Category: British Politics

The BNP Reform Group

The website:

http://bnpreform.com/

The video :

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, August 20, 2010 at 11:51 PM in British Politics
Comments (21) | Tell-a-Friend

Richard Barnbrook resigns party whip in the Greater London Authority

Richard Barnbrook has announced on his blog that he has resigned the BNP whip in the GLA because of the persistent allegations of financial impropriety at the top of the party:

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

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

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

I am not resigning my British National Party membership.

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

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

Barnbrook’s gesture followed hard on the heels of another elected BNP councillor, Graham Partner, resigning the whip to sit as an independent on Leicestershire County Council and for North West Leicestershire District Council.  It appears that there is a continuing impetus for reform inside and outside the party.  This has to be allowed to run its course.  If it does not produce change ... if Griffin and his aids retain their grip on the party, then minds will turn to the necessity of establishing an alternative party.

The next few months are going to be critical for nationalism in this country.

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, August 14, 2010 at 12:16 AM in British Politics
Comments (10) | Tell-a-Friend

“Can’t have a law on the presumption that one particular ethnic group is more violent than another”

That is the opinion of Ken Livingstone commenting on the police check forms issued to concert givers.

And why can’t we have a law based on such a presumption? Perhaps because the presumption is wrong or it’s inadequately supported?

Nope, its because “it’s just wrong”.

If Red Ken gets back, you can look forward to police wasting time monitoring the Proms for crowd violence, and letting the “youths” at rap concerts commit crimes against person and property express themselves. ‘Cos we can’t make law based on evil, racist presumptions, whether these are accurate or not. Some facts are just EVIL.

Posted by Alex Zeka on Thursday, August 12, 2010 at 02:12 PM in British Politics
Comments (7) | Tell-a-Friend

Lee John Barnes pulls the ripcord

t’internet is abuzz with the latest sensation. Lee John Barnes has resigned his position as Legal Advisor to the BNP as well as, it seems, turning in his party card. Some say he was expelled – the official story is that Lee was sacked because of his call for nationalists to get behind the English Defence League in advance of their Big Push over the top into enemy territory later in the month – while Lee himself insists that he jumped and was not pushed, and that the primary motivation for his departure is his (somewhat belated and until hitherto well-concealed) displeasure at the direction the party has been travelling under the ‘Griffin-Dowson’ axis.

It doesn’t seem all that long ago that I was taken to task by Lee for having the temerity to suggest that, in light of its most recent electoral outings, the BNP might be said to be underperforming, and that its current leadership had failed to take proper advantage of its unique franchise as the only credible voice for the indigenous British folk. For my troubles, Lee felt compelled to tar me as a coward, a pseudo-nationalist, gutless slime and as much the enemy as the enemy, on account of my ‘cowardice, cant and hypocrisy.’

And yet, Lee himself appears to be making many of the same points and, indeed, pointed criticisms of the party leadership that I (and others) have been making for quite some time, even as we, like him, refrained from unhelpful commentary during the run-up to the recent elections.

But that is all of historical interest only, and what I feel certain many nationalists will be anxious to discuss is: where do we go from here? Does the BNP as such have a future, or is the time nigh for a new grouping to emerge, under a new leader with perhaps less baggage and more charisma?

I’m sure that Lee John Barnes’s thoughts on the matter would be welcomed here; perhaps GW could initiate a contact.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wednesday, August 11, 2010 at 06:07 AM in British Politics
Comments (60) | Tell-a-Friend

Taliban sex fanaticism - in Afghanistan and in Birmingham alike

The complete worthlessness of the nation-building program in Afghanistan was recently again made clear by this:

The Afghan woman publicly executed by Taliban militants for alleged adultery was pregnant, it emerged today.

The victim, 48-year-old Bibi Sanubar, was flogged up to 200 times before being shot on Sunday - in the head and chest - in the remote Qades district. Her alleged lover managed to escape.

Abdul Jabbar Khan, security chief in the Taliban-controlled area, said the killing was ordered after the woman allegedly killed her newborn child to conceal illicit sex

However much you might think that Brits dying to make life safe for some sort of Afghani Rainbow Coalition of feminists, gays, etc, etc. is a good idea, it should be completely clear by now that it’s impossible. The problem is not that Afghani people have their own desires frustrated by a dictatorial Taliban. The problem is that the Afghani people ARE the Taliban. They don’t like gays, they don’t like feminists, they don’t like religious apostates - and they are very willing to eradicate these objects of hate. They like rulers who share these dislikes, such as their former and current Taliban warlords.

These same patterns can be observed in Iraq, in Pakistan, in fact wherever the desires of mass Muslims have been liberated from strongman rulers and made into law.

These same patterns also hold when the co-ethnics of these liberated peoples move to the West. Britain is at the moment observing the fallout from a Pakistani arranged marriage gone wrong. How many such ticking time-bombs are ticking away? 3,000? What percentage of these end in a drive-by shooting makes for an acceptable total for violence on British soil?

The extraordinary liberal delusion is that at some point it will be possible to assimilate MEs and subcons to Western norms. Sure, it hasn’t happened yet, but they can always keep trying. The race realist answer is that genotype => phenotype. It has predictive power, and centrist apolitical Brits, as honour killings become more and more prevalent not just halfway across the world, but in towns and on roads much like the ones on which they live, will move towards it. Cant is for the good times, predictive power is for when it matters.

Posted by Alex Zeka on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 at 04:57 PM in British Politics,  Islam & Islamification
Comments (9) | Tell-a-Friend

The UK Film Council and its paper tigerhood

The UK Film Council is a mostly worthless entity, that exists mainly to shovel taxpayer money (without any real oversight by elected politicians) towards “transgressive”, “edgy” endlessly PC pap that is way too PC and too much pap to make a profit from actual audiences. The Cameron government has scrapped it, on the basis that in the Age of Austerity transgressives can transgress on their own account. This has led to some prize gush from the Guardian, a paper reliant on the cultural compliance bureaucracy for its survival.

Does this matter to the government? Does it hell! The Guardian is lining up “transgressive” luvie after luvie to defend why taxpayer money simply must be channeled to sustaining their tastes? I can see the kitchen conversation:

Mrs. Average: Honey, did you hear they’re getting rid of the Film Council?

Mr. Average: That’s horrible! I have the paper here with the President of the Council and its biggest beneficiaries saying how ordinary people have no taste, and need government to subsidize movies they don’t like.

Mrs. Average: Oh yes, I completely agree, we have no taste whatsoever. If McSod says he needs our money to make his latest moving biopic about how straight white people made his life hell when he was growing up, then that settles it.

What this illustrates is that the PC media actually has relatively little power when faced with a government that just doesn’t care. It can’t defend the attitude-shaping bureaucracy simply because it means proving to people that they themselves have the wrong attitudes. Not an easy sell.

What if the Age of Austerity was to also take its axe to the race attitude-shaping bureaucracy? I would suggest that the votaries of these would not be able to defend their positions to the public. You can only practice attitude-shaping on a people with their consent if they aren’t particularly aware that this is happening. It is impossible to convince people that their current values, tastes and beliefs are so defective that they need to be professionally reshaped.

So, leaving outside speculation about their committed PC-ness, why doesn’t the Cameron government do this? In essence, any right-wing party has two choices:

1. Do popular but un-pc things (e.g. cutting the attitude-shaping bureaucracy, allowing un-pc speech, reducing immigration). This gives the party votes, but leads to the Guardian and other institutions and people professionally reliant on PC excommunicating the right-wing party from the human race. Result: Government power, but no Islington dinner parties.

2. Don’t do these things. You give people no real reason to vote for you, but McSod is happy. Result: Only occasional government power, but plenty of Islington dinner parties.

I would suggest that many Tories prefer 2. to 1. They aren’t, ironically, power-hungry enough. Such an analysis suggests that a differently-manned Tory party could do these un-pc things. This wouldn’t have to be a WN Tory party, only one dominated by people with social connections primarily outside the arts world and the attitude-shaping bureaucracy (which meld over into each other). Then McSod and his cheerleaders in the Guardian could take a hike.

Posted by Alex Zeka on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 at 04:09 PM in British Politics
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend

Early thoughts about nationalism in the coalition age

The scale of the change to British politics effected by the ejection from office of the Labour Party is now unfolding.  I am not just talking about the dawn of the pragmatic centre or the imminent demise of “the database state”, or any of the policy outcomes and accommodations that so preoccupy the media, welcome though some of these are.  We are nationalists and we have a higher purpose to which we are faithful, and it is in relation to this that the historical moment has meaning for us.

What is that meaning?  Well, there are plainly two emergent factors that pose challenges to the development of nationalist politics.  The first of those is the decline of cutting-edge race politics which has been such a feature of discourse over the last thirteen years.  Is it too early to conclude that such a decline is in train?  I don’t think so.  As a dedicated follower of political fashions on the liberal-left, and a CiF junkie, I am already suffering withdrawal systems from the paucity of anti-English racism on display at the aforementioned temple of correctness.  Amid the after-shocks of rejection and executive powerlessness, I can feel an inchoate horror among the politically fashionable that fashion no longer affords them the opportunity to visit their hate on the white of skin.  They know they have to recoup and re-invent themselves to survive, and the instinct for both will, among leftists, unfailingly involve an internalisation of the kind of Pacman activity that these creatures ordinarily project upon us. They are going to devour the old, fearful egalitarian aggressivity and regurgitate it as something else.  It is too early to say what.  A solidifying of ground gained, perhaps, in preparation for an anticipated new assault.  But nothing along those lines can be accomplished now, when all the talk is inevitably of “reconnecting” and “learning from the mistakes of the past.”

The Labour Party will likely be out of power for at least eight years.  Its critics repeatedly observed that the rise of the BNP was an inevitable consequence of government policy.  A symbiotic relationship existed, and now the balance has been disturbed in a major way.  Race politics is going to have to do a lot of adjusting to the new centrist reality.  The question is, will nationalism adjust also.  Or will it continue to lazily rely on the disaffection of the traditionally Labour-voting white working-class … a disaffection which Labour will certainly now endeavour to correct?

If the uncertainties in this scenario are too numerous for us to make any firm conclusions at this early stage, uncertainty is no less a factor in and around the BNP following the disappointments of election night.  There have been the regulation happy noises about increasing vote share and saving deposits, and the usual sage advice about setbacks along the road.  But none of that can soften the impact of the setbacks in Barking and Stoke at both national and local level.  They have punctured the illusion that, under Nick Griffin, the party is on an irresistible upward swing.  The PR debacles in the run-up to the election and the rumours about the role of Jim Dowson have “last straw” written all over them.  A future no more certain than that of the party’s symbiotic twin is beckoning, with the exception that the Labour Party has an efficient mechanism for replacing its leader.

These are not the good times nationalists expected at this point in the struggle to save the English people.  The change in the political game has caught them out.  The nature of the party is being tested and if it turns out, under Griffin and Dowson, to be something other than what the members always thought it was, it will die.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, May 21, 2010 at 01:01 AM in British Politics
Comments (68) | Tell-a-Friend

British General Election 2010

So we have arrived at the end of the campaign road.  Judging from the final round of opinion polls, the Conservatives may win sufficient seats to govern with Unionist help.  If so, there will be no electoral reform to genscherise British politics and install the Liberal Democrats permanently in government - or to help the minor parties achieve a presence at Westminster.

For one minor party, the campaign began with the rebellion of the jilted Alby Walker in Stoke Central and progressed via the dark affair of Mark Collett’s arrest, concluding with a red-misting Bob Bailey doing a Prescott in Romford and the party’s website manager, Simon Bennett, resigning and briefly taking the site off-line.  His motive may be, as he himself states on the BNP section of British Democracy Forums, “several botched attempts” by “Nick’s industry experts” to steal his “legally owned designs and work”, or it may be his exposure to prosecution over the Marmite debacle.

The preponderant majority of nationalists avert their eyes from this endless train wreck.  They think instead about the cause, believe in it, work for it, fund it.  Most are huge and uncritical fans of Nick Griffin.  But the truth is that for those who aren’t, and who put their loyalty to nation and nationalism before electoral progress, convincing members and even prospective members to withhold subscriptions and donations long enough to break the power of the Griffin clique is logistically difficult to impossible.  The protesters do have a powerful case, but no power at all to influence anybody.

I will simply say what I have said before.  To stand any prospect of mounting a serious political challenge to the Establishment, the party has to be run by educated, intelligently radical, visionary and articulate people who look, sound and behave like national leaders.  The boots and fists Nazoid skinheadery of the past had to go, and so does the current fascination with low-brow PR disasters.  But movement in that direction may be impossible if, as friends and enemies of British nationalism claim, the BNP has effectively become the property of this fellow, Jim Dowson.  A lot of people would like to know what the real situation is and why this man is now so powerful in the party.

We all hope for the sake of our people that the results in Barking and Stoke Central surpass expectations, and produce BNP MPs.  We hope the party’s performance in all the other 337 constituencies where it is putting up a candidate, and in the tranche of council elections, shows beyond any doubt that history is with us, and we are going to win.  But can we, in all honesty, with a party like this?

We will get the first indications of the party’s electoral progress quite quickly, because it is putting up candidates in all the seats which traditionally declare early.  I’ll blog on this thread as results are announced.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 11:55 PM in British Politics
Comments (296) | Tell-a-Friend

Political bankruptcy as the harbinger of fascism

Here’s a little bit of Conservative Party election propaganda ... lavishly done, as one would expect when they don’t have to put a penny into fighting the marginals.  But it demonstrates how little Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition can actually say in its mock arraignment of the Prime Minister.  Or how little are the things it has to say in comparison to the real political crimes taking place in our age.  So there is:

1. No charge of treason relating to the “social objectives” which animated Tony Blair, who is not a Jew, Jack Straw, Barbara Roche and Jonathan Portes to maximise race-replacement immigration in 2000 (mind you, there was no mention of these objectives in the 2001 election manifesto, which merely logged a need for immigration rules to reflect skills shortages).

2. No charge of criminal deception for the 2005 election manifesto promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution.

3. No charge of conspiracy to commit treason for taking the country into a war in Iraq on falsehoods.

4. No charge of criminal deception for Dr John Reid’s “hope” that British forces would be in and out of Helmand within three years without a shot being fired.

5. No charge of criminal deception for the Home office estimate prior to May 2004 that between 5,000 and 13,000 migrant workers would arrive per annum from the new accession countries.

6. No charge of treason for political loyalty to the money power (just a mention of “doubling the national debt") and to organised Jewry (no mention at all, naturally).

7. No charge of being in breach of the Race Relations Act for considering the white working class “bigoted” - for confirmation of which the Conservatives can hardly have needed Gordon Brown’s gaffe in Rochdale.

And so on.

Well, it’s all part of the Inevitable.  Domestic politics conducted between three parties of neoliberalism + neo-Marxism, equally for the raising up of the international class and, therefore, equally for the dissolution of old Europe, cannot have much to say beyond the dramatisation of tax and spend.  We have reached the stage where political substance automatically implies nationalism.  I wonder, though, if the miniaturisation of people’s political lives might pressage a neo-fascist solution in the same way that Weimar + Versailles pressaged the well-known precedent.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, May 3, 2010 at 11:50 PM in British Politics
Comments (29) | Tell-a-Friend

Griffin, Brown and the sainted Mrs Duffy

With the Labour-pushing press dragged reluctantly behind, after a fashion, the whole of the British media are feasting on the red-hot certain defining moment of Election 2010.  By the unparticular nature of his conversation in the back of that car, the Prime Minister has let us know that not just him or even those around him but the Labour party and the wider left considers the indigenous British to be bigots.  And it is a settled decision.  Even the mildest criticism of immigration, uttered by a 66-year old lady and lifelong Labour supporter, is morally reprehensible and inadmissable, and exemplifies yet again why diversity is the only solution to racism.  There is no other way.  Apparently.

In its potential to uncover an unpalatable truth about the state of the body politic this affair, already dubbed Bigotgate, is a companion piece to the MP’s expenses scandal.  Now we know out of their own mouths that our elected representatives are established in opposition to us, their electorate, their own people, on two fronts.  Out of sheer cynicism they are exploiting us financially, and out of pure hostility they are warring against us ideologically.  They do not represent us in any way.

That is the message the BNP needs to force ever deeper into the public consciousness.  This morning the party responded to Bigotgate with the announcement of a last-minute newspaper advertising campaign in Barking and Dagenham, Leicestershire, Stoke-on-Trent, Manchester and Barnsley.  At present the focus is woolly. Griffin said:

“For Mr Brown to have then dismissed her as a bigot just because she asked him about immigration shows the utter contempt with which the Labour Party regards even their own voters,” he said.

“The poor woman did not use any epithets and simply asked why he was not doing anything about immigration. There was no justification at all to dismiss her in the derogative way he did. “Furthermore, the admission that all of Mr Brown’s interactions are stage managed explains at last why his previous public appearances are almost always with children and not adults.

“Children cannot ask the sort of pointed questions which adults can, and when Mr Brown was presented with an unscripted questioner, he immediately revealed his true agenda,” Mr Griffin said.

“Furthermore, the fact that Mr Brown used the adjective ‘old’ to describe the voter, shows that there is a clear disregard for people who have spent a lifetime voting Labour,” Mr Griffin continued. “This puts the deaths of an estimated 40,000 pensioners from fuel poverty over the past winter into perspective. Clearly these people do not matter anymore to the Labour Party.

First, Brown did not use the word “old”, and that must not find its way into the forthcoming run of advertisements.  Here is what was said on the street:

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, April 29, 2010 at 03:36 PM in British Politics
Comments (37) | Tell-a-Friend

The attack has begun

Just as we saw in the run up to last May’s European Parliament elections, the media is cranking up its BNP “coverage”.  Yesterday we were treated to a nearly balanced opener from the Sunday Times.  Today we were given articles in the Telegraph here and, pathetically, here, in the Mail here and, obliquely, in the Independent here.

I suspect that the attack will take on a different, more focussed form this time.  The BNP are standing a record 326 candidates.  But that’s little more than half the constituencies throughout the country, and the constituencies where the party has a chance of doing well are limited to three or four, all with a current big Labour majority.  The two most realistic chances are Barking and Dagenham, where Richard Barnbrook “agreed” to stand aside for Nick Griffin, and Stoke Central, where Alby Walker did not agree to stand aside for Simon Darby (but had to anyway).  Emma Colgate could poll respectably in Thurrock, notwithstanding the fact that nobody is totally sure whether she is in or out of the party following the last (and let us hope it is the last) Collett affair.  Roger Roberts may do likewise in Dewsbury.

As for the rest, including the council elections on the same day, the objective has to be to show a presence, to increase support (in terms of second and third places where fourths and fifths were had previously), to save deposits, and to build, build, build.  To that end, it is a little strange that the party is campaigning on three principal issues: withdrawal from Afghanistan, a halt to the immigration invasion, and an end to the ‘Global Warming’ conspiracy.  The voting public’s first concern is for the economy and jobs.  But the BNP seems not to understand how to address that (bringing some economic literacy on-board would seem a good start).  Also high on the list of concerns is the related issue of the unaccountability of Westminster and corruption of the political class.  But, again, it is not a major issue in party thinking.

Personally, I would like to see them campaign hard for freedom of speech and association, and an end to cultural warfare in public life, most especially in education (it will have to do so anyway if it wants to attract support from the Conservative/UKIP voting middle-classes).  All told, there is an extraordinary opportunity for the party to sculpt a powerful, attractive and wholly unique ideological niche for itself, and one that the left cannot reply to with the usual smears.

As Simon Heffer noted last week of the mainstream parties:

the choice of voting for staying in Europe or staying in Europe, massive immigration or massive immigration, an enormous and unnecessary public sector or an enormous and unnecessary public sector and more mind-numbing political correctness or more mind-numbing political correctness.

Heffer is a right-wing Tory, and is appealing for a right-wing Tory platform.  But his point holds true for the BNP as well.  Does anyone feel that it is responding appropriately?

Perhaps part of the problem is that, regardless of what they do, growth in support for the party is “inevitable”.  In 2005 it achieved 0.7% of the vote, totalling 192,746 votes, a performance which was three times better than in 2001.  General elections tend to see the votes of minor parties squeezed.  But a performance that is very far adrift of the 940,000 votes in May’s Europeans, or around 3.5% of the 2005 total of 27,110,727, will be taken as a disappointment in the circumstances.

Of course, the media may have something to say about that as well.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, April 12, 2010 at 11:02 PM in British Politics
Comments (41) | Tell-a-Friend

Wadham and the EHRC win.  The existential will go ballistic.

The BBC is reporting on its ticker service that Judge Paul Collins, sitting in the Central London County Court, has ruled that the BNP’s new membership rules are “likely to discriminate”.  The basis for this ruling appears to be that prospective members sign up to principles including a duty to oppose the promotion of any form of “integration or assimilation” that impacted on the “indigenous British”, and to support the “maintenance and existence of the unity and integrity of the indigenous British”.

If this is the case, we have indeed arrived at the existential moment I described in my last blog on the party‘s legal travails:

We have reached a defining moment in the long process of racial destruction which began with the Atlee government turning its back on the people’s rights and instincts in 1948. The BNP has stripped away everything but the one essential principle that it must fight, and fight, and fight. The Establishment has, in attempting to force the discourse of the BNP to match its own, stripped away everything but the one essential principle that the native British must die as native Britons. This is no longer about “fascism” or “the hard right” or even “hate”. It is existential …

We need more information to come out before a proper assessment of the scale of the damage can be made.  But it looks like the BNP will now have to lodge an appeal against the ruling in order to be able to contest the forthcoming General Election.

Downstream from this ruling is the prospect that anti-discrimination law will be clarified and, possible then, hate speech law will be extended to make the expression of nationalist sentiment illegal too.  This, in my view, is the logical end-game.  The British government has already “affirmed” at the UN and in the EU that there is no such thing as an indigenous Briton.  These people really do mean to destroy us.

The consequences of such a legal trajectory would be that thousands of good men and women will be imprisoned and have their lives destroyed because they love their people and they love justice and freedom too much to remain silent, and unknown numbers of others will quickly come to see violence as the only path to our survival still open.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, March 12, 2010 at 02:47 PM in British Politics
Comments (28) | Tell-a-Friend

Cameron on Griffin and the MultiCult

David Cameron gave a speech sans notes to his party’s Spring Conference today (ie, it was more sincere than usual).  It included a jaw-dropping three-minute passage that makes very satisfying listening for every BNP member.  His theme was “winning it for Britain”.  I won’t write anymore.  Just listen for yourself - in particular for the loudest cheer.

Hat tip to Simon Darby

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, February 28, 2010 at 10:57 PM in British Politics
Comments (68) | Tell-a-Friend

Pay-Back for the BNP

by Rod Cameron

New Labour’s decision to put the EHRC dog onto the BNP has cost New Labour dearly. Not only has New Labour disowned its Working Class roots, but also it has handed over on a silver plate the most precious part of its history, its formative years, to the BNP. History of a century and more ago has repeated. The danger inherent to becoming part of the Establishment is to forget your forebears and their struggles, and then you surrender your political soul. I offer you this analogy.

THE BRITISH LABOUR MOVEMENT AND THE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY

The decision by Nick Griffin to change the constitution of the BNP to allow blacks and Asians to join, following pressure from the EHRC, should be received by the BNP with a certain sanguinity. Knowledge of the rise of the British Labour Movement will result in a wry acceptance that this is “par for the course”. Not for the first time social realities are being ignored and Establishmentarian forces are arrayed against the political newcomer.

The Social Reality

Trade unionism and opposition to immigration were preservationist/survivalist reactions to social realities. The Labour Movement was motivated by the need for working-class preservation. The BNP arises from the desire for ethnic self-preservation.

Establishmentarian Reactions

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, February 27, 2010 at 10:29 AM in British Politics
Comments (2) | Tell-a-Friend

Who needs the BNP?

by Alexander Baron

Earlier this month, the British National Party voted to accept non-white members. This was done, ostensibly, under pressure from the grandly styled Equality And Human Rights Commission, a body that has in the past sought and obtained prosecutions for the publication of racist cartoons and poked its proboscis into every aspect of traditional British life attempting to mould it to the race-mixers’ agenda. The far right has of course been the target of the liberal self-styled ruling élite for decades, and in spite of the left’s vacuous and increasingly tiresome charges of the establishment’s racism, there has been a de facto conspiracy to suppress all (white) racial-nationalist movements and parties in both the media and other circles. The contrived prosecutions and convictions of John Tyndall, Nick Griffin, the gullible but sorely misguided Lady Birdwood, and many others, is proof positive of that. Now though that one albeit fringe party has enjoyed a modicum of success, a new tactic has been devised. Suddenly, it has been discovered that the BNP’s constitution is illegal because it discriminates against non-whites, and the BNP has thrown in the towel without so much as a whimper. But does it matter?

There have been racial-nationalist movements in Britain for a century or more; an organisation called the British National Party was formed by a wholesale fish merchant named Edward Godfrey of Hayes, Middlesex (where I grew up incidentally) during the Second World War, but the BNP as it exists today is a child of the National Front. The Front was founded in 1967 by that greatest of British patriots A.K. Chesterton, who had previously founded the League Of Empire Loyalists. Three years later, he was forced out, the Party soon falling under the control of John Tyndall and Martin Webster. In 1980, Tyndall made a bold decision, resigning from the organisation and forming the New National Front. The basis for this was – he claimed – a homosexual network that was operating inside the organisation. In fact, this “network” consisted principally if not entirely of Martin Webster, whose homosexuality could not have been unknown to Tyndall but had been tolerated by him and other senior members because of his undoubted abilities.

The real reason for the split was that the authoritarian Tyndall wanted more or less total control over what had always been a thoroughly democratic organisation – notwithstanding the oft’ repeated and tiresome “Nazi” epithet. Tyndall’s new party was the most successful of the various NF splinter groups, and shortly changed its name to the British National Party, which it remains today under the leadership of Nick Griffin.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Thursday, February 18, 2010 at 01:08 PM in British Politics
Comments (23) | Tell-a-Friend

The BNP, the EHRC, and revealing a historical moment

The judge also accepted ‘powerful submissions’ from the Commission that the BNP’s proposed new constitution is likely to remain unlawful. We will be back in court in March where we hope to conclude this matter by ensuring that whatever constitution the BNP adopts does not break discrimination laws.

John Wadham, EHRC, quoted in a Commission press release following the BNP’s return to the county court today.

The two parts of this statement contain the entire purpose of the EHRC in its action against the BNP.  The first part is to make the party non-racial in its politics.  The second is to render it financially incapable of campaigning in the (May 6th) General Election.

It is part one - the exclusion of all reference to the native British in the party constitution - that is of significance, and more for what it reveals about the historical moment than any political or legal aspects.  In fact, I would go further and say that unless the EHRC pushes its luck to the point of taking out a prosecution against one of the BNP’s leaders for publicly speaking of Britain’s native peoples, none of the legal or political consequences of today’s ruling will do any real, lasting damage.  Instead, the party will simply hold the two AGMs required of it and the voting membership will come to the view that, to quote Lee Barnes:

The sole aim of us participating in the political process is to take power.

Amen to that.  Everything is now clarified.  We have reached a defining moment in the long process of racial destruction which began with the Atlee government turning its back on the people’s rights and instincts in 1948.  The BNP has stripped away everything but the one essential principle that it must fight, and fight, and fight.  The Establishment has, in attempting to force the discourse of the BNP to match its own, stripped away everything but the one essential principle that the native British must die as native Britons.  This is no longer about “fascism” or “the hard right” or even “hate”.  It is existential, and well enough put by a commenter to the BNP’s website named Rijker:

This is no longer your country.
You cannot have a culture of your own.
You can not represent yourselves in Parliament.
You are to be persecuted until you no longer exist.

Out of this moment will quickly emerge a new clarity and urgency in racialist discourse, and not the death of racialist discourse the EHRC would wish.  What would have been seen by the public as the most extreme and contentious interpretation of “immigration” - that of a designed genocide by population transfer - will slowly but surely become the accepted version of events.  And when that happens, a general awakening is close.

Inevitablism has just been given a huge shot in the arm.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 09:11 PM in British Politics
Comments (13) | Tell-a-Friend

The conference vote

The three hundred or more delegates to the BNP Conference in Wigan have voted overwhelmingly to commit the party to the leadership’s policy of remaining within the law, remaining a party able to fight elections, and admitting non-whites to membership.  Nick Griffin’s own amendments were accepted.  It is thought this means that sub-groups will be formed to house the non-white applicants.

Does the membership change mean that the party has lost its fourteen-word soul?  Or is it merely a cosmetic and inevitable stratagem to satisfy the requirements of British law?  Or is it, in fact, a golden opportunity for the party to advance its cause by the very laws that the Establishment has used to persecute it?

Here’s Lee Barnes with the upside:

The issue is ... where now for the ‘anti-fascists’ ?

For the general public, who believe their lies, the constant scream of ‘racists’ and ‘nazis’ is the primary weapon in the arsenal of the anti-BNP coalition. But that weapon is now rendered defunct. They cannot call the BNP ‘racist’ anymore as we will have many non-white members joining. They can’t call the BNP ‘nazi’ anymore as our new non-white members are obviously not nazis. They can’t call the BNP ‘racist’ anymore either as non-whites will be joining. Therefore the whole tactics and strategy of the Far Left and the media has to change - but how ?

They haven’t got a clue.

Lee goes on to claim that the membership change is “a political revolution”:

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, November 15, 2009 at 01:24 AM in British Politics
Comments (77) | Tell-a-Friend

Griffin on Question Time - reaction thread

This entry is for MR readers who would like to post their reactions to Nick Griffin’s QT performance.

The programme, which was recorded earlier this evening, was reported as the lead item on BBC News at ten this evening.  Edited highlights on the BBC website are here.  It looks and sounds very like a lynch party, which is perhaps not surprising.  Whether there were any BNP members in the audience to support Griffin I don’t know.  I suspect that there were, and that none of them were permitted to ask searching questions of the other panellists.

Anyhow, it’s time for the real broadcast.  So, see you after that!

UPDATE: QT AND THE BNP BELOW THE FOLD

Thanks to Dan’s find and to Dasein, we can now embed all parts of the programme so readers outside the UK can see exactly what it is we are talking about!

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 09:18 PM in British Politics
Comments (259) | Tell-a-Friend

John Wadham: father of modern British nationalism!

The curious and unnecessary legal action that John Wadham and the EHRC took against the BNP is washing through the media now, and will soon disappear into the mist.  Much of the coverage is disarmingly silly.  Which tends to suggest that the entire endeavour was impetuous and ill-considered, and offers the Fourth Estate nothing to go at.

The party will hold its conference next month, change its constitution, say thank you for the publicity and gird its loins for the election in May - where it will suffer from David Cameron’s Conservative revival. 

Inside the party nothing will really change.  There will be no huge influx of dark faces.  Those that do join and attend branch meetings will be politely patronised at best or sent to Coventry at worst.  They won’t be able to vote for two years, anyway, or - I believe - stand for office for four.  They will, by their presence, refute the party’s crazed anti-racist critics.  The UAF fanatics will become frustrated and confused, and the anti-BNP hate-fest will become more difficult to sustain.

Meanwhile, the Tories will big win in May.  But the honeymoon period will fade into memory and the polls will turn bad, as they always do.  Labour will re-invent itself under its new leader.  If they are not too Jewish, Cameron’s little circle of advisors may even ponder quietly whether it isn’t actually quite a good idea to relax all that mad-keen anti-racism of the opposition years.  The BNP could make a mighty useful anti-Labour tool in the latter’s northern heartlands.  And if too many people start voting for it, a little touch of the Sarko tiller will always sort it out.

The BNP, meanwhile, will have a new puzzle to solve.  How does it fight a party of the middle-class right?  Should it continue to build its power base in the white working-class north?  For the first time the people who have said all along that it must be a party of the entire country, appealing to the educated middle-class (which is also the political class), will be listened to.  The van-driver blokishness will moderate.  Bright people, untainted by the ill-repute of the past, will materialise.  Ideas, finally, will circulate.  The old party servants, men of good instinct and true heart who bore the wild hatred of the world upon their shoulders with real dignity during all the years of weakness, will be asked to perform one more service.  They must make way unselfishly.

Nationalism will cease to be a vague patriotic impulse signified by flags and army veterans, except to those who can only think in such confines.  It will have come of age in Britain - in time, one hopes, for the general election of October 2014 and the vital breakthrough to representation at Westminster.

And the wiser members will look back and thank John Wadham for getting it so very wrong.  Or so I believe.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, October 16, 2009 at 10:42 PM in British Politics
Comments (41) | Tell-a-Friend

Labour’s trident

We can now see what I expect to be the final shape of the Establishment response to the BNP’s success in Europe.  The strategy comprises three separate lines of attack which are, in no particular order:

DEATH BY STATUTE

The government of Belgium did it to Vlaams Blok in November 2004.  Now the equality minister Harriet Harman is pursuing a judicial kill with her new bill:

The Equality Bill will outlaw ‘apartheid’ constitution of the BNP

The BNP’s “apartheid” constitution will be outlawed under legislation before parliament, Commons leader Harriet Harman told MPs yesterday.

Ms Harman said she was “shocked and horrified” by the election of BNP leader Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons to the European Parliament last week.

She said there was “no place” in Britain for having a political party that only accepted white people as members and that the Equality Bill would prevent this.

... According to the BNP’s constitution, members must be from the “indigenous British ethnic groups deriving from the class of Indigenous Caucasian“‘.

... A spokeswoman for the Government Equalities Office said: “The Equality Bill would give individuals a right to take legal action against the BNP, in respect of it excluding anyone from membership on grounds of race.”

Unable to contain his enthusiasm long enough for Harman’s new law to become available, John Wadham smooth-moving Trevor Phillips has already brought his, er, big legal instrument of the Race Relations Act to bear.  Wadham told the world on 22nd June that his:

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, August 2, 2009 at 03:42 PM in British Politics
Comments (59) | Tell-a-Friend

Local houses for local workers

by Dan Dare

When Gordon Brown cynically hijacked the BNP’s slogan “British Jobs for British Workers” and featured it so prominently in his keynote speech to the 2008 Labour Party Conference, he could not have had the dimmest inkling of how much grief that would eventually cause him. And yet now, amazingly, and despite all the aggravation he suffered as a result of the “British Jobs” fiasco, he’s been caught out once again trying to steal the BNP’s thunder.

This time the theme is “Local Houses for Local People”, a catchy title for a brand-new wheeze intended to defuse the controversy which has grown-up around the vexatious matter of how social housing (publicly subsidised rentals) should be allocated. The BNP has enjoyed considerable success in promoting the notion that immigrants obtain an unfair share of the limited amount of social housing that is actually available. Predictably enough, Brown’s announcement proposing to modify the allocation rules to favour ‘local people’ over newer emtrants provoked howls of outrage from the usual suspects. Ironically it has even been denounced as illegal, being apparently in direct conflict with the key sections of the raft of Race Relations and Equalities legislation that NuLabor has painstakingly introduced into law since coming to office.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 07:15 AM in British Politics
Comments (24) | Tell-a-Friend

The Big Fear: a white backlash

by David Hamilton

The one thing former Conservative MP K Harvey Proctor constantly warned of was a white backlash.  To keep the indigenous people under control the Caste has devised various underhand and undemocratic methods. The idea was to manage the population into a sort of utopian state. But ideologies need an enemy, and that was “whites”.  We were all held responsible for the slave trade, which meant only a heavily-censored version of slavery with the main dealers – the Arabs - left out of the account.  We are, after all, only allowed to think “correct” thoughts.

What Alan Clarke, the former Conservative government minister and famous diarist, lauded as “the British military spirit” and a matter of honour and pride is scorned as yobbery by the Establishment.

The people who were the backbone of our traditional military prowess are slandered and misused. They are misused because they are not wanted in the armed forces, where they should be cherished as heroes ready to defend our country and control our borders to repel the current invasion. Our troops are held in contempt and not even provided with adequate equipment to save their lives.

People who have committed youthful misadventures but who naturally belong in the forces are barred. At one time young men who were at risk of being sent to young offenders institutions were given the opportunity of joining the military. To the traditional aristocratic-ruling warrior class, they would have been ideal recruits possessed of potential noble virtues.  Now those virtues are now left unexplored, and the young are left in their criminality.

A classic example of how these virtues are presented as wrong or even low-class was in the Daily Mail of 5th July. In this deceitful piece of fiction – a real hatchet piece - the scribbler Niall Firth linked several disconnected phenomena.

Neo-Nazis are plotting a ‘spectacular’ terrorist attack on Britain to fuel racial tension, Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism officers fear.

Senior officers have increased their surveillance of suspects to monitor their ability to carry out a deadly attack aimed at causing a ‘breakdown in community cohesion’.

The chilling warning comes after last month’s startling gains by the BNP in the local and European elections which many fear may ‘embolden’ violent Far-Right extremists.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, July 19, 2009 at 07:20 PM in British Politics
Comments (45) | Tell-a-Friend

Nick Griffin on the Andrew Marr Show

Nick Griffin has appeared on this morning’s Andrew Marr Show in what Simon Darby had built up as ground-breaking television. 

(That is the full extent of the interview.  Anyone in Britain who wants to see the whole show, however, can view it over the next seven days on the BBC i-Player here.  The Griffin interview runs from 34 min 12 sec to 42 min 22 sec.)

Obviously, there is always going to be a difficulty with media-stereotyping of the BNP.  The prigs need only make up an entirely fictional story about the party or any of its officers, as they so love to do, and then that is picked up by every subsequent interviewer.  Result: no substantive engagement with the too-too awful fascists.

Marr accorded Griffin a little over eight minutes of programme time.  But he invested almost all of it in the customary exploration of the press’s BNP myths.  Griffin defended himself without difficulty, not least because Marr himself was not overtly hostile.  In addition, though, Griffin uttered a few ameliorative policy noises (with which I do not agree).  More importantly, he also spoke fundamental truths that the public needs to hear, specifically:

“… to point out that Trevor MacDonald is not Welsh or English is not to do him down and say he’s not British.  If Trevor MacDonald’s English then the English are nothing, and that’s a racist position and it’s wrong.”

And:

“… we had to fill in a Census Form.  I had to describe myself as white British.  I’m not white.  I’m English.  But I’m not allowed to say that.”

And he managed to say that the alternative to stopping the current wave of African migration to southern Europe is:

“… accepting that Britain, eventually, is going to end up like Africa.  And the liberal elite have no right to impose or to allow that to happen when the British population do not want it to happen.

He did well.  He doesn’t possess the qualities of a truly inspirational leader, the sort who might come along perhaps only once in three or four decades of the nation’s political life.  But I agree with Sean Gabb’s assessment that he is clever and not less competent than his opponents in the mainstream parties.  Good luck to him, and may he find it possible in the future to talk much more about the fundamentals, and less about the lies.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, July 12, 2009 at 02:44 PM in British Politics
Comments (20) | Tell-a-Friend

The Moral high ground?

by David Hamilton

Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton has written that “ an ideology needs an enemy”.  In the West that is us - “whites”.  The chosen method is to dehumanise the enemy so that it can be persecuted or even assassinated without conscience.  They think it will fool the public when they try to outlaw the BNP’s racial admission rules, despite leaving the various black and Asian groups to operate their own racial membership policies.

These comments show the Ideological Caste’s dehumanisation of its enemies in language they would otherwise eagerly attribute to Nazis:

Trevor Phillips: “The BNP should be treated as less than human”.
Nick Bourne - Welsh Tory MP: “The BNP are subhuman”

The voice of whites in Britain is the BNP and the whole establishment is conspiring to de-humanise them with a level of incitement that is unprecedented.  If this type of hate campaign was against another ethnic group they would be facing a seven year jail sentence.  The whole Establishment has shown itself to be the same type of hate-filled ideologues that dehumanised Jews in Nazi Germany.  It is an ideology of hate like those in Soviet Russia, Mao’s China and Cambodia against a particular group.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, June 27, 2009 at 11:24 PM in British Politics
Comments (102) | Tell-a-Friend

Violence by proxy - the preferred politics of a cowardly Establishment

by David Hamilton

I wrote an article sixteen months ago on how the establishment dehumanises people who threaten their privileged lives.  The ruling ideological caste have no answer to our arguments. So they use not only character assassination but also encourage physical violence against their critics.  They do not like having their corruption exposed.

It is usually done indirectly so they can keep up the appearance of respectability.  But evil Peter Hain, who did so much to bring about famine and genocide in Zimbabwe and South Africa respectively, never apologizes.  He, presumably, is delighted with what his career of advocating confrontation has achieved.  He is trying to do the same here and make himself rich at the same time by corruptly trousering £130 grand:

“It is vital that everyone now isolates and confronts the BNP and works with United Against Fascism to defeat them.”

Everyone can see how it works.  He dehumanises Nick Griffin and his party by calling them “racists” and “fascists”.  The gang of Unite Against Fascism thugs attack their hate objects and get to feel perfectly fine about harming them?

The Mirror of 10/6/09 twisted the truth to present victims of politically motivated violence to be the perpetrators.  What sick, corrupt liars are their journos.

But minutes later they were sent packing by 60 placard-waving protesters chanting: “Nazi scum off our streets.”...then ... Protester Harry Dare was punched in the back by a fleeing far-right supporter. Mr Dare said: “I’m not seriously hurt but I was hit and it was unprovoked. I didn’’t use violence against them. I just told them they were fascists and we didn’t want them anywhere near Parliament.”

In fact, no demonstrators are allowed anywhere near Parliament.  On this occasion, though, the police stood over the road watching.  There is always a high visibility policing in and around Parliament Square, and many carry machine guns.  They’ve got High Definition CCTV cameras all over the streets that can tell the time on someone’s wristwatch.  This demo will have been recorded and monitored from many angles, and the Police nearby would have been immediately informed.  I suggest we all complain to the Metropolitan police.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 02:20 PM in British Politics
Comments (53) | Tell-a-Friend