NEWS & VIEWS with Srdja Trifkovic
Thursday, June 08, 2006

Nick Griffin’s Long March

The British National Party did very well at local elections in England on
May 4 and now holds 32 council seats across the country. In some
areas—notably in East London—it has replaced Labour as the dominant
political force among the ethnically-British working- and lower-middle

According to the Spectator (April 15), Labour voters are switching to the
BNP in such large numbers because they believe that only the BNP articulates
what they are thinking: “Today’s BNP possesses the local campaigning skills
and ability to make a personal connection with the voter that mainstream
parties have forgotten.” Margaret Hodge, the Labour Employment Minister,
told the press that 8 out of 10 white voters in her east London constituency
of Barking admitted being tempted to vote for the BNP.

Is Britain on the verge of a major realignment, and can the bipartisan mould
of establishmentarian politics be broken? Is the BNP becoming a respectable
and electable party? This was the first question we put to Nick Griffin, the
BNP Chairman, who gave us an exclusive interview during his recent visit to
the United States:

Nick Griffin: I became involved with the British National Party out of
desperation at the fact that no-one else was doing anything in Britain to
stand up for the survival of Western culture, Western values, British
independence in relation to the European Union, and a number of similar,
closely related issues. I was elected to lead the BNP in 1999 and we changed
it from being an unelectable joke into an organization with dozens of
elected local government officials. We’ve been described by a number of
hostile academics as having achieved more in terms of British nationalist
success in three or four years than all the previous incarnations of this
set of ideas since the 1970s. We are still a small organization, but with a
very large and growing resonance with the British public as a whole.

Of course “respectability” is in the eye of the beholder, or whoever is
publishing a newspaper, and we are not within the pale of the current
British establishment. It is not somewhere where I wish to be, because that
establishment has presided over the decline of Britain to a point where it
is being destroyed as a sovereign political entity. Its traditional culture
is being destroyed. The native peoples of Britain, according to our
government figures, are going to become a minority in their own homeland
somewhere between 2060 and the end of this century. The establishment which
has done that while being paid out of our taxes, and which is putting in
prison those who complain about it, is not an establishment by which I wish
to be considered respectable.

We are ethno-nationalists but we are not racist. In any event, “racism” has
become a Leftist cant term and now it can literally mean anything. Its real
meaning is the belief that one race is superior to others, as opposed to
being merely different from others. There are ethnic differences, there are
racial differences between various groups around the world, which is a fact
of life. If “racism” means anything, it means looking at those differences
and saying that one group is better than another and entitled to a higher
status than another. The ethno-nationalist position is to recognize that
ethnic and cultural differences exist, that the best way to preserve the
diversity of humanity and harmony within a community is to maintain as high
a correlation as possible between the boundaries of ethnic groups and the
boundaries of sovereign states. If you look around the world, the incidence
of violence and strife is invariably high when this correlation between
ethnic and national borders is low.

Q: In addition to your opposition to immigration, which is the defining
trait of the BNP with many voters, what other issues you regard as

Griffin: We are particularly concerned about the very rapidly growing Muslim
population in Britain, and the associated problem of the way in which our
establishment bends over backwards to favor anything Islamic over anything
Christian, but also over anything traditionally secular that Muslims decide
to find objectionable.

In addition, we are opposed to Britain’s membership of the European
super-state for a variety of constitutional, legal, political, economic, and
practical reasons. The European Union has its roots in a socialist and
materialist set of values that became dominant in Western Europe after the
Second World War. Everything that the European Union touches, it seeks to
homogenize. America is much bigger than Europe, but the process is vaguely
similar in that it eradicates regional peculiarities. In Europe we still
have huge differences in language and culture, ways of doing things, ways of
being, ways of belonging, and all that within very small distances. The
European Union, above all else, is about wiping out those differences. It is
clearly eradicating them at the political and economic level, but also at
the level of culture. It’s a force for making the entire continent of Europe
blend in the sameness that destroys all particularisms that make it

Q: Would this indicate that you see “global capitalism” as an enemy?

Griffin: We are not “anti-capitalist” in that we do not believe that the
state should be the dominant force in running the economy, but we believe
that the state has the right and also the duty to create the overall
framework within which private enterprise works. Unfettered global
capitalism breeds “globalism,” which is a problem on several levels for
people in any advanced Western society. It is in fact a threat to all the
local identities, cultures, institutions, religions… of all peoples all
across the world. We are witnessing a catastrophic wipe-out of human
diversity. There is no giant conspiracy behind this, it’s just the
relentless grinding on of a system that regards money as God. I support
diversity, but the notion of “multiculturalism” is a misunderstood version
of true diversity. Human cultural diversity, as well as biological
diversity, is better than the lack of diversity. Their local customs, their
language, their native particularisms, are things that root people in their
community and make them fully human. The importance of rootedness is
reflected in high suicide rates in large cities, compared to the local
communities in which people have a place and a sense of belonging.

Q: Would a BNP-governed Britain continue to be a key American ally?

Griffin: The respect for national sovereignty and ethnic diversity also
colors out attitude to the United States. The best of America—the Bill of
Rights, say—reflects not some abstract notion of “progress” but the gradual
trend, also present in the British political and constitutional history,
towards greater freedom. This became fossilized in Britain, but the
development has continued in the United States. Our common law system is
being massively over-ridden by the statute law, in a way that has not
happened in America as yet. On the other hand there is a less attractive,
globalizing side of America, the one that makes many nationalists,
especially in continental Europe, ambivalent about or even hostile to the
United States. But when you look at all of the constitutional and legal
values and institutions that we in Britain share with you, it is clear that
we cannot attack “America”—in the way a French nationalist might—without
effectively attacking ourselves.

So much for the ideological background to our attitude to America. At a
practical level, we want to get Britain out of the European Union. We have
to assume that Brussels will not be happy about our withdrawal—it could
create a dangerous precedent for them—and in that situation we’ll need a
political and economic counter-balance. While we don’t want to “cozy up” to
Washington or anyone else, in reality we’ll have to keep our options
open—and that demand excludes any knee-jerk hostility to the United States.
After all, if you are hostile to the U.S. on some doctrinaire grounds,
America might do a Serbia on you and bomb you flat. America has developed
this capability to convince herself of her right to go and interfere in the
affairs of other countries in various parts of the world pretty much at the
drop of the hat. She can do so either on the whim, or as the concerted
policy, of one or another of her constituent elites. For those reasons, and
in terms of regaining and maintaining as much British independence as is
practically possible in what is unavoidably to some extent a globalized
world, we are probably better off allowing U.S. bases in Britain to stay,
for as long as the United States agrees not to interfere in our political
affairs. We would not want the CIA or American multinational capitalism to
impose any Ukrainian-style “orange revolution” on us in Britain.

Q: But would it be fair to say that such policy considerations are
nevertheless not as central to your platform and to your party’s electoral
appeal as is the issue of immigration?

Griffin: How could it be otherwise when London has become “Londonistan”?
That’s partly a reflection of the way in which successive British
governments have refused to treat Islamic radicalism, and Islam in general,
as a threat to Western values. It I also a reflection of a huge scale of
Muslim immigration into Britain, which started decades ago but has been on
an upward slope ever since. Under the Blair regime we’ve seen a massive
increase in immigration, with the result that more than a half of all
children now born in the whole of the London area are of immigrant mothers.
A very significant number of those who do not fit into that category are the
children of parents who themselves are of immigrant stock and who are not
counted as “immigrants” because it was their parents and not they who came
to Britain, they were born there. Demographers who use the government’s own
statistics say that on current trends the native British—English, Scots,
Irish and Welsh, together with the limited numbers of fully assimilated
Central and East Europeans who came to Britain after the Second World War
and their descendants—will become a minority in their own country, perhaps
as soon as 2060. It’s a very serious problem, but it does not affect the
whole country uniformly. There are large areas of major cities with massive
concentrations of Third World populations that have transformed them beyond

The relatively new factor, which became apparent with the “Satanic Verses”
controversy with Salman Rushdie in the late 1980s, is the sheer confidence
of Islam and the Muslim population in Britain. By now they’ve come to
believe that not only Britain but the whole of Europe is going to become
what has been termed “Eurabia.” Their belief appears to be justified,
because on current trends the rise of Islamic power is happening even faster
than the demographic shift would have us believe. Because Islam is so
aggressively powerful and such an effective political force, even if it
commands the loyalty of only 15 or 20 percent of the overall population, it
will dominate everyone else—especially as the elites continue to uphold
socialist and liberal attitudes.

It dates back to the pie in the sky attitude of Socialist Prime Minister
Clement Attlee, who declared back in 1948—when the British Nationality Act
was announced—that wars are caused by clashes between different ethnic
groups and different races, so the best way to bring peace on Earth is to
integrate all of the races of mankind into one. This is an ideological
project, as opposed to the French notion of “Eurabia,” which was a
geopolitical project meant to offset the power and influence of the United
States. Both of them have had fatal consequences.

Q: You mention the Labor Party, but the Conservatives for the past 60 years
have also played a significant role in creating this problem, have they not?

Griffin: Yes, the Conservative Party has played a major role in a number of
the key issues that concern us. It was the Conservative Party that took us
into the European Union, and its leaders have been responsible for signing
the majority of the treaties that have sucked us further into it under the
long rule of Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s and her successor John Major
into the 1990s. There was a massive further wave of immigration, despite the
fact that they were elected on the implied promise to stop it. The
Conservatives have played their part in creating this problem and bear a
direct responsibility for its magnitude.

They are also partly responsible indirectly. By portraying themselves as a
party that isn’t really comfortable with mass immigration, with
multiculturalism, with the destruction of Western values, and by just
hinting that they are the party that might do something about it, they’ve
been able to persuade huge numbers of Britons who are very concerned about
these issues, that those concerns would be addressed if they vote
Conservative. In this way they’ve acted as a roadblock for any new political
force to come forth and say, “this is our issue, this is an issue that
really matters.” It should at least be debated, because we re talking about
changing the results of thousands of years of British history and converting
the country, culturally, ethnically, linguistically, into something
completely different. The fact that the Tory Party was there masquerading as
the party of patriotism and the maintenance of traditional values and
national identity merely acted as a major obstacle for anyone else concerned
about those issues.

In addition, corporate interests—traditionally influential within the
Conservative Party—are to blame for encouraging the trend that secures a
steady supply of cheap labor. It enabled them to keep profits relatively
high. Once the ruling elite decrees that the ordinary people of an advanced
Western nation will have to compete on a level playing field with the
workers from the Third World, the wage rates of that country will have to be
pushed downwards. A very effective way of achieving this is to bring in
continuing new waves of immigrant labor from much poorer countries. They are
happy for a while, up to a decade perhaps, to work for low rates. Once they
are settled down and unionized they’ll ask for more, but there’s always
another country out there from which fresh cheap laborers can be brought.

Q: The fact that the Conservative Party and the corporate capitalist “right”
act in unison with the multiculturalist “left” merits some attention. The
“Old Left” insisted on the economic basis of all social relations, but from
what you’ve said it transpires that today’s leftists will be happily pro-
“free market” for as long as that “free market” helps destroy the cultural
cohesiveness and ethnic coherence of the host-society?

Griffin: That’s a very important point. Big and medium-size businesses bring
in cheap labor for economic reasons, but the cultural climate makes them
able to do that. That climate is such that anyone saying, “this isn’t fair
on the white working class” is described as a racist. It is no accident that
Trotsky invented the very term “racism” as a way of demonizing what at that
time was, and still remains, an entirely normal manifestation of being
human, which is to have an instinctive preference for your own, and to want
to be with your own. The demonization of that totally natural human instinct
into what a Conservative Member of Parliament recently described as “the
worst thing a person can be”—a “racist”—is not incidental. The post-1968
Trotskyite generation started out mainly following Gramsci and his long
march through the institutions, particularly the media and the schools, and
the Frankfurt School of neo-Marxist political thought.

The result is that “political correctness” in Britain has acquired absurdly
surrealist character. The ’68 generation has used it to pursue their own
social and cultural revolution through the subversion of our institutions,
something the Communist Party had started doing right after the failure of
the 1926 General Strike. When the Comintern in Moscow analyzed after 1926
why there had been no revolution in Britain, they concluded that a great
deal of power was concentrated in the hands of a tiny number of people in
Oxford and Cambridge, in the Church of England and the media. They set about
staging a very clinical and cold-blooded infiltration of those institutions,
which was especially evident with Philby, Burgess, MacLean, et al. But when
the ’68 generation started its own long march through the institutions,
notably the teacher training colleges or the seminaries already dominated by
people who were either already Marxists or “personal” post-Marxists, they
encountered no resistance whatsoever. The people in charge of the
institutions were already largely on their side.

Q: Judging by last May’s local election results—notably in East London—your
own party’s long march, its attempt to become a major electable force, is
also in full swing?

Griffin: We’ve moved the party over the last few years from being a
political no-hoper into a position that in some areas has significant
support. If it has happened in some areas, it may happen in others with the
same or similar social, economic and ethnic mix. Considering that we are
still heavily demonized in the mass media, although somewhat less than
before, and badly under-funded compared with the other parties, that is
quite an achievement. There’s a lot of loose, “soft” sympathy for us out
there among the British people. It still takes some special circumstances
for that support to gel, but it can and will happen. The economic decline of
the working people of Britain—the working class as well as the middle class,
in other words, the taxpayers—will continue: they are under increasing
pressure from trends related to globalization. As the backlash builds up
there needs to be a party voicing that resistance, and we are the only one
able to do so. Immigration is continuing too.

Political correctness is beyond absurdity, with local councils imposing a
ban on “Easter Buns,” baked with their crosses of currants since time
immemorial, lest Muslims be offended. An elderly Christian was prosecuted
for carrying a placard saying “Homosexuality is a Sin” but he was never
tried because the stress and strain had killed him before the trial date was
set. Undercover police agents in several cities are spending Friday and
Saturday nights eavesdropping on customers in Indian restaurants for
privately murmured “racist” remarks about the management or service, so that
they can arrest the culprits on the spot—and that in some cities like
Leicester and Birmingham, which are torn apart by hard drugs and burglaries.
It is beyond satire.

Q: Why are the British people putting up with it?

Griffin: A combination of things. It is “British” to have a stiff upper lip,
not to complain, and to favor the underdog—and the “minorities” are always
presented by the media as the underdog. But of late we have a new factor,
fear. There’s far of losing one’s job for employees, and fear of being sued
for businesses. There’s a new “Religious Discrimination Act,” and its
immediate result is that thousands of British companies and businesses have
abandoned Christmas celebrations in any shape or form because they fear that
a non-Christian employee may sue them because the festivities made him feel
discriminated against. At the same time Halal meat is served on every ship
of the British Navy, every prison, and every inner-city school.

In 1968 the Labour government passed the first of the Race Relations Acts,
which made it illegal to allegedly “incite racial hatred.” It was supposed
to stop things against which there already had been laws on the statute
books, and quite properly so. Even without this new Act the English common
law could deal with people suggesting, say, violence against immigrants. It
was enacted from the beginning by the Labour Party as a means of stifling
any criticism of the multicultural, multi-racial experiment. It was
strengthened in 1976, again by the Labour Party. Under the initial version
they had to prove intent in order to prove that you’ve broken the law. They
therefore made the law harsher and introduced the clause whereby it was
sufficient to show that what you say or do or write is “likely to incite
racial hatred.” They moved the English law from the position where the
defendant had to be shown guilty beyond all reasonable doubt down to the
mere likelihood of his guilt, which is a huge shift. In 1986 the
Conservative Party—thank you very much, Margaret—brought in a tougher
version still. Finally the Blair government, with near-unanimous
Conservative support, acted in a Draconian manner and increased the penalty
for breaking this law from two years to seven years.

Q: This sounds like a new form of totalitarianism?

Griffin: And I have experienced the consequences. One of my Party colleagues
and I were the victims of an undercover operation by the BBC and a far-Left
campaigning magazine opposed to the BNP called Searchlight. They managed to
infiltrate one of their moles to become a local organizer of ours in
Yorkshire, who promoted an unpleasant, caricature version of the British
National Party. They then went to the BBC and offered to let them make a
secret film of what was going on at that local branch, with the view—they
hoped—of finding criminality. The real unpleasantness was yet to come, with
the broadening of the circle of people involved in this. You have a far-Left
organization going to the BBC, which jumped at the offer, and the BBC then
took their filmed material to the police—edited from hundreds and hundreds
of hours of footage shot by the agent-provocateur—and the police took the
tape to the Crown Prosecution Service, which decides if a case should be
taken to court. The Attorney General decided to go ahead and prosecute me
and another person. He is a personal friend of Prime Minister Tony Blair and
a well-known member of the Labour Party elite. But worse than that, the
Crown Prosecution Service in the few years before that had been funding this
Searchlight organization, with taxpayers’ money, to the tune of eight
thousand pounds a year, which for a small leftist organization is quite a
lot of money. So there was a complete circle of people. All of whom, every
inch of the way, were hostile to us and determined to try and catch us out.

What they actually got on me and my colleague were a number of speeches [see
here, here, and here], five in my case, of which they concluded that two may
possibly have broken the law. In one of them I was talking of the
unbelievable bias by the British mass media failing to report racially
motivated hate crimes against whites by non-whites. On the other hand, I
said, when a non-white is a victim of a racist murder, which is extremely
rare, it’s front-page headlines. When a white is a victim of a racist
murder, which happens far more often, it is invariably ignored by the
national media, and sometimes even by the local newspaper. So one of the two
speeches they focused on was about this bias. It wasn’t saying that
non-whites are “bad” or that they go around killing whites as a matter of
routine. It was saying that when a tiny minority of racist thugs from either
community do horrible things, the media have vastly different reactions
depending on who is the victim and who is the perpetrator. After thousands
of police hours and hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on building the
prosecution case connected to this speech, the jury found me “not guilty” by
the majority of ten to one (the twelfth juror was sick).

My colleague Mark, who had made a number of fairly blunt comments about the
“asylum-seekers”—but not different from the comments that appear in many
national tabloids—was found not guilty on that count by unanimous verdict.
Of course, this has only confirmed the view of those who wanted to send us
to jail that the jury system should be abolished and that decisions in cases
like this should be taken out of the hands of ordinary people and entrusted
to legal “experts,” i.e. brought into the realm of their patronage. Let me
add that getting rid of the jury system is one of the goals of the European
Union, which wants us to get rid of our Anglo-Saxon common law system and
replace it with the EU corpus juris system. For now the jury system is one
of the last bulwarks of the remnants of free speech in Britain.

On my second speech the jury couldn’t reach the verdict. It was about the
problems created by gangs of Muslim men, and the way in which they were
inspired by the ruthless hostility to unbelievers and the contempt for
women. The result, in a small Yorkshire town, was a rape epidemic: 60
gang-rapes by gangs of Muslim men—not just teenage boys—of young white
girls, some as young as 13.

I was addressing a meeting in this town and advocating a political answer to
this problem, by encouraging people to elect local councilors who would put
pressure on the police to do something about this. There was no vigilantism,
no hate, nothing that in my opinion broke the law. The law is bad anyway, it
is an infringement on free speech when there is no incitement to violence
involved, it is a bad law. Even that law was not broken, and 10 out of 11
jurors also thought so.

Nevertheless, the Crown prosecution Service immediately declared that it
would seek a new trial. Normally they take weeks to decide whether to
re-prosecute when a trial collapses because a jury can’t reach a verdict, in
this case it took them 30 seconds to decide. The told the judge so, but the
judge advised them to take a few days to think about whether doing so would
really be in the public interest. They came a week later and said they’d go
ahead nevertheless, and so I’ll have to endure a new trial in October.

By one of those strange quirks of fate, the very day after the trial
collapsed, there was a march through London by Islamic fundamentalists
against the Danish cartoons. They were carrying dozens upon dozens of
placards bearing slogans such as “Behead those who insult Islam” or “Europe:
9-11 is coming your way!” This was publicized in the British media, and the
contrast between them and my case was obvious. These people were not
arrested by the police, they were not even cautioned by the police, whereas
we’ve been through a grueling trial with the possibility of a prison
sentence at the end of it, simply for talking about some of the problems
caused by some aspects of mass immigration and saying that we need a
sensible political solution to those problems instead of brushing them under
the carpet. The contrast between what we were saying and what they were
saying, and especially the contrast in how the British establishment treated
us, has had an immense effect on the British public opinion.

By announcing their intention to re-prosecute, the Crown Prosecution Service
made the whole issue sub judice, which meant that I was not able to make
public comments about the case and generate publicity that would have been
politically disastrous for them. I was not able to go ahead with a whole
series of pre-arranged media interviews with major outlets. It doesn’t stop
me talking about the principles, of course, but it’s enough to allow their
legal department to say to their people it’s better to be safe than sorry.
These people are in the grip of a neo-religious cult of “multiculturalism”
that obsesses them. They will accept no criticism of their cult. They cannot
see any validity in any such criticism and they seek to criminalize any such
attempt. We are not dealing with rational people running a government
department any more.

Our society is being transformed and people do hate it. There’s an immense
undercurrent of discontent and anger, but fear has an effect on people, it
makes them keep their mouth shut. You literally see it, in a pub or a
workplace. If they want to make a comment critical of some aspect of
multiculturalism, they literally look over their shoulders to make sure than
no unfriendly ears can hear what they will say and drag them to court, or
get them fired. To top it all, there’s a very real physical fear that if you
say something that some Muslims do not like, they will kill you. On one
lever you had Theo van Gough butchered in the street in broad daylight, and
at a different level in Britain, in suburb after suburb and a small town
after small town, you have people who are afraid that if they say or do
something their Muslim neighbors do not appreciate, those same neighbors
will come round with baseball bats and beat them up. It happens, and when it
happens the police are sufficiently unconcerned to make the far genuine for
some millions of people. You put all these factors together, and the wise
thing to do if you are a Briton is to keep your mouth shut until you can

Q: But the problem is not confined to Britain, is it? It is prevalent in all
Western countries, even so culturally and historically distinct as
Spain—where they want to remove the statue of St. James of Campostella, the
“Moor Slayer,” lest some Muslims feel offended—and in Scandinavia, where
even feminist activists are reluctant to speak out against the rape epidemic
of Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish women by Muslim immigrants…

Griffin: Despite all the differences in the European culture, there are
common themes and common threads. There’s enough common cultural DNA to make
us susceptible to the same viruses. We all have elites which are able to do
the bidding of tiny interest groups and their demands for special “rights”
and entitlements, because there’s nothing to push back the other way. We
have elites which have come to give their loyalty to their own class with
its peculiar ideology, rather than their own people, perhaps a little more
so in northern Europe—in Scandinavia, Benelux, and Britain—than in Italy and
Spain, although mass immigration is rapidly changing those countries too.

All over Europe the elites don’t have to live with the consequences of their
supposedly “virtuous” policies, in the housing estates and local schools and
health centers. It’s ordinary people with very little voice in the society
that suffer the consequences. It reflects a very ugly strand in the elite
mindset. The holier-than thou, welfarist elite needs a permanently
unhealthy, unstable society. The more discord, unhappiness, poverty and
helplessness there is in the society, the more power the elite will have.
The more people you have who need help, the more fractured the society
becomes, and the elite acquires more power and prestige, closing the circle;
the larger the empire they build, the more civil servants they’ll have under
them, and the larger their pension. The worse it gets, the more tendency
there is to make it even worse.

Q: It appears that the electoral support for the BNP comes primarily from
the working and lower-middle class that was supposed to have been influenced
by the Marxist or neo-Marxist ideology of the “Old Labour”—and yet they seem
to have preserved the ability to maintain their collective memories, their
identity and culture, far better than the Salariat?

Griffin: I don’t think that’s surprising. The reason that there existed an
Old Labour solidarity was that these people came from a class that had
suffered very grave economic injustice, had been downtrodden, and had
reacted against it. Part of the reaction against it was reflected in the
early days of the Labour Party, when it was built not on Marxism but on
different strands of dissident Protestantism, Methodism in particular. There
was a religious and moral basis to their belief that something had to be
done by and for the community, instead of individuals. The experience of
living at the bottom of the heap in a capitalist society, and on top of that
the religious and moral reaction to the injustice, gave these people more
consciousness, more solidarity, and more of a sense of identity. All of that
has been hit hardest by the mass immigration into those areas, and hence
their reaction against it. One of the factors is that the salaried classes,
if their neighborhood starts to become something other than what it was when
they first decided to move there, can afford to move; the working class
cannot move, they cannot get out. So if they don’t like it, instead of
running, some of them at least will be inclined to stand and fight

Dr. S. Trifkovic, Foreign Affairs Editor
CHRONICLES, 928 N Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103, USA
voice (815) 964-5054 fax (815) 964-9403 cell (312) 375-4044

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Home is just a click away.  Make Yahoo! your home page now.

Group Moderator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
page at
for more informations about current situation in Serbia 
Slusajte GLAS SORABIJE nas talk internet-radio (Serbian Only)
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Одговори путем е-поште