Posted by Lawrence Newman on Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:26 | #

“That was Griffin’s moment and he wrecked it by his own hand, most notably in his Question Time appearance.”

In what way do you think he wrecked it?  This might seem a silly question, but humour me.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 22 Jul 2014 10:44 | #

Lawrence, the events and embarrassments which were set in train by the QT programme, including the PPB/marmite legal issue and the membership rules court case, resulted in the destruction of three-quarters of the activist base of the party.  It isn’t going to recover.  The long and difficult march from the disasters of the 1980s and 1990s (when nationalism missed the opportunity to moralise its discourse and, instead, pursued a policy of street politics, only to be beaten off the streets by the violent left) has come to nothing.

It is usual in politics to hold the leadership responsible for such a catastrophic failure.  One would expect it to make way for others to repair the breach and take the party forward again.  But not Griffin.  There was a widespread suspicion that he inflamed the internal crisis himself quite deliberately.  Various explanations, including interference by security services personnel and some form of psychopathology on Griffin’s part, have been advanced to explain this.  We will probably never know what really went on.  But we are left with various micro-parties, including the BNP (which has just two local councillors remaining).  It is deeply unsatisfactory. 

MR’s QT thread is here:

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/griffin_on_question_time_reaction_thread

Posted by Bill on Tue, 22 Jul 2014 12:05 | #

From the moment I became interested in the BNP via its embryo website I felt Griffin’s strategy of anti Islam with no deviation was the wrong way to go.  To those voters who had no first hand experience of Muslim immigration, or for that matter no eyeball contact with much migration at all in their areas, these people could not relate to such an un-English state of affairs.

Later I became aware of the anti-jihad sites which MR (GW) soon put me right to be wary off, as these sites were not deemed to be against immigration per se, but rather keen not to embrace the Muslim variety.

To the uninitiated, Griffin could easily be tarred with the same brush, yet over a decade later his warnings have been vindicated, which in some small way lessens the charge of neglect.

My sympathies go out to those thousands who braved the front line leafleting, lions led by donkeys comes to mind.

In summary, I still think the main plank of anti Islam was the wrong strategy for that time and impeded the overall trajectory of nationalism, had Griffin’s thinking of future impact of mass immigration on our island been more clearly enunciated, the whole sad story of the BNP and Britain might have been very different.

Posted by Lawrence Newman on Tue, 22 Jul 2014 15:29 | #

Guessedworker,

Okay, question answered.  It’s just that I keep hearing that his performance on Question Time made him look foolish.  That’s not the impression I got.  I thought he handled himself pretty well considering he was being attacked constantly for an hour by the audience and the panel. 

The British public are just too naive to understand what’s coming.  There will be a time for a party like the BNP but it’s not now.

Posted by Gordon McRobert on Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:54 | #

Lawrence Newman wrote:

There will be a time for a party like the BNP but it’s not now.

The BNP is a scam outfit masquerading as a political party. I don’t think we need another like that thank you.

Posted by Lawrence Newman on Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:36 | #

Gordon McRobert,

And how do you propose dealing with the Islam/nigger problem?

Posted by Mr Nill on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 02:34 | #

Why is the radio interview between bowery/cobb not listed in the mr radio section?

http://www.majorityrights.com/audio/PaulCraigCobb.mp3

Posted by DanielS on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 04:22 | #

There are a couple of audio interviews not listed in the MR radio section that probably should be, Mr. Nill. It seems to me they should be in the radio section, though maybe there is a good or benign reason why they are not.

I don’t know if this is an accident, an oversight or deliberate.

I hadn’t thought of Bowery’s interview with Cobb, but now that you mention it..that should be there too; even though it was undertaken somewhat independently by Jim, it is MR enough.

Neither are the interviews with Tom Metzger or Tanstaafl listed in the radio archive - never were

In addition, when opportune, I will find out why Bowery’s interview with Kenneth Humphreys is not there at the moment. That interview had been there but isn’t right now. It’s an important resource.

These are all important resources that might be overlooked if not filed in their proper category.

There might be an accidental reason for these interviews not being on the radio page, or there may be a deliberate reason.

In the meantime, MR continues to take its new form free from the guff and rif raff its been saddled with. Isn’t it nice, by contrast, to have this discussion between GW and concerned English Nationalists? I am saying “wheew!, it’s refreshing!” and I think that normal people will feel much the same.

As this more sane direction crystallizes we can look into making it more convenient to re-connect with MR’s past: i.e. get those radio shows onto the radio page and get the pagination back at the bottom of the main page so that people can look more easily through MR’s history.

Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:00 | #

Mr Nill, Daniel,

The radio element of MR’s software has an automatic connection to audio files in the MR audio cache.  It cannot operate outside the MR cache, which is why files hosted elsewhere don’t appear on the page.

Posted by Gordon McRobert on Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:17 | #

Lawrence Newman wrote:

And how do you propose dealing with the Islam/nigger problem?

By putting together a serious political party that acts in a professional manner as opposed to just tolerating the clownish Gri££in Family Business as the only alternative. If the British cannot buck their ideas up and get some principles then I guess we are fuxored.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 24 Jul 2014 22:13 | #

The following comment actually got posted by the Guardian pre-mod.  I must be slipping.  Anyway, it’s pretty much what I think of Griffin.

Griffin’s BNP is/was widely regarded among former activists as the Griffin Family Business or, at least, a scam operation for the leadership clique.  The other way of looking at it is/was as the party of SO15.  Whatever it was, it never did justice to the people it nominally sought to protect and preserve.

That shouldn’t have been difficult.  Nationalism for the English people (it’s easier to speak of the English, since it is in England that the whole issue is most visible) should be a natural and moral politics in an age of completely unwanted, unasked-for colonisation and replacement.  The demographics for the English are known, complete with forward projections of minoritisation.  The context of globalism is public knowledge already.  The party could and should have enunciated a politics of the English life on a basis of universal principles.  It could have justly argued that one cannot simply demand of any people of the land that it gives up its existence for the sake of a non-possible post-racial utopia.  It could have developed a devastating moral critique of the entire process.

By this means it would have silenced the cheap cries of “racism”, “fascism”, and “hate” and so forth, and exposed the Establishment to the unanswerable question: What are we English to do when no part of the body politic will do anything for us?

I believe that Griffin knew this option was available.  Sometimes he could get quite close to enunciating parts of it.  But he always turned back into the anti-Islam rhetoric and the dullard irrelevancies of appeals to the WW2 spirit and so on.  He sought controversy.  He responded to criticism like the martinet he was.  He seemed unduly interested in confirming the negative image of him and his party created in the media (which is why so many assumed that the security services pulled his strings).

His real legacy is that he and his party operated as a dog in the manger, and still do.  No politics for the English people can be generated while they exist; and those who, frankly, care nothing for the English are the only ones who will celebrate that.

Posted by Graham_Lister on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 02:11 | #

A very pithy and astute comment on the matter from GW.

I do think that genuinely sophisticated - intellectually, morally/ethically, and politically – forms of non-liberal European nationalisms are possible. What I have dubbed the ‘ethno-communitarian’ for want of a better term.

Griffin of course was, I think, utterly incapable of articulating such a type of politics. Probably both for psychological/personal reasons as well as his political and analytical/ideological limitations (Fascism really is dumb in the extreme). Griffin simply didn’t have the vision thing, nor did he have the trustworthy/character thing going on either. He appeared to be a bit thick and quite slimy into the bargain. In fact he always appeared to my eyes as little more than someone that had their world-view premised upon the following; “Wogs are odd/different/inferior” supplemented by the “Jews are the root of all evil”, and finally “Wasn’t Hitler a really nice bloke”.

Not much to build a successful or indeed popular ideology upon there – nor indeed the basis for a substantive politico-moral critique of contemporary society.

That ability to develop (and convincingly articulate) a compelling alternative narrative – to alter the coordinates of political discourse – one that changes the conceptional framework by which people think and feel about politics (and culture, ethics etc.) is at the very heart of ideological struggles and shifts within modern history (and necessarily it’s a counter-hegemonic account – today liberalism in all its various forms has ‘full spectrum dominance’ even if half-witted American follows of Hayek fool themselves into thinking that somehow they are not liberals too!).

Ideologically serious politics is all about changing that ‘picture of the world’ by which people understand and evaluate the political possibilities (in the widest sense of that term). Understanding what the process and mechanism(s) of what we can call ideological interpellation or how politico-ethical subjectivities are formulated is the key. Griffin is simply not even on speaking terms with serious political thought nor indeed the pragmatic arts of politics. Griffin’s talent seems to be in money-grubbing from the BNP rubes but that’s of no interest to anyone with a meta-political IQ above room temperature.

Like I have said before an ethno-communitarian politics has to have way more to it than “Wogs smell and look funny” or clichéd ‘conservative’ and/or reactionary boiler-plate. It conceptually matters not one jot if the ‘invaders’ are all super-intellectual green aliens from Mars that quote Kant et al., in between discussions of the wonders of Bach. Even if the aforementioned little green men where ‘objectively’ superior I still would not wish my ethno-polis to be shared with them in any substantive way. Primarily because of the relationship of social-capitial to homogeneity, in addition to worries about my group eventually becoming only one of several players within that polis (or even a minority with the polis) and what that would imply for the political distribution of political power and dynamics/instability of such an overly ‘diverse’ polis. Even the most homogeneous of mass societies has quite enough inherent diversity and forms of political/economic/cultural/geographic cleavages/fault-lines. Finally, survive and ethnocentric continuity is over the longer term also a pressing matter! The method of suicide (delightful little green men versus say the Chinese, or Africans or whoever) is ultimately quite irrelevant.

Just on that topic the Scottish novelist James Kelman recently wrote the following on the issue of Scottish independence:

“Independence is not an economic decision, it concerns self-respect. How many countries do we know in the world where the people need a debate about whether or not they should determine their own existence. Ultimately it concerns survival. For whatever value our culture has it is ours, and like Sorely MacLean once said about the Gaelic language, even if it was a poor thing, it would still be loved, and those who used it would still have the desire to see it flourish.”

For culture read our ‘way of being in the world’ in its totality (biological/ethic, linguistic, cultural etc.) – and of course ‘culture’ for all human beings is grounded in and emerges from our biology. The value of say being Scottish, English, Basque or Flemish (or indeed whatever) is not found in some calculus of superiority/inferiority (oh the Japanese are ‘objectively’ superior - I wish I could be one of them and ‘cancel’ my own identity etc.) but rather in the process of autochthonous emergence – this is what I am and I cannot authentically be anything else and even if my place in this world (my nation) is NOT the best in the world I still love it and have gratitude towards our collective trans-generational ‘moral community’ simply because it is mine. It’s our beloved home in the world and we must make the best of it for ourselves and those that will come after us etc.

Which of course is why 99% of Americans are useless in understanding this ideological/psychological bedrock of any serious form of European nationalism - as the USA is founded on the mythology (and in some ways the truth) of precisely being able to radically change one’s identity and start afresh (in every way imaginable). Thus in its ontological liberalism the American ideology (and those grown in its soil) are the embodiment of the allochtoon in contrast to old European autochtoons. I think that emotional and ideological gap is nearly unbridgeable. But that is getting way off topic.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 04:58 | #

@12

Griffin of course was, I think, utterly incapable of articulating such a type of politics.

Says it all really.

The BNP is/was a working class movement and by extension and Griffin was sufficiently astute to see the potential.

The one thing that has remained with me throughout this science fiction odyssey is the vast range and scope of disciplines it encompasses.

As for myself I’m still meeting myself coming back.

How and where would one start to educate our people to become aware of their looming fate in such a morass of postmodern drug inspired bollocks.

Griffin knew he was on a loser there so he went route one.

I wonder how Farage is going to fare?

I’m waiting for a New World Order for Dummies.

Posted by DanielS on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 05:58 | #

Graham, brilliant comment, thank you. Much to consider there and a reminder of why GW values your participation here.

I am glad to be reminded that non-Jewish, neo-liberal, interests can be just as cunning as any adversary, even if not quite as organized and deliberately adversarial, etc.

I will leave discussion of the issue of keeping American / European concerns from interfering with each other if not helping one another for another time. Even if one might like to simply ignore European Americans (I know, to you an oxymoron) its probably is not best to put our heads in the sand.

Part of the idea of coordination is just that - it is to keep people from interfering with one another; it is not about integrating them (which is your nightmare).

Other than to commend the many good thoughts for consideration, I would add critique of one thing.

Graham said:

“For culture read our ‘way of being in the world’ in its totality (biological/ethic, linguistic, cultural etc.) – and of course ‘culture’ for all human beings is grounded in and emerges from our biology.”

I would propose an adjustment here, something like:

and of course, ‘culture’ for all human being is grounded in and emerges in interactions of our biological constitution.

................................................................

Bill said:

“How and where would one start to educate our people to become aware of their looming fate in such a morass of postmodern drug inspired bollocks.”

To start by not continuing to propose “postmodern” in a pejorative sense, as it is the concept they need to turn back into their historical, genetic interests.

Although I can appreciate that you are marking a protest in distinction from Americans….as native Europeans would find reconstructing their culture a great deal more “natural” - i.e., “modern” and not “cultural”, i.e., “postmodern.”

Nevertheless, Post Modern is entirely suitable and necessary for native European use as modernity is prone to wreak havoc here as anywhere; and Europeans also need the post modern circuit breaker and capacity to return to tradition and time immemorial forms; but also to take our native European modern quests where appropriate - for example to burrow into understanding our biological structures and ontology.

“I wonder how Farage is going to fare?

I’m waiting for a New World Order for Dummies.”

From what I gather, the “New World Order Dummies” (read corporate interests) are the one’s pulling his strings. Still, to jettison the EU would be wonderful. I guess they are dangling that bit of meat as they had “End The Fed” via Ron Paul.

They know people will bite (taking up the rest of the program) and they can siphon off a great deal of opposition.

Posted by Leon on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:15 | #

Lister@12

Much to agree with, some to criticize, but as I am no longer an MR participant, I would only like to point out that the following

What I have dubbed the ‘ethno-communitarian’ for want of a better term.

is not true. I originally dubbed Dr. Lister “an ethnocommunitarian social democrat”, which did seem the best description of his position.

Please note my disapproval of that particular political disposition.

Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:44 | #

In my inbox this morning:

Official statement from the NEW BNP leader

Dear fellow patriot,

Many of you will already know me. For some years I have been the BNP National Organiser leading our street protests, for example demanding the restoration of capital punishment for the killers of Lee Rigby, while others will know me for my union work as a former president of the nationalist union Solidarity.

I am honoured to have been selected to replace Nick Griffin and lead the BNP in this exciting new era.

My leadership style is likely to be very different from that of my predecessor because we are very different people. I will be pleased to listen to Nick’s views alongside all the activists and supporters of the British National Party. Having taken those views into account I will make my own mind up and my own decisions.

My primary focus is reconnecting the BNP with the ordinary person in the street. That means that any extremist language or dogma is unwelcome. Nationalism is about promoting the interests of the people. The people are always right, and I want to build a popular and genuine nationalist alternative to the rotten old political parties without compromising any of our core BNP principles.

The BNP enjoys huge support from the British public and it’s my principal aim to convert that huge support into votes and real electoral success.

Posted by Bill on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:14 | #

If someone had said to me as recent as only ten years ago that it would be possible for the world’s elites to overturn the order of human behaviour (evolved over thousands of years) in the time-span of a few decades I would never have believed them.

If it was possible (which I don’t think it is) to explain to our people the enormity of what has taken place and what is intended for them (only the tip of the iceberg so far) in this world of ours, they would be incapable of absorbing such information.

Human formation is no longer about rich and poor. Somewhere down the line the emphasis has changed from class to one of intelligence with a faux sense of higher purpose in life, (lol) thus spawning an esoteric Us and Them.  Them being the ignorant masses.

Breeding is not longer the benchmark of social status, it has been replaced by the hubris of knowledge and expertise derived from mass higher education since the sixties, nobless oblige is out, Tony Blair-ism is in.

It is this new breed of in your face arrogance that has been co-opted into launching a New World order.  Without the treacherous help of these people the architects of the scheme could not succeed.

I suspect throughout history the elite rulers have viewed their charges as inferior cattle, which is a rather curious for if that’s the case, from where did the term Nobless Oblige arise?

For well over a decade of ever increasing immigration the media and politicians have steadfastly refused to debate the issue, it is incredulous how this feat of silence has managed to be sustained, though unprecedented vilification of the population with accusations of every description from lazy fat slobs to welfare scroungers, at the same time implying the native English are not fit to polish the shoes of the migrant.

This situation no longer applies, the simmering cauldron of race and immigration has now reached the long overdue stage where is will dominate politics from now on, the media and politicians can no longer continue whistling in the dark ignoring the concern of millions.

All of which brings our attention to the not too distant General Election next year.  I cannot envisage anything other than the dominant issue being one of immigration, of course the media will try every trick to divert attention to the economy or other some-such.

The big question for nationalism is to what effect will the democratic process shape events?  There’s a voluble number who openly say they have no faith in the system and voting will have very little affect on the eventual outcome.

But we’re not there yet, media sponsored Nigel Farage of UKIP made great strides in the EU and local elections but has since has fallen silent, the media and Farage himself have (temporarily) vanished from the scene.

Our present world is in turmoil, a whole catalogue of military adventures by Anglo-Zionist forces has scorched a path across Africa, the middle east and beyond.

World War III is openly being discussed even in elevated circles.

Forces of the right are noticeably gaining a foothold across the whole spectrum, there is no sign of let up from the Globalists, time seems to be of the essence, they are forever pushing the envelope.

All in all, it is adding up (in Britain) to a more than interesting run up to next year’s election.  Perhaps if nothing else, the election will provide a public platform to get our message across, which is most vital.

Anyone seen Farage?

Posted by Dude on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:03 | #

Following on from Dave Lister and his general points, I see that the Green’s are even making noises about immigration, community cohesion etc, alongside the usual motifs of ‘equality’: http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2442607/love_immigrants_hate_immigration.html

I have tried this piece out on a few of my leftist friends and acquaintances and it is interesting how receptive they are when arguments are not delivered by the wrong sorts. The ineluctable desire to be seen (and felt) as a ‘good’ person.

Posted by Dude on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:05 | #

Complete with greengrocer’s apostrophe. Must be Friday.

Posted by Dude on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:11 | #

Without a recently amended constitution, it is hard to decipher. The tale given by those with connections from the inside is that it was a National Executive decision, due to bad electoral results. Considering Griffin’s procedural pugnaciousness, the smoothness of the transition seems a little too pat. Here’s one of those ex-insiders: http://alternative-right.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/griffin-bites-dust-after-election.html

What strikes me is the collective shrug of semi-indifference, from those who have waited for this moment for a decade. Everyone is riding the tiger.

Posted by Bill on Sat, 26 Jul 2014 05:58 | #

When did the tolerant become so intolerant.

The attitude of liberalism to freedom provides a prime example of these contradictory meanings. Classical liberalism, which was to the fore in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, typically placed a heavy emphasis on the importance of individual autonomy and liberty. In sharp contrast, contemporary liberalism tends to be deeply intolerant and elitist.

Fred Siegel, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank based in New York, has provided an enormous service with his innovative history of modern American liberalism, The Revolt Against the Masses. It helps put many of the most retrograde trends in the US into their proper context. It also helps shed light on parallel developments in other countries, including Britain, even though they are outside Siegel’s remit.

For Siegel, a defining feature of modern liberalism is its attachment to what he calls the clerisy – a technocratic elite which he identifies with academia, Hollywood, the prestige press, Silicon Valley and Wall Street. Despite its professed attachment to equality of opportunity, this elite holds the mass of the American public, what Siegel refers to as ‘the middle class’, in contempt. The clerisy sees itself as superior to the rest of the population on meritocratic grounds.

Read all…

http://www.spiked-online.com/review_of_books/article/liberals-against-liberalism/15365#.U9M_sLGcbcc

Posted by Bill on Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:07 | #

@21 If you found Spike’s piece interesting then I suggest you might like the following.

Following the link provided, I chose this version ‘John Carey: The Intellectuals and the Masses’

Deja Vu all over again or what goes round comes round.  I see shades of MR here.

Carey ends his survey at 1939, but he reminds us that the old intellectual prejudices have not died out yet. The ever-expanding mass media have ‘driven the intellectuals to evolve an anti-popular cultural mode that can reprocess all existing culture and take it out of the reach of the majority.’ This mode is variously called ‘post-structuralism’, or ‘deconstruction’, or just plain ‘theory’, and it began in the 1960s with the work of Jacques Derrida. It has managed, says Carey, to evolve a language that is impenetrable to most native English-speakers. You can say that again. Much of it is gibberish. The whole wretched business was exposed by Alan Sokal.

Read all…

http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.co.uk/2005/08/john-carey-intellectuals-and-masses.html

Posted by DanielS on Sat, 26 Jul 2014 09:19 | #

Its true, Bill, Derrida is a significant culprit, with his concept “erasure” (of structures that were of helpful guidance to us), his “deconstruction” (of our ancient cultural forms), his advocacy of outsiders (whom he disingenuously included into our groups as “marginals”).

He is one of those who provided an avenue for a lot of paying undergraduates to be consumers at the big business of universities - the business largely of selling talk, which is fed by “inclusion” (i.e., of students/customers/consumers) and in Derrida’s case, selling deconstruction to them, which was even easier - you don’t even have to be able to talk, just knock things down.

Re: outsiders misrepresented as “marginals” -

http://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/miscegenation_as_equivalent_to_rape_and_pedophila_part_3

Posted by Tanstaafl on Fri, 01 Aug 2014 18:09 | #

LOL @Lister and his world-view premised upon “facists/rubes are odd/different/inferior” supplemented by the “Americans are the root of all evil”, and finally “Wasn’t Griffin a dumb bloke”.

Apparently:

‘culture’ for all human beings is grounded in and emerges from our biology ...  and I cannot authentically be anything else and even if my place in this world (my nation) is NOT the best in the world I still love it

applies to everyone except “fascists”, “rubes”, and “Americans” because they supposedly don’t share (or understand) his ideas and regardless of whether they are part of his biology/‘culture’/nation.

the USA is founded on the mythology (and in some ways the truth) of precisely being able to radically change one’s identity and start afresh (in every way imaginable)

Why the knee-jerk defense of the jews and psychopathologization of “Americans”?

If you hate what’s become of the US, you hate jews. Whether you realize it or not.

- Alex Linder, via Twitter, 2014

Or, for those who prefer the opinion of a non-American:

In the face of this fact, is there not some justification for the opinion that the United States owe their very existence to the Jews? And if this be so, how much more can it be asserted that Jewish influence made the United States just what they are—that is, American? For what we call Americanism is nothing else, if we may say so, than the Jewish spirit distilled.

- Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, 1913