Category: British Politics
by David Hamilton
The “progressive” views are now demonstrably failing but the fading generation of the 1960s cannot accept that they are causing all that they wanted to avoid. Progressive values are no longer progressive, their moral arguments no longer moral, and they are no longer supported by the majority of the younger generation. A serious empirical examination of the situation they have created reveals that they are not engineering a multicultural Europe but a mono-cultural one by replacing us with Muslims.
One only has to consider the Stockholm riots and the slaughter of a British soldier on a London street to see what a mess they are making of things. Those riots and that slaughter were acts by enemies who proclaimed their loyalty to outside countries and acted in the interests of those countries against us. That was their human nature. But “progressives” try to pretend the attackers are as “British as you and me”! Then the politicised police arrested Britons who reacted for comparatively petty things like “racist tweets” - while allowing Muslim preachers of hate to say what they like and convert young people to terrorism. A “far-right” group challenged the police to arrest Anjem Choudary(1) or they would put him under citizens arrest. The Metropolitan Police rushed him and his family to safety to protect him from justice.
It is not easy to come to the realisation that the three main parties are against their own people and act as one on the central, core issues of the multi-racial, PC ideology. They differ on emphasis, and some fringe members of the three-in-one party can express rebellious views on many things, but not the central ones - anti-racism, globalism, and loyalty to the EU. The elites are an “Ideological Caste” and any who say the wrong things have their careers destroyed unless they publicly abase themselves, their careers enhanced if they vociferously make the right statements.
This post is a response to a multi-part question posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on the after Eastliegh thread. I am only setting out the four possible paths that UKIP can go, or be driven, down. In the conclusion I will also reply to another multi-part question asked on the same thread by Leon Haller.
The path to marginalisation
... is the Conservative Party’s preferred outcome for UKIP. Conservative MPs and party managers seem to believe that it is in the gift of the party to engineer it (which it isn’t if the UKIP phenomenon is fundamentally a rage against the political class). Conservatives must, of course, believe in the marginalisation thesis or they have to relinquish all hope of a 2015 election victory.
In reality, though, there is little hope. First, quite without the UKIP problem, the Conservative Party is in terminal decline electorally. Eddie George has turned out to be right when he said in 2010, prior to the General Election, that the party which entered government would be picking up a poisoned chalice, given the unpopular decisions that would have to be taken to pay-down sovereign debt. He may have signalled some small change in that last week, with the BoE’s forecast of growth. But the damage is done. The coalition government has served only to confirm the public in its contempt for the political class. Even prior to the UKIP explosion, Opinion polls have shown support for the Conservatives only hovering around 30%. The first ICM survey after the local authority elections had them at 28% as UKIP surged to a new high of 18%, since when a (possibly rogue) Survation poll has put them at 24% and UKIP at 22%. The Conservatives will not recover popularity now and the Prime Minister will not suddenly become liked or respected (though he may be replaced by someone who is).
Second, this bleak picture masks a bleaker crisis in the Conservative election machine itself. Local association membership has halved in a decade, and it is the younger and more energetic members who are deserting fastest. Conservative activism is grey-haired and suffers joint pain in many areas of the country. It is also outrageously abused by the leader’s inner circle as well, of course, as utterly confused by their liberal metropolitan appetites. Yet, to be in any position to form a government in 2015, the party must fight an aggressive campaign on the ground and win votes off the other parties. Lose their own core constituency to UKIP and that’s it. They can’t get back from that.
Today Sean Thomas, the Daily Telegraph blogger, journalist and, under a pseudonym, author, posted a piece about the latest case of Moslem Grooming, this time in Oxford. It was titled “Oxford gang rape: did people ignore this sort of scandal because racist Nick Griffin was the first to mention them?”
The article skips through a little of the history of the offence before arriving, in the last two paragraphs, at the efforts made by Nick Griffin to raise consciousness of it and shame the police into action:
Comments on the article were disabled. But appalled commenters raised the concerns on an unrelated thread, myself among them. Thomas let it be known via a tweet that his original article had been doctored by a DT editor but it had since been amended. It was still bloody awful, obviously. So I emailed him to tell him so:
The final opinion poll is in - in fact, it’s the only council-dedicated poll that has been done - and the British public, or at least that section who will be voting in the local elections tomorrow, are poised to deliver their verdict for real. There is, of course, huge speculation about the fortunes of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Will its support be spread too thin to deliver the seats it deserves - the enduring penalty of the First Past The Post system? Or is this going to be the election when the party jumps forward and announces itself as a truly broad-based, national party of, if not yet renewal, certainly protest?
We will start to find out about this time tomorrow night. Meanwhile, the smear tactics of the mainstream parties and their friends in the media leaves little doubt that UKIP’s rise is real and significant. We are in for a very interesting next 36 hours.
A good result for UKIP would be to win 100 new council seats across the areas where voting will take place (mostly Tory shire counties). The Comres poll in these areas produced a 22% voting intention for the party. It should be remembered that protest voters are motivated voters, so that 22% could punch above its weight. But I think it’s wise to temper any such expectations with the knowledge that UKIP is a young party without a political history in many of the wards it is fighting. Electoral politics, at least in Britain, is not a five-minute packet soup, and elections at local authority level frequently favour well-regarded personalities, and hinge on particular local issues.
But ... if the present, very exciting signs are borne out by the ballot box, we may be at the start of a genuine challenge to the parties of the mainstream - something we might have hoped, a few short years ago, would come from the BNP. But better UKIP than nobody.
I will post interesting results and commentary on the thread.
Yesterday, the United Kingdom Independence Party, a collection of “nutcases, fruitcakes and closet racists”, to quote David Cameron from 2006, ran the Tories into third in the Westminster by-election at Eastleigh. Today the quality press is resisting offering the usual excuses (ie, it’s mid-term madness ... a mere protest vote, etc). It is asking a few significant questions about UKIP, in particular. The most interesting is: how much of its support expresses that exasperation and exhaustion with the professional political class that is now known by the term, anti-politics?
Anti-politics is a completely normal response on the part of any electorate confronted with a self-referential elite that has forgotten even how to feign representation of the people. Lower order politicians are only too well aware of this failing. After the Eastleigh result Stewart Jackson, MP for Peterborough, told the London Evening Standard:
So while the speed of UKIP’s rise might surprise some, the rise itself shouldn’t. The straws were in the wind for both right and left with the early Tea Party movement and, later, the Occupy Movement. Now we have the rise of, among others, Syriza and Golden Dawn in Greece, the youth identitarian movement in France, the astonishing success of Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Party in Italy ... all non-Establishment or anti-Establishment movements. Has the grand political project of The Globality reached the stage where it is no longer possible to advance its agenda and affect an interest in the opinions of their supporters? Are electorates of European descent finally awakening to the nature of modern political elitism and internationalism?
If so, Eastleigh offers little encouragement to British nationalists beyond the unsatisfactory proxy that is UKIP. The BNP did not stand. The fatally civicist English Democrats, to which the Butler retinue decamped, did stand. Its candidate polled just 70 votes in a constituency of 79,004. The Elvis candidate finished above them.
It looks very like UKIP is our only horse in the race, and must be supported accordingly. We have to hope that there will be no electoral pact with the Tories in 2015 but, on the contrary, Nigel Farage’s party will literally kill the Tory Party - just as it did in Eastleigh - as the political right’s natural party of power. Beyond that we must hope that no new alignment of the right in Britain takes place along the lines of that which brought Stephen Harper’s Canadian conservatives into existence in 2003. Nationalists must find some way to influence a realignment process so that any new party will, first and foremost, be loyal to our people rather than to a set of easily “liberalised” and corrupted, petty principles about self-improvement or personal liberty.
To do that we have to work from within. We have to join the party if we can (and former BNP members can’t - they are pre-banned), and stay in the party. I wonder how many nationalists have the requisite degree of focus to pull off something like that.
One of the arguments I am disseminating regularly these days is that a vote for the United Kingdom Independence Party, notwithstanding the obvious deficiencies of its platform, is the most productive for a Brit who loves not just his country but his people. As usual this argument is framed within the English context. It goes something like this, as posted this evening on the thread to Janet Daly’s current DT piece, The Tories can win if they put real people first:
Now, if one accepts the logic here the next thing to watch for is how successful UKIP is in the run up to the 2015 election. If the support achieved at the last round of by-elections is maintained or increased the destruction scenario can become a reality for the Tories. Yes, general elections are a much more difficult ask for a minor party than mid-term by-elections. Yes, David Cameron will be able to nibble away at the softer end of UKIP’s support by his “negotiations” over a new relationship for Britain within the EU. But still, the damage that has been done by Cameron to his party is unprecedented - he truly is to Conservatism what Tony Blair was to Labour. I find it hard to believe that he will not pay some substantial electoral costs.
Of course, I may only be grasping at a few nationalist straws. What else is there for an Englishman to do, frankly?
About this time tomorrow night we will know something new about a question which nationalists ask themselves whenever conversation drifts onto electoral politics. What does it take - indeed, is it even possible - for a minor party to win a Westminster seat under First Past The Post? The United Kingdom Independence Party, a one issue party of disaffected, golf-club Tory Eurosceptics, is thought by some to be in with a shout of overturning the disgraced Denis MacShane’s majority in one of the safest Labour seats in the country. That is unlikely, and probably highly so. But there appears to be a tide flowing for change in the constituency. The Labour Party has taken an enormous knock in the town, and to continue voting for it requires either a considerable act of political faith or pig ignorance. In the past the party has always been able to rely on a heavy supply of both.
Anyway, I thought it might be worthwhile to start a thread on the by-election. A solid result for UKIP would be third. But it would not surprise anyone if they finished one place higher, ahead of the Tories. They don’t have to win to provide at least a partial answer to the question, “What does it take ...” But they do have to get close. That, though, would require both a collapse in the Labour vote (currently running nationally at 43%, while UKIP is at a record 11%) and a major shift of Tory, Libdem and Labour votes to the challenger.
Leicester is the tenth largest city in England, and the first, it is said, in which the English natives have been tipped over into minority status (though that is not officially confirmed). It is also the burial place of “the last English king”, and of the arising of the first English Community Group.
The group was formed last year with the help and guidance of the English charity, The Steadfast Trust. Its first significant project has been a poll of local opinion in areas like Braunstone where there is a high proportion of English people resident. Some 5,000 questionnaires were sent out, and 112 were returned completed. That’s a 2.24% response rate. Now, that’s not a high rate, and probably doesn’t exceed the average vote in the city (these days) for the BNP. But if one doesn’t pay too much heed to the number, there is some pretty startling stuff here.
The question, of course, is how far from representativeness the results are for the English of Leicester. A YouGov study conducted in 2006 showed that 55% of respondees agreed with BNP policies when the name of the party was not attached to them, falling to 49% when it was. So I wouldn’t write it off merely as an exercise in assorting the BNP supporters from the good folk of Leicester.
Here, anyway, are the survey results.
... discussed at the British Democracy Forum in a post titled somewhat more speculatively than it would seem, “Message to Nick Griffin’s Special Branch handlers”.
Bear in mind the that German government court papers of a year or two back indicated that out of 200 leading NPD functionaries, 30 were working as undercover agents.
The interesting part of the conversation begins with a response to another BDF member who had observed that, “There is a great willingness - indeed, an enthusiasm - to believe that Griffin is “state” or an “agent”. To do so allows one to exculpate the mind. It is a nonsense. Griffin is nothing more nor less than a failed would-be businessman with a penchant for dubious practice, like most pyramid salesmen.”
I had a brief online exchange today with Paul Weston, leader of British Freedom, the post-LJB party of cultural nationalism. Paul frequently comments at the DT, cutting a capable and clued-up figure. Today, he arrived on the thread to an Ed West piece on the maverick George Galloway’s rather remarkable by-election victory in the hitherto safe Labour seat of Bradford West.
There have been opinion pieces galore on Galloway’s triumph. Most, like West’s, have talked about the implications it may hold for a new politics of identity. Galloway, of course, appeals to the Moslem electorate. An ethnic sundering of voting habits may be in train, and that would spell destruction for the big three parties and a huge opportunity for the minnows. Paul Weston, as the new leader of a very new minnow, certainly understands that, and took the opportunity to expand upon it on the thread. My replies follow suite. I may have been a little hard on him. But I just don’t believe in this necessity to disavow our true purpose.
It’s really one question that hangs over political nationalism, though it has many forms. How do we make politics amid all this hostility? How do we get this movement moving? How do we make our people wake up? How do we get them to turn away from near concerns and act at last in their own ethnic interest? Is it better to be accommodationist, civicist, expedient and dishonest? Or principled? Isn’t “principle” the problem?
And so forth.
For weeks the BNPIdeas website, which is centred on Andrew Brons, has been filled with inventive ways to ask this question. Inevitable I suppose, given last October’s failure to launch a new party and the non-appearance of the “parallel party structure” that was promised in its stead. It is apparent now that action of any profitable kind is beyond the power of nationalism in Britain. Fear of moving forward, disdain at staying put, the impossibility of going back, spill out all over the page, and over it all hangs the big red sign declaring triumphantly, “You lost!”
Which is all too possible as things stand. No surprise then, to see yet another agonised article, this time penned by a William Shakespeare (of no evident poetic leaning), deploring the division in nationalist ranks, and proposing “the way forward” thus:
That is the ineluctable product of an absence of leadership and clear principle. But, then, nationalism in Britain has ever been a cut flower ideologically, and no leader could compensate for that, as I tried to explain in a comment to the bard’s article:
Earlier today I came across this video at BDF posted by Chuffer, a good, reliable nationalist and ex-BNP member, and a regular participant in the BDF bear-pit. The theme of injustice and betrayal is not new to us, of course, though it is certainly a pleasure to see it so well structured. But the street interview section is important, and especially refreshing to see. There are the authentic voices of the English working-class who have been been subjected to eighteen years of relentless Lawrence propaganda. And they know it.
Still, one wonders why they exhibit such a resigned attitude, and not more fight. Then one remembers how deserted these people are. Not the politicians, not the press, not the Church, not the schools, not the law ... no part of civil society spares them a word of acknowledgement. It truly is the most complete betrayal imaginable. And yet, as this video shows, the Lawrence propaganda almost certainly now exercises more influence over the minds of the traitors than it does the betrayed.
Below the fold I am reproducing Tony Lecomber’s interesting and exhaustive overview of British nationalism’s past and clouded future, with a rather confused recommendation for a new party at the end. It makes a number of good points. English, not British, nationalism, Tony says, is the wave of the future. That’s true, and certain, of course, if Alex Salmond wins his referendum on Scottish independence in three years time. Tony then speculates that as such a victory would deprive the Labour Party of seventy Scottish MPs at Westminster and deliver power to the Tories in perpetuity in the remains of the UK, indiscipline on the right must, in time, set in. Such indiscipline he sees as a precondition for the rise of nationalism in England. Perhaps, but nationalism has to make its own future, and can’t rely on charity from its political foes.
Overall, Tony’s message is bleak. The sense of embattlement on every front is very palpable, culminating in the despairing admission that “the multiracial state is here to stay”. Well, if that is the case, what’s the point of nationalism? To slow down our genetic dissolution and demographic replacement to a speed white people won’t find quite so unsettling? To delay our minoritisation by one generation? In such an admission is the false assumption that:
(a) the English people think it moral and right for Africans and Asians to continue living in England and to continue displacing, replacing and deracinating them, and will vote for that if ever the issue is forced to the front of electoral debate,
(b) anything and everything must be thrown overboard by nationalists to escape being labelled as “racist”.
This mindset is surely the product of a lifetime of political failure allied to a paucity of creative thinking - not least on the wider political issues, particularly economics, but also on the great, undergirding question of the war of discourse.
Obviously, Tony is right that, short of the state jailing Nick Griffin (and why would it do that), political nationalism must find itself a new vehicle. He is right about the risks. I don’t think he is right to be so focussed on the party question. No nationalist party can effect the vast change in the English public’s values and attitudes necessary for the embrace of such a revolutionary politics. But perhaps that is work for other kinds of political animal.
“Parallel Party Structure” to Be Formed,” said the headline on BNP Ideas website. It wasn’t what most of us were expecting. The pre-meeting articles at BNP Ideas talked about setting up not only a new party but a think-tank. Party policy was written about. Given the entrenched position of Griffin in the BNP and the huge financial and legal problems his party faces, there seemed no likelihood that tonight we would be looking at the status quo. But here we are.
Or nearly. BNP Ideas has this to say:
From England First, a lucid explanation of the death, possibly imminent, of the British National Party:
Certainly elements of the left are trying to make capital out of “government cuts”. “Disaffection” and the misery of unemployment are also being dusted off and lovingly presented as cause just. But it is already clear that the anti-white ramp that was constructed out of the black riots of a generation ago, and which resulted in the invention of “institutional racism”, will not be entertained this time round. These riots are too plainly organised. The motive of the rioters is too obviously to loot and burn. No one is going to experience the exquisite agonies of liberal guilt on behalf of a mistreated looter or disaffected arsonist. “Sorry, young man, there is such a thing as responsibility, and it isn’t as though government hasn’t made huge efforts over the last two and half-decades to help you succeed!”
So what, overall, can we expect when the Met’s report is in, the Home Office committee has investigated, the media vented, the mayor of London bloviated, the cabinet sat, and the Home Secretary stood up in the House to present “the answer”? Here are my predictions.
1. The young black male is not going to be excused this time. He has delivered himself of a direct and violent challenge to the social order - an insult which is authentically black and belongs to him, and has no provenance outside of the narrow and low space between his ears. He has made a world of violence and chaos for himself, in which his male dominance strategies can be liberally exercised. That is the sum total of his civilisational worth, and it is not going to be easy for any thoughtful government minister to continue to delude himself that but for a bit more educational expenditure, better role models, more mentoring, sport facilities and youth clubs, and fathers at home, there walks a white boy. There doesn’t.
The truth of black sociobiology is knocking loudly on the door. It might not be opened this time round. But opening it is the only option in the longer run.
2. The race industry’s funding will be cut, its leadership changed, its role redefined. It will die by neglect, being officially done away with, probably, by the end of the next parliament.
As it happens, today Civitas released a press release on its review of smooth Trevor Philips’ Equality and Human Rights Commission. The review is titled Small Corroding Words, but the events in London and up and down the country will likely prove much more corrosive for Philips (and John Wadham, the legal persecutor of the BNP). That said, the review is extremely timely, seemingly damning, and certain to be well read in Conservative Party circles.
3. The educational Establishment and the Marxian left generally will cop the official blame for its shameless failure to confront gang culture, and for having turned the police into social workers horrified by the possibility of being called racists. How much this will translate into real change, I’m not certain. But it marks the end of Marx in educational thinking. Furthermore ...
4. That way the black “community” will be spared the most searching questions, at least today. It will, however, be required to question its commitment to the social order in much the same way that Moslems have been required post-7/7 to “reject extremism” and become that mythical thing, a “moderate Moslem”. Black politicians - all four of them - will learn the required new, reassuring words, and the media will afford them much opportunity to repeat them. Nothing, of course, will change as a result.
5. The Labour Party will be forced to recognise the horribly non-Marxist drift in respect to the old blame culture, and shift itself towards the new centre. This is probably the major, long-term political effect of what we are seeing. Again, I don’t know how far it will go. But it is very positive - if it happens.
6. Griffin’s BNP will continue to offer the white working-class what it has offered them in the past, entirely missing the sea-change in attitude to the black population that now obtains, as a result of these latest events. Eventually, nationalism will find a way to rid itself of its dog in the manger, and then we might see what a political crow-bar wedged into the new fissure can achieve.
So says the BNP website, following a very slow re-count at the close of leadership election. Nick Griffin seems unabashed by the narrowness of his win, saying:
But this follows a long period of internecene warfare in the party, during which the bulk of the activist base left in disgust or was suspended or expelled, and election results and the membership roll crashed. Griffin’s surprisingly thin majority was delivered by means of the expulsions, and his victory is hollow. The question which hangs over proceedings now is whether the reform group will accept the result. That seems improbable. The reformers have fought too long and too hard for the party, and for the people in whose interests it makes politics, to stand back and watch it die now. Grounds for a legal challenge will surely be examined, and if they are there a petition to annul the result and order a re-election will surely be made.
The alternative is for the establishment of a new nationalist party. Andrew Brons took the precaution of registering the name British Democratic Party with the electoral commission, in the event that the BNP is pursued by its debtors into liquidation. A baggage-free party has some appeal, clearly. But it would still take the dissolution of the BNP for any new party to enjoy a free run at the loyal English electorate.
From a comment by the redoubtable Papa Luigi on the BNP section of British Democracy Forums. The subject: yesterday’s General Members Meeting (also a Founding Members Meeting) of the British National Party held in Liverpool.
The meeting was a confrontation of “the big beasts” of the BNP and proceeded as follows:
Arthur Kemp fired the opening salvos as the meeting started, asserting that there had been no consultation process with the members regarding the constitutional reforms agreed at the last party conference and that the premise for the GMM was therefore invalid and unconstitutional. He asserted further that the motions put forward were substantially different to those agreed at the party conference and that Nick Griffin had broken his promise to the members.
Geoff Dickens then informed the meeting that under the current BNP constitution, Nick Griffin has the power to make unilateral changes without reference to anyone else and that therefore, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of Arthur’s assertions, the meeting was constitutional and would proceed as planned.
In the voting that followed, the members present at the meeting, who represented the hard core of the party’s activists from across the country, were split roughly 60:40, with the majority in opposition to the motions proposed by Nick Griffin. The 200 activists present were however, dismayed to find that the proxy voting system introduced by Nick Griffin as a new and novel feature to BNP meetings gave Nick Griffin a block vote of 500+ votes that he proceeded to use to negate the majority against him at the meeting.
Despite this, the reformers continued to argue their case, with significant contributions to the debates by Arthur Kemp and the other ‘big beasts’ of the BNP; Andrew Brons; Richard Edmonds; John Walker; and Kevin Scott, all of whom voiced opposition to the constitutional validity of the meeting and the motions proposed. Speaking in favour of the motions were Clive Jefferson, Adam Walker and some other of the ‘novice’ Regional Organisers, appointed recently by Nick Griffin after high profile sackings during the recent ructions within the party.
Less than three years after the bail out of Scotland’s banks was supposed to have killed talk of withdrawal from the Union, Alex Salmond was able to inform the British public yesterday that during the next Holyrood parliament a referendum on independence will be put before Scots voters. The future of the Union, of all the Westminster parties, and of political nationalism in England now all rest with a few million Scottish votes.
Salmond, as the big winner of Thursday’s varied election cycle, now has sixty-eight of his colleagues sitting at Holyrood - a feat which was supposed to have been impossible under the complex voting procedure established for the Scottish parliament. It has also been thought impossible for the SNP to convince Scots to vote for independence - the polls show a consistent two thirds against. But the media are treating a shift towards independence of under twenty points over the next four years as being distinctly possible, given that Salmond is now a veritable colossus in a country of political pygmies.
How the fortunes of civic nationalism in Scotland contrast with those of ethno-nationalism in the rest of the country. The Griffin Party has won two council seats and lost all its others where elections were held. The repeated plaint on the nationalist internet is that the movement is back to where it was before Griffin’s successful leadership bid in 1999. But with reported debts of over £500,000, mass departure of the (relatively) able, and a nose-diving membership, it’s a lot worse than that. It ought to be the end of Griffin and his clique. But it appears that the party must completely wither and die before that happens.
Meanwhile, the English, obviously, voted Labour and Tory as stubbornly as ever - the latter in somewhat surprisingly firm numbers. UKIP had a bad election night, not even managing to benefit much from disaffected BNP voters, never mind Tories. Polarity is returning to the English voting pattern if not to the politics. Taken with the 69% “No” vote in the AV referendum it amounts to a powerful rejection of centrism. It is inevitable that Tory and Labour strategists will identify this factor and endeavour to spin their way towards it. But real diversification is impossible in an age when the right must support neo-Marxist social policies and the left neoliberal economic ones.
Only nationalism opposes both, of course. But its electoral flame was extinguished on Thursday, and though there are efforts to keep it alive via the civicist English Democrats, the culturalist British Freedom Party, the tiny and extremely nascent, ethno-nationalist English People’s Party, and the white nationalist National Front, I for one do not believe they can succeed. I see the only hope in a sudden and saving, last-minute purification of the BNP brand. I just don’t know what more can be done to force Griffin out of the party before it finally hits the wall.
As nationalism is rising across continental Europe it is in meltdown in Britain thanks to a long litany of disastrous management errors and political and legal misjudgements by Nick Griffin. Below the fold is a news piece that appeared on the Guardian site this morning. It is written by Matthew Taylor, who has form, and quotes the usual hostile sources. But it has no need of mischaracterisation. It can and does fairly and accurately describe the crisis in political nationalism in Britain. There is no doubt about where our only viable political brand is heading.
And there is no silver lining to this political tragedy. The Reform 2011 initiative is in limbo. Eddy Butler, among others, is now a civic nationalist at the English Democrats. Lee’s British Freedom Party appears not to have made it to the start line.
Only the National Front has stuck to the racial nationalist faith, even while that faith has been declared illegal as a result of Griffin’s defiance of the EHRC last year. In fact, so keen on racial nationalism is the present generation of NF folk, they call themselves a White Nationalist party.
The gainer in all this has been UKIP, a party which takes anti-nationalism to the extreme of anti-racism. It is very likely to score a significant victory in next month’s local authority elections, and may now have the kind of momentum and financial backing that will facilitate a serious General Election campaign two years from now.
Where the BNP will be in two years’ time doesn’t bear thinking about. Griffin said at one point that he will stand down in 2013. He may not get the chance if the current legal actions against the party and its officers for recovery of commercial debt succeed.
by David Hamilton
A totalitarian method used by the British state is infiltrating state agents into legitimate and rival political parties to discredit and destabilise them and keep the Global elites in power.
The Express newspaper of 18th February 1999 revealed that the Security Services were going to infiltrate:
Since Griffin became leader in 1999 the BNP has been contained when it was riding a wave and now is being destabilised. The tide turned for the BNP in 2001, due to media promotion and hard work of organisers in Oldham and Burnley. Two areas Griffin has destroyed.
Griffin and others contained that growth by quickly undermining branches in areas that growth had taken place in by sacking organisers where it did. East London was the first, followed by Oldham and Burnley later Bradford and Birmingham. The BNP’s peak was contained and undermined by state ops working within.
Around that time previous BNP leader John Tyndall was suspicious of Griffin:
THE Scottish National Party was spied on by British secret service agents, previously classified Government files seen by Scotland on Sunday have finally proved:
So John Wadham’s attempt to have Nick Griffin, Simon Darby and Tanya Lumby found in contempt of court for failing to comply with the county court judgement against the BNP has failed. Well over a year of legal battle - in the event, entirely unnecessary legal battle - is over. The BNP under Griffin emerges as a cultural nationalist party with a mountainous debt and ravaged activist base, the better part of which quit to join the now rudderless Reform Group and Lee Barnes’ probably still-born British Freedom Party (Lee?). The blood-letting in the movement won’t be ended by this judgement. On the contrary, the reformers won’t expect Griffin to accept them back in the fold - how many would go? They won’t give up, so they must now play the long game.
It’s all quite astonishing only eighteen months after the heady days of the European Parliament Elections in early June 2009. May’s general election and the humilation in Barking has been followed by some miserable local election results. And that’s where candidates could be found to stand. Amid the ruins Griffin speaks of rebuilding. But there has to be a strong likelihood that party prospects will not improve until he finally steps aside, supposedly in 2013, though nobody really believes that.
Looking ahead, now that racial or ethno-nationalism has been placed outside the law, the party seems likely to move further in the direction of culturism. Politicians, even those whose hearts are with their people, want to be relevant. They will look at the success of Geert Wilders today. Well, what’s the point of loyalty to racial nationalism, they will say, if the voter won’t buy it?
The radical thinker will respond that metapolitics, not accomodationism, makes possible revolutionary parties and political careers. The lack of a metapolitical reservoir is the most fundamental of all the reasons the BNP cannot progress. Yes, Wilders makes electoral progress. But he draws from liberalism. He has no interest in real systemic change. What, then, is the historical purpose of the BNP? Where is its soul? In winning elections. In operating within the law. In culturism, will increasingly be the reply. History will look after itself.
The cultural answer will leave the movement having to create other, non-political vehicles for espousal of racial nationalist values and ideas. The argument for English survival will fall to new players. It won’t take long, believe me.
I thought I might draw your attention to a BBC News 24 interview in which the interviewer Ben Brown did an exceptional job of accusing a man with cerebral palsy of bringing upon himself the violence he suffered from riot police at last weekend’s anarcho-student rumpus in London.
These are the choice cuts:
As an encapsulation of the moral superiority of the victim, this small event takes some beating. Not that the Metropolitan Police are shy about beating anything once they savour the Big-Me moment in the helmet, the riot shield and the stab-proof, fire-proof, thought-proof uniform. Nonetheless, it is the little man in the wheelchair who is going to be the nation’s hero. The government, the Establishment really, has already lost this battle ... not for the chance to confiscate a greater and greater share of our dwindling cash and throw it at the banks and the bond market, but for the consent of the people.
Nationalists need to sit up and pay attention right now. The moment to develop a critique of debt and fractional reserve banking - something missing from political nationalism in Britain for many years - is here. The electoral reward for getting it right will be vast. But as yet there is no sign of Griffin realising this screamingly obvious fact.
Assuming that her unpaid work is worth around £15 per hour (and as she barely earns more than that at her day job, that’s being generous), she’s been fined around £1,270. That is much less than a white anti-black hate criminal would get. She’s only a little bit racist because of the target of her vitriol, even though she apparently travels the country looking for white kids to abuse. Yes, travels the country:
Yes, going to a school 20 miles away from where you teach and racially abusing a bunch of kids who have nothing whatsoever to do with you is, on the whole, not quite the height of professional conduct. By the way, what sort of adult gets into the ‘heat of the moment’ while arguing with school-kids? Surely not one qualified to be a teacher, anyway.
There are other mitigating circumstances apparently:
In other words: she said sorry (eventually), and her headmaster believed her. Oh, and she had an ill relative. Given that it is statistically probable that she has at least one relative not in the best of health most of the time, I can only feel sorry for the kids she teaches in her day job.
What this demonstrates is that even when the designated minorities are prosecuted for hate crimes, the same rule applies. Everything is an acceptable excuse for an anti-white hater, nothing is an acceptable excuse for a white hater. Even the fact that a non-white committed a hate crime is kept somewhat covert. This is the google page for “jane turner teacher picture”. The Daily Mail feels the need to include a picture of her school (the one where she teaches, not the one she visits to verbally abuse kids), but not of her.*
The bottom line is: an anti-black hater loses his career. An anti-white hater is docked less than 10% of her yearly salary, and told not to do it again.
*For the record, I have no information about Jane Turner’s ethnicity. The fact that her pictures are notable by their absence is what inspires this suspicion.
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa