Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

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.

READ MORE...

... 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.”

Mike: Fair point for general membership but others knew well what was going on and blanked it from their minds for convenience. The ords look at the tops and say well they are still there so the rumours must be false. The tops are guilty parties.

It’s the same with state plants. They can scream to high heaven ‘I’m a plant’ and people blank it as something which only happens in books - like bank runs. There is one at the moment outside the BNP who screams it. As someone said to me of followers ‘They’ve been told and it goes over their heads’. Now you can never be 100% sure so the correct thing is to be wary of what they are up to and where it might lead not ignore it.

View the operations of Mark Kennedy elsewhere. Appears from nowhere and very helpful plus provides facilities. People like that you keep an eye on. If they are plants they’ll let it slip somehow. It’s only human. Look out for sabotage or luring you into situations which can be used against you but not necessarily involving anything illegal. And keep in mind that the state is obsessed with building databases of ‘enemies of society’. MI5 had files on FOUR MILLION people some years ago. Even they admitted this was a little excessive. A lot of these plants are name and address collectors. Anyone opposing state policy - even writing to a newspaper - is an ‘enemy of society’.

I think these guys must be soft minded. They’ll be dumped as soon as not useful. It’s not worth it.

Mill: The problem is that such a large proportion of prominent nationalists have been labelled “State Plants” at some time or other, that it becomes difficult to separate the fiction from the reality.

READ MORE...

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.

READ MORE...

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:

I also appeal TO YOU – YOU who are reading this article – because, like any proposal, it requires a display of support and the posting here of as many messages of general support and agreement as possible.

The plan I put to you is this. In order to advance the prospect of Nationalist Unity, without which nothing on a national political front can ever be accomplished, I propose that a simple petition, or plebiscite to use an old term, of ALL Nationalists and supporters of Nationalism is undertaken.

Every individual would submit their name and some address detail to distinguish them (if not a home address, an email perhaps) and – this is the really important bit – each person would include a brief summary of what THEY consider to be the most vital pieces of policy and constitutional requirements that a single, united, nationwide major Nationalist Party ought to have.

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:

READ MORE...

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.

READ MORE...

“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:

A parallel party structure, tasked with building up supporters, a database, a leadership core and making overtures to other nationalists and parties along with creating all the essential elements required to run a party, is to be formed in terms of a majority decision taken at today’s BNP Ideas conference in Leicestershire.

... Mr Brons said he felt the time was not appropriate for the creation of a new party, and that it was better to rather create a parallel structure which could step in to pick up the pieces should the BNP’s current infrastructure collapse, or, if a certain minimum of signed up supporters (Mr Brons said 1,500 would be a suitable figure) was obtained, in which case a new party might become viable.

Less than that, Mr Brons said, and a new party would “nose dive” which would give the Griffin-controlled BNP an undeserved victory.

... Finally, the meeting was asked to vote on three specific proposals: to stay in the BNP and seek to replace Nick Griffin by legal internal means; to create a new party; and to create a parallel structure.

A handful of people voted for a new party, but the vast majority of those present voted to create the parallel structure. The organisation will take into consideration all of the proposals made by delegates, and further announcements will be made on this website in due course.

From England First, a lucid explanation of the death, possibly imminent, of the British National Party:

In December 2007 a group of senior party officials rebelled against Griffin and his then right-hand man Mark Collett (who ironically was to be purged himself in a later schism at the end of March 2010). Leading dissidents were then dismissed from their positions in the party, including former webmaster Steve Blake, former head of admin Kenny Smith, and his wife Nicholla Smith who then ran the BNP merchandising arm Excalibur.

Griffinite security goons raided the rebels’ homes, and the party leadership, in the persons of Griffin and his deputy Simon Darby, began a complicated legal action against their former comrades in March 2008. After the first hearing of this action in Manchester, Simon Darby issued a statement which will no doubt feature in future histories of political hubris:

“We have got everything we asked for….  I believe such moves will be seen as having been crucial for the continuing growth, discipline and structure of our movement.”

Almost three years later the case ended in catastrophic defeat for Darby and his master.  At the end of 2010 they dropped their action, but typically sought to wriggle out of paying the costs.  On 21st December 2010 they lost this argument as well: Griffin and Darby were ordered to pay all of their opponents’ costs.  An initial £45,000 was ordered to be paid by 18th January 2011.

There then began a long drawn out appeal process.  Not that Nick Griffin expected to win any appeal, merely that he hoped to drag out the process long enough for something to turn up, such as a legacy from some deluded millionaire supporter, or a devastating terrorist attack.

By now the courts were beginning to realise that Nick Griffin MEP was a man of straw, so Darby was required to make a deposit of £20,000 with his solicitors so that (if/when the appeal process was exhausted) the courts could be confident that at least some of the bill would be paid.

In August one of England’s most senior judges, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, ruled that Griffin and Darby had no reasonable grounds to pursue a further appeal.  By now the stay of execution delaying demand for payment of the £45,000 had expired, so on the morning of 2nd September 2011 High Court Enforcement Officers turned up at Griffin’s home to seize any possessions of value, including his Skoda car, which they planned to sell at auction.

The desperate Welshpool cabal sought yet another stay of execution to delay their inevitable doom.  Yet again it was granted, this time by Lord Justice Rix, but this time on the strict condition that (a) Darby’s £20,000 was handed over within three days, and (b) the remaining £25,000 was produced within a fortnight.

Needless to say, even this £45,000 was only the first instalment of this particular legal bill, set to total more than £150,000, and the party’s total debts add up to well over £500,000.

But even this first hurdle proved too high for the crippled BNP.  Simon Darby and his solicitors failed to hand over the £20,000 and on the expiry of this deadline, on Wednesday afternoon, 14th September, the BNP lost any right to further appeals in this case.  Having realised that the trigger was about to be pulled, Griffin and Darby rustled up £20,000 and paid it into the Court account two days late.

The stay of execution will still be lifted if they fail to meet the 28th September deadline for payment of a further £25,000, in which case the party’s creditors will begin the process of putting the BNP into administration.

Future control of the party would pass into the hands of the Administrator appointed by the court, so Nick Griffin’s much touted election victory and his new constitution, giving him unchallenged dictatorial power for the next four years, would become worthless.  The final step will be to determine whether Nick Griffin should face not merely bankruptcy (in his case for the second time) but a more serious bankruptcy restrictions order, which would result in his removal from the European Parliament.

In that case his replacement would be decided by the Administrator in charge of the wreck of the BNP.