NATIONALIST WEEK NO.142 25th
August 2007
The weekly
e-zine of the British People’s Party
" Those who
profess to favour freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who
want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder
and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters.
The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may
be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a
demand; it never has and it never will.”
Frederick
Douglas
BORN BRITISH AND WANT A
COUNCIL HOUSE? FORGET IT!
Hundreds of
thousands of “asylum seekers” are set to be granted an “amnesty” to
stay in Britain
– on Human Rights grounds.
Councils
have been warned they must take responsibility for the migrants, who
will immediately be entitled to benefits and a place at
the front of the housing queue!
The amnesty
comes as officials deal with 450,000 legacy cases which were lost for
years in the shambolic asylum system.
Many are
migrants whose initial applications failed and who should have been
deported years ago. Others have never even had their claims considered.
Officials
say the first 7,000 cases will be handled by the end of the year and
seven out of ten or 4,900 are expected to be given ‘indefinite leave to
remain’.
They are
all families, many with children born in the UK.
Because Government bungling has let them stay here for years, the Human
Rights Act saves them from being removed as it would infringe their
right to a family life (more EU rubbish!).
The
families are all living in Government-funded housing for asylum
seekers. Once they are allowed to stay, however, they will have to move
out.
Technically
homeless, they will automatically become TOP PRIORITY for council
housing!
If the 70%
approval rate applies to all cases due to be completed over the next
four years, an incredible 315,000 will be allowed to stay – the
equivalent of a city the size of Cardiff.
So if you
are a young White couple expecting to get priority for a council house
then it looks like you can forget it.
The BPP
says “Stop all Asylum Seekers entering Britain and deport all
those already here!”
THE WAR ON TERRORISM IS
BOGUS – WE REVEAL THE REAL REASONS!
The 9/11
attacks gave the US
an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination
Massive attention has now
been given - and rightly so - to the reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq.
But far too little attention has focused on why the US
went to war, and that throws light on British motives too. The
conventional explanation is that after the Twin
Towers were hit,
retaliation against al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan was a natural
first step in launching a global war against terrorism. Then, because
Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US
and UK governments
to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war could be extended to Iraq
as well. However this theory does not fit all the facts. The truth may
be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a
blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana was drawn up for
Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary),
Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb Bush (George Bush's younger
brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document,
entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was written in September 2000
by the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century
(PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's
cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or
not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says "while the unresolved conflict
with Iraq
provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial
American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime
of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint
supports an earlier document attributed to Wolfowitz and Libby which
said the US
must "discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our
leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role". It
refers to key allies such as the UK as "the most effective
and efficient means of exercising American global leadership". It
describes peacekeeping missions as "demanding American political
leadership rather than that of the UN". It says "even should Saddam
pass from the scene", US bases in Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait
will remain permanently... as "Iran
may well prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq
has". It spotlights China
for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the presence of
American forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls
for the creation of "US
space forces" to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to
prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It
also hints that the US
may consider developing biological weapons "that can target specific
genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from the realm of
terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year
before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea,
Syria and Iran
as dangerous regimes, and says their existence justifies the creation
of a "worldwide command and control system". This is a blueprint for US
world domination. But before it is dismissed as an agenda for rightwing
fantasists, it is clear it provides a much better explanation of what
actually happened before, during and after 9/11 than the global war on
terrorism thesis. This can be seen in several ways.
First, it is clear the US
authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is
known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of
the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in
August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said
to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001).
The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11
hijackers, none of whom was arrested.
It had been known as
early as 1996 that there were plans to hit Washington targets with aeroplanes.
Then in 1999 a US
national intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide
bombers could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into
the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11
hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael
Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has
stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to
unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for
training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin
Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after
the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the
hijackers received training at secure US military installations
in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior
to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias
Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August
2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in
learning how to steer large airliners. When US
agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties,
they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to
the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned
down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui
might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers
(Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all
the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there
was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was
suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft
crashed in Pennsylvania
at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate
from the US Andrews air force base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had
hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept
procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000
and June 2001 the US
military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious
aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once
an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes
are sent up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply
the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the
evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately
stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The
former US
federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information
provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so
extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to
assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US
response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has ever been made
to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early October 2001, leaders
of Pakistan's two
Islamist parties negotiated Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan
to stand trial for 9/11. However, a US official said,
significantly, that "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a
premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance
Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of the joint chiefs of
staff, General Myers, went so far as to say that "the goal has never
been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002). The whistle blowing FBI
agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19 2002) that FBI
headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001 the US air force
complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in its sights as
many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had been unable to
attack because they did not receive permission quickly enough (Time
Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence, all of which
comes from sources already in the public domain, is compatible with the
idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence
does, however, fall into place when set against the PNAC blueprint.
From this it seems that the so-called "war on terrorism" is being used
largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US
strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony Blair himself hinted at
this when he said to the Commons liaison committee: "To be truthful
about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have
suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what
happened on September 11" (Times, July 17 2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was
so determined to obtain a rationale for an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he
asked the CIA to find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA
repeatedly came back empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).
Similar evidence exists
in regard to Afghanistan.
The BBC reported (September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign secretary, was told by
senior American officials at a meeting in Berlin
in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan
would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US government saw the Taliban regime as
a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the
construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian
Ocean. But, confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept
US conditions, the US representatives told them "either you accept our
offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs"
(Inter Press Service, November 15 2001).
Given this background, it
is not surprising that some have seen the US
failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for
attacking Afghanistan
in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance. There
is a possible precedent for this. The US
national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly this
approach in relation to Pearl
Harbour on
December 7 1941. Some advance warning of the attacks was received, but
the information never reached the US fleet. The ensuing
national outrage persuaded a reluctant US public to join the
Second World War. Similarly the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states
that the process of transforming the US
into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the
absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbour". The 9/11 attacks
allowed the US
to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC
agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to
implement.
The overriding motivation
for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are
beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies. By 2010 the
Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the world's oil production
and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining global oil export
capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is decreasing, continually
since the 1960s.
The conclusion of all
this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the
hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly
different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony,
built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required
to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior
participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British
foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective
British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole
depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical
change of course.
SUPPORT TESS CULNANE IN
HER BY ELECTION
On Thursday 13th
September, Tess Culnane, a supporter of the BPP and White Nationalism
and a much sought after speaker at meeting is standing in a by-election in the WHITEFOOT WARD CATFORD
LONDON SE6. Tess is standing as a NF
candidate and we ask all BPP members and supporters in London to make an
effort and support Tess’s election campaign.
Good luck Tess from the
BPP!
WOMEN’S DIVISION
ORGANISER APPOINTED
Teresa, a London BPP
member has taken over the reins of Organiser of the BPP Women’s
Division. If you are a women and wish to get active in White
Nationalism, Teresa can be contacted on 07806566089 or by e-mail at bpp.women@inbox.com
EAST RIDING DAY OF ACTION
The East Riding Area BPP
have organised a “Day of Action” in a town in the area. The date is
Saturday 1st September. If you want details then ring the
Hull BPP Organiser on 07874991146. You MUST identify yourself and
provide a home phone number he can ring you
back on. Make an effort and get along!
FIRST ANNUAL PARTY
CONGRESS
The first Annual Party
Congress of the British People’s Party will be held in West Yorkshire on Saturday 13th
October. Only paid up members can attend and BPP HQ needs to know in
advance if they are coming. More updates in future Nationalist Week’s.
If you are a BPP member and wish to submit
a Proposal then send it in to BPP, BM Box 5581, London WC1N 3XX
BPP REMEMBERANCE DAY – WEST YOKSHIRE, SUNDAY 11TH November
The British People’s
Party will be holing its own Remembrance Sunday this year. Last year we
joined with the EFP and held one in Darwen. This year we will hold our
own and this will be held every year at the same location in West Yorkshire. Set aside Sunday 11th
November. We will be meeting up at 11.30am for the ceremony which will
begin at 12.00noon.
NATIONALIST SECOND HAND
LITERATURE AND MERCHANDISE
We still have a huge
selection of one off collectables for serious students of White
Nationalism. Here’s just a sample of some of the great items – many
rare – you can still buy from our second hand section on the main BPP
website (Click here for listings)
Spearheads mostly at
£2 each – old editions never to be reprinted.
Heritage and Destiny –
many collectable back issues
Ulster material – books,
pamphlets and papers – many impossible to get now
Books, CD’s, DVD’s, NF
News, Bulletins and much much more.
Sales have slown recently
has we are NOT receiving new material. If you have duplicates or a
collection to dispose of then why not donate it to the BPP Second Hand
initiative? The collectors are out there and we are generating much
needed funds by helping fill their collections and helping their
research.
That does not mean we
have not plenty of stuff left – if you haven’t had a browse yet then
check out the listings here.
Happy hunting Nationalists students and collectors!
VANGUARD AUGUST EDITION OUT NOW!
A little late but the
latest issue of vanguard – our monthly magazine is now out. Send
£2.00 for a sample copy or better still get £24.00 in the
post to us and get a year (12 issues) subscription – and that includes
postage. View Vanguard here.
JOIN US!
Want to be in a Movement
that doesn’t put money before principles?
Are YOU
selling out by not standing up for EVERYTHING you believe in? If the
answer is YES then you must join the BPP – the honest and
uncompromising voice of REAL White Nationalism in Great Britain!
Send for an information pack now to: -
BPP, BM Box 5581, London WC1N 3XX
and visit our website at www.bpp.org.uk
for lots more information about the BPP. Alternatively e-mail your
address to bppadmin@aryanunity.org.
Nationalist
Week is published weekly as a free online newsletter for White
Nationalists – edited by Eddy Morrison, BPP National Inspector. NW can
be contacted at nationalist.week@ntlworld.com.
It may be distributed freely as long as no part is changed or altered
in any way. Copyright British People’s Party 2007.
To
subscribe just send an e-mail with “Subscribe” as the topic. To
unsubscribe, an e-mail with the topic “Unsubscribe” will take you off
our distribution list.
