans had a huge exposure to the US mortgage crisis and global debt markets (credit cards debts could be the next disaster zone. Discussing the beginnings of the world credit crisis in this column last April, we showed that in order to maintain the debt system and to keep the whole show on the road, the hedge fund sector of the global capitalists came up with the ‘bright’ idea of offering mortgages to America’s poor – which had full government backing – including millions of immigrants, many of whom would soon lose any worthwhile jobs and thus the ability to pay off the mortgage. So, as part of the debt-based system, their debts were sold off around the world to various country’s equivalents of Northern Rock. Their greed overcame common sense.

In regard to Northern Rock, it is astounding that in early August they were given an additional bail-out of £3.4billion from the taxpayers. This was mainly raised by converting a chunk of the bank’s debt into new shares taken up by the Treasury. Was this action motivated by chance that Northern Rock was previously a financial supporter to the tune of £500,000 of Labour’s favourite far left think-tank, the IPPR?

As for an example of greed, we have the case of Crispin Odey who started betting against British banks a year before the first cracks appeared in the global financial system. He is one of the City of London’s top hedge fund managers and has made £28 million out of the credit crisis. Since the middle of 2006, his company has been a so-called short seller of struggling Bradford & Bingley and of HBOS, which means it gambled that the price of shares in both companies would fall.

It is opportune to again repeat that although we cannot isolate ourselves completely from the erratic behaviour of the world’s money markets, we can at least modify its effects by retaining and regaining British ownership and control of British industry and resources, including financial resources, as well as oil and gas, water and electricity. We must give protection for industry and jobs by selective tariffs on foreign manufactured goods that we can make competitively ourselves.

Coastal erosion is of major concern in East Suffolk right now. It has, of course affected many parts of eastern England since the last ice age, stretching from Northumberland down to the Thames Estuary. It has been estimated that within 20 years some 25 square miles of good farmland and several villages will be lost to the sea around Southwold. The Government spends £800 million a year on coastal defences throughout the UK and have said that they cannot afford the extra £60 million needed to protect further land loss in Suffolk and Norfolk, which would become ever more valuable with the expanding world food crisis.

Most readers will think as I did: “£60 million is peanuts compared with the total handouts Britain makes to the Third World.” It was opportune that a BNP member had just sent me the website address of the Department for International Develoment giving a breakdown of how much of the British taxpayers money is sent abroad as aid. The gross expenditure of the Department for the year 2006/2007 was £7,487m. And they can’t spare £60 million, less than one per cent, to save 25 square miles of Britain!
To see a breakdown of the expenditure go to: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/aboutdfid/howwefightpoverty.asp

Here are some details.

Education. We are spending £8.5 billion of taxpayers money on education in poor countries – mainly Africa – in the next 10 years. In Ghana, for example, more school places and textbooks to be funded through £105m.

Climate change. UK is giving £800 million to tackle climate change. £75 million to India (which has space rockets and nuclear weapons) to help switch to solar power for street lighting.

Conflict. The UK has spent more than £350 million in the Sudan providing food and aid in 2006/7. The EU (of which Britain is a main contributor) is increasing support for Africa Union peacekeeping with an extra £300 million over three years.

Disasters. Britain is the main backer to the UN Central Emergency Fund, giving £163million over four years.

Fighting Poverty. UK spent £323 million in 2006/7 “to help governments to govern better”. (It doesn’t say if Zimbabwe got a slice of this particular cake.)

Killer Diseases. Britain is spending £1.5 billion over three years to help drive back HIV and AIDS.
Health Care for Mothers. Between 2002 and 2007 the DFID spent £1.88 billion on health, “a large slice going to improve women’s health”. (We would respectably suggest that it would do them far more good, and the Third World at large, if at least half of this was spent on birth control).

Stronger Economies. In 2005/2006, the DFID gave around £480 million to support economic growth.
And we are told that the Government can’t trim a few percentage points off any of these items to raise £60 million for coastal Suffolk. Have the Tories or the Lib-Dems said anything about it? Of course not.

An extract from John Bean’s Nationalist Notebook in the September issue of Identity – just published.

From John Bean’s Nationalist Notebook in the September issue of Identity:

Let it be said for a start that there are certain aspects of Premier Putin’s (former President) rule in Russia which is not exactly what we would practice in Britain, but this pales into insignificance against the hypocrisy of the United States and its UK and EU sycophants over Russia’s actions in Georgia.

Let us not forget that Georgia, unprovoked, attacked the city of Tskhinvali in South Ossetia, an independent state between Russia and Georgia, causing heavy casualties. As the majority of the South Ossetians hold Russian passports, it was not surprising that Russia came to their rescue..

Let us remember that in the 1990s the West supported the secession of the republics making up Yugoslavia and, in 1999 Nato attacked, including widespread bombing of Belgrade, the remaining Serbian part of Yugoslavia in defence of Kosovan guerrillas. This was despite the fact that Serbia had not threatened any other sovereign state and that Kosovo had been part of Serbia for nearly a thousand years. Surely, Russia’s response to the situation in Georgia was no different from Nato’s to that in Kosovo?

A finger of suspicion must be pointed at Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, who visited Georgia at least two weeks before its attack on South Ossetia. Did she tell the American educated Georgian president, Mikhell Saakashvill (Georgia’s version of Don Quixote) that American backing would enable them to take South Ossetia? More important, was this part of the ploy to finally get Poland to accept nuclear missiles on its soil and to encourage Ukraine to start talking about accepting Nato membership and its missile bases? For this has been the outcome of the Georgian crisis, which was not of Russia’s making. And Russia does not like being encircled, even when it is told that the Polish based missiles are purely for defence of America against a Middle East inspired rocket attack. You don’t need an A-level in geography to see that is nonsense.

Basically, there is no ideological, territorial or even economic quarrel between Russia and Britain and even the United States. The root of the problem is that ever since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991-92 we have not really played fair with Russia. The former Republican Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan had some sound words to say about this last October in an article on Antiwar.com headed: Who Restarted the Cold War? Some key points were:

Russia agreed to let the Soviet Union dissolve into 15 nations an d the Communist Part let itself be voted out. Russia embraced freedom and American-style capitalism, and invited Americans in to show them how it was done.

Russia did not use its veto in the Security Council to block the US war to drive Saddam Hussein, a Russian ally, out of Kuwait. When 9-11 struck, Putin gave his blessing to US troops using former republics as bases for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

What was Moscow’s reward for its pro-American policy? The US began moving Nato into Eastern Europe and then into former Soviet republics. Six ex-Warsaw Pact nations are now Nato allies, as are three ex-republics of the Soviet Union. Nato expansionists have not given up on bringing Ukraine, united to Russia for centuries, or Georgia, Stalin’s birthplace, into Nato.

Under pressure from a shocked public, the Home Office has revealed that knife crime offences in England and Wales over the past year have totalled 22,151 — 7,409 of these in London. However, eagerly supported by the BBC, it is making great play of a supposedly 9 per cent reduction in crime recorded by the Police, with the violent crime sector being reduced by 8 per cent.

The key word here is recorded crime. It is now well known that in those areas hardest hit by crime many people are not even bothering to report burglaries or even muggings because their experience says that even if the police turn up no action will result. Overall, less than half of crimes are actually reported A secondary factor is that because of the advances made in car security by the manufacturers, car theft by amateur thieves and “joy riders” has fallen considerably, bringing the vehicle crime category down by 14 per cent, thus helping to lower the overall recorded crime rate.

It is but a further example of “smoke and mirrors” policies from a beleaguered government who have no idea how to control crime in general, let alone stop the daily murder of mainly young men on the streets of our towns and cities. It is often black upon black knife murders by teenagers, who if they reach twenty will then result to using guns.

What is worrying is the fact that a number of these murders by knifing appear to be racially motivated. But as it is whites murdered by blacks it is not considered as a racial incident by our media, certainly not the BBC. Of those murders carried out this summer, this seemed highly likely to be the case with the Sidcup murder of the young bit-part “Harry Potter” actor (two blacks arrested), and also with the murder of Ben Kinsella, brother of “EastEnders” actress Brooke Kinsella – four blacks arrested. Incidentally, it was noticeable that in the protest march of six hundred or more young people in North London, there were some black girls present giving their support, but no black boys.

In the March issue this year of Identity Nick Griffin gave us an extensive report, Racism Cuts Both Ways, on how the political elite, the media, the police and the courts are covering up an epidemic of racist violence against our long suffering indigenous people. As a result of research work by a BNP team, the article was full of facts and statistics to show how bad the situation really is. But even with the latest bout of killings (and I have only mentioned two above) , you ask a typical Joe Public to name a victim of racist violence and the only name he can give you is Stephen Lawrence, or possibly Anthony Walker. Goebbels was an amateur in the art of brainwashing compared with our modern media practitioners.

I have mentioned before in past issues a news-sheet called Combat that I used to edit in a former life. In a 1959 issue I ran a front page report headed “Blacks Go Berserk”, with a photo of a West Indian gentleman, frothing at the mouth and being held by two policemen. Of course today, having become more educated in the ways of mankind (and having read all the updates on various Race Relations Acts) I realise that I should have headed the article “Some Black People, Like Whites in General and Not Necessarily Descendants of Vikings, Go Berserk”.

My article was actually based on two reports from the London Metropolitan Police and the West Midlands Police which at that time had expressed concern in the growing number of crimes of violence being carried out by some newly arrived West Indians. The rate per head of population was something like four times that committed by the indigenous Brits.

Many West Indians at that time were God-fearing people who formed the then typical family units. Today, many of these black boys involved in street crimes, including murder, do not have a father to control them, and no doubt some have inherited those genes of violence. As for police reports, well they stopped taking ethnicity into account long, long ago, even before Stephen Lawrence was born.

The above is an extract from John Bean’s Nationalist Notebook in the August issue of Identity which you can subscribe to here.

As we so often criticise the media, let us at least acknowledge that various newspaper campaigns, and ITV programmes – but not BBC, have played their part in raising the public’s awareness of the shoddy treatment our armed services personnel have received in New Labour’s wars. At a time when our dead in Afghanistan has passed the 100 mark, also let our servicemen and women know that it was the BNP who campaigned for better treatment and acknowledgement of their value to our nation several years ago when it was not so fashionable to do so.

The BNP has continually campaigned for better equipment, yet it is a disgrace that our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting two wars that serve no British interests, are still partly dependent on the ubiquitous Land Rover as a battle vehicle. Many have been destroyed in both Iraq and Afghanistan by ambush with Iran-made roadside bombs, leaving the occupants either dead or crippled for life. It is the pure fighting ability of our troops in Afghanistan overcoming the handicap of shortages of helicopters and other equipment that has enabled them to claim that they have defeated the Taliban militarily: politically is another matter outside the scope of this article.

Our service troops do all this for a salary that is less than that of a traffic warden. But it is not only their pay that should be increased but the medical treatment back home that still does not live up to the promises made. According to a recent British Medical Association report thousands of injured soldiers are not getting the health care they were promised. Many are still on hospital waiting lists despite a pledge over a year ago that they would receive “fast-track” treatment and “priority” health care for conditions likely to have resulted from their service.

Dr Brendan McKeating, chairman of the BMA’s Armed Forces committee, said recently: “Only a minority of veterans are actually receiving priority care. The situation is disgraceful. If we are going to ask people to go out there and put their lives at risk then we have to offer them the best health care when they come back.”

The above appears in John Bean’s Nationalist Notebook in the July issue of Identity.

Led by the BBC, a considerable part of the media has been giving the impression that immigration is now coming mainly from eastern Europe, which we cannot control as we are part of the EU. The reason for this media campaign is that the Labour Government wishes to fool the electorate that it is controlling non-EU immigration, a myth that not only the Lib-Dems but also the Cameronite Tories will accept as they eagerly compete with each other to show their non-racist qualifications. The Lib-Lab-Cons have all in varying degrees suggested that there is no point in immigration controls that do not apply to EU citizens.

That it is a myth has been revealed by the figures published by MigrationwatchUK on June lst that of the 2.3 million immigrants arriving in Britain between 1991 and 2006 only 8 per cent were from Europe. We would recognise that this percentage is now higher because immigration from the East European nations did not start until they began to join the EU in 2004. However, as the UK’s credit squeeze and unemployment rises, many Poles and other east Europeans are going back home. This is not the case with the almost one million immigrants from the Indian sub-continent for the period, or the half million from Africa.

Perhaps the above was one of the reasons why a recent parliamentary inquiry let slip that official statistics on the hundreds of thousands of short-term immigrants are “not fit for purpose”. A Treasury Sub-Committee said that the counting system is so unreliable that it is not even possible to know the true population of Britain. It warned that this failure to correctly count the number of foreigners coming into Britain is putting unfair pressure on many local authorities and taxpayers.

The Office of National Statistics (ONS) estimated that there were only 43,000 short-term migrants in England and Wales in the year to June 2005, with just 16,000 of these in Greater London. But MPs pointed out that other measures of the workforce suggest a much higher number. For example, there were 235,640 new national insurance number registrations in Greater London alone during 2005/06.

The above appears in John Bean’s Nationalist Notebook in the July issue of Identity.

As Britain and the West faces the worst slump in 70 years the London-based bankers and financiers, who must take much of the blame for the crisis, have taken a record £12.5billion in bonuses so far this year.

This sum would almost match the £15billion hole that has emerged in the accounts of British banks as a result of the sub-prime collapse centred on US housing loans. Yet most of the bonus money has gone to the very investment bankers and hedge fund managers involved in that fiasco! As billionaire investor George Soros said, there will be recrimination. “There is a real problem with incentives for the banking and the hedge fund community.”

Another problem area for “the hedge fund community” must surely be their involvement with the futures market for oil and food. Hedge funds have piled in and many are making vast returns and are seeing the bet as a sure way to make up some of the losses incurred in recent months. However, for some weeks now financial correspondents have been down-playing their affect on the rising price of crude oil in particularly, but also food stuffs. But as Identity goes to press, George Sorus has warned that “speculation is increasingly affecting the price”, and an article in the Sunday Telegraph, May 25th, by Dan Roberts reveals how the hedge fund investors are playing their part in the ever increasing prices we have to pay at the pumps for our petrol and diesel, and also domestic heating oil, apart from this Government’s excessive fuel taxes. He writes:
“Some of the biggest money has been made by the investment banks, who act for hedge fund investors and are allowed special exemptions from rules governing the size of speculative commodity investments. It is no surprise to find that some of the biggest supporters of rising oil prices work in the research departments of such banks.

“Arjun Murti of Goldman Sachs is typical of this more sanguine breed, but at least he has form for getting it right. Last year he shot to fame by correctly predicting the “super spike” that would take oil prices to $100. Now he sees a real chance of $200 in six months to two years.”

Mr Murti is also quoted with the following, which is a good indication of the mindset of global capitalists. “The energy crisis will not be solved by punishing the big, bad speculator. The fact that tight oil (markets) are attracting large amounts of capital is a good thing. Higher oil prices signal to oil companies the need for greater investment and signal to consumers that they need to demand less. This is the point of capitalism”.
So now you know, if you didn’t already. Backing it up is this little gem from the same Dan Roberts article:
“I can tell you that I have made a fortune in the past two months”, says Charles, an oil futures trader. “This is the free market and I’m exploiting the free market, Long live the free market.”

Surely this makes a great case for a Nationalist policy which recognises that although we cannot isolate ourselves completely from the world’s money markets, we can modify its effects by retaining and regaining British control of British industry and resources, including financial resources.

The above appears in John Bean’s Nationalist Notebook in the June issue of Identity.

So many of our children today are taught in school that the British rule in India was based on cruelty, racial persecution and exploitation. As someone who worked in India for a short time just a few years after its independence I can assure readers that although there were some who did indeed stand guilty of these charges, most Indians of post-independence recognise that overall the British Raj helped lay the foundation of a premier nation.

The following is the editorial by Prafull Goradia in the January 2008 issue of the Indian magazine Jana Sangh Today. Mr Goradia is a former member of the Indian Parliament.

“The Muslim invaders have mysteriously escaped the stamp of an invader in Hindus’ eyes. They stayed for a thousand years; and 60 years ago they took away nearly a third of Hindustan and made it their homeland, called Pakistan. On the other hand, the British ruled for 190 years, did not stay back nor did they take way any territory. Yet, they carry the stigma of an invader. Hindus pat themselves on their back for having waged a freedom struggle and sent back the British in 1947. As a follow up, most of the British street names have been removed; even the names of cities like Bombay, Calcutta and Madras have been changed. But not a single name of a Muslim invader whether Qutbuddin, Tughlaq, Lodhi or Babar has been replaced; nor have cities like Allahabad or Ahmedabad undergone renaming.

“The Muslim invaders exploited the land and its revenue to enjoy luxuries, run harems, acquire jewels and build mausoleums. They hardly took any interest in promoting trade or industry and left no surplus for economic development. Due to their negligence, India missed the industrial revolution till after the British initiated modern mining, textile mills, and other manufactures. Obviously, they did so for profit but their ways of governance were such as to bring incidental benefits to the country: be they the Railways, Post & Telegraph, the Laws, the Universities et al.

“The curiosity of their officers and scholars (British) led to the discovery of what was ancient Indian civilization which the Hindus themselves had largely forgotten. The Muslim invaders destroyed more of the old and created very little new except monuments. Can it not be concluded that the British earned the stigma of being invaders by so governing India as to teach Indians how to aspire for independence? Whereas, the Muslims browbeat Hindus into accepting them as fellow citizens.”

The above appears in John Bean’s Nationalist Notebook in the June issue of Identity.