Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

This article is cross-posted from the British Democracy Forum, and is my response to the setting up of a new nationalist political party, the British Freedom Party, to challenge the BNP.  It’s my usual plaint - politics follows philosophical thinking, and the failure to recognise this, while understandable given our dire situation, is part of the small circle in which political nationalism travels in Europe.

I thought I would craft a quick response to the emergence of the British Freedom Party, which I will cross post to my own blog.

Strategically, I think the new development is premature. The next European Parliament election will be in June 2014, and quite probably the Westminster poll will be held on the same day. An electoral horizon of four years bar a few months would allow for a couple of years over which the racial-preservationist struggle could be redefined and programmatised as a national movement - we have an example before us in the EDL trying to do something similar (and doing it rather badly) - and then a bare minimum of two years could be devoted to developing the politics.

I do not say such a two-tier approach would be easy to execute. But it would be advisable to try, and the reason is obvious - the BNP is a monopoly business and it will certainly defend that monopoly by placing an electoral block on the new party, standing against it wherever it retains the human capital to do so.

But the BNP has a great weakness. It is ghettoised morally and politically because it is defined not by itself but by its opponents. The objective of a non-BNP nationalist caucus should have been to define itself, not to chase after a negatively-defined political inheritance. The first two years of its existence should have been devoted to that necessary goal.

By way of the sort of thinking that might lead to a self-defined broad movement of restoration I direct your attention to this:

Are minor parties a waste of time?

… which is BGD’s suggestion for a pressure group. I think we should incorporate that but also aim higher, and I did, in fact, suggest on another BDF thread a self-descriptive name that circumvents legal difficulties without sacrificing exclusivity: “Our Land”.

But it doesn’t matter now because the decision has been taken to launch the BFP, and all the concentration remains on stealing away the BNP’s brand and trying to detoxify it.

I want to close with a few words about the real size and nature of this task, and about the limitations that attend all political developments which are essentially nearsighted, reactive and utilitarian.

Freedom is a fine goal, even the particular freedom which is meant in the terms of the BFP. But it is not the goal. Our objective is to save our people from the immediate danger of race-replacement, and to restore to them in perpetuity all the rights that attend sovereign peoples in their own lands.

Now, this is a substantial endeavour - just how substantial bears some consideration. For example, it’s not like saying Man will return to the moon. That’s easy. It’s been done already, and with the appropriate resources could be planned in a few months and executed in a very few years. It’s not even like saying Man will journey to Mars … or the stars. It is harder than these things. It stretches beyond what the ordinary political eye can see. It is about changing history for an entire people and, to be realistic, an entire race of men. It involves the replacement of three hundred years of liberal and, latterly, neo-Marxist thinking with new and fundamental nationalist thinking - and I am not talking about utilitarian panaceas, to quote Arthur Harris, like Lee’s culturism. It involves reversing everything that has been done to us these last sixty years. It involves changing economics, changing the global zeitgeist, changing how people live, what they think, what they value, what they love. It involves our people becoming truer to themselves and living life accordingly, so that their politics will be as organic as every other aspect of their lives. There is genuine freedom in that.

No petty political movement can generate this. But this can generate a very great political movement.

In an email a few days ago a co-blogger wrote to me:

The idea that our entire civilization has failed is a terrifying thought to most every sane man, it may be the most terrifying thought I’ve ever had. People deal with this through denial and scapegoating, they don’t want to recognize just how serious and tragic the problem is nor do they want to put their own lives under the microscope. Fit the problem into a neat little box and then get to work, if only it were that easy.

It isn’t that easy. That is the lesson that awaits all political nationalists in modern Europe. I don’t say that piecemeal thinking, partial solutions, accomodationism can achieve nothing. But they can’t achieve everything, and it’s everything that we need.

Smooth-moving Trevor Phillips, that beacon of tolerance and decency and all round racial lerve who (mis)manages the £70 million, 400-strong mega-quango, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has shocked the nation ... yes, shocked it, I tell you ... with his latest report, How fair is Britain.

Now, you might think it a bit odd that Trevor, although a Guyanan and not one of those purpley-black, ultra-other central African tribal types, is concerned for the declining incidence of fair skin in cool, cloudy Britain.  And you would be right.  He isn’t.  Not in the slightest.  Indeed, the “fairness” for which egalitarian Trev yearns is precisely more of this decline - accompanied, as always, by official attention to his own victim group.  So it is absolutely no surprise that the EHRC’s three-yearly report on “fairness” in my benighted land finds that:

On average, five times more Black people than White people are imprisoned in England and Wales, where 1 in 4 people in prison is from an ethnic minority background.

... There is now greater disproportionality in the number of Black people in prisons in Britain than in the USA.

Over the next few days a small but clamorous industry will be spawned in “evil white racism” advocacy.  Official reponses will be drafted for ministers by people whose career prospects do not allow them to mention the word “biology”.  Committees will be formed deep down in the dry gulch that is the Home Office, where the Prison Service meets the Crown Prosecution Service meets the Met.  Third sector tit-suckers will whip out their favoured causes and brandish them at Whitehall policy-makers like ageing tarts whose New Labour clients have suddenly deceased.  Lefty journalists will spin the facts, confident that nobody will require them to research any further than Das Kapital.  Here is how the Guardian newsdesk has already been spinning:

READ MORE...

by Alexander Baron

There was much controversy last week over comments at the Liberal Democrat Conference in Liverpool by UK Business Secretary Vince Cable.  They included an attack on City spivs and gamblers, on the wealthy, and on capitalism and its strangling of competition:

In uncompromising mood, he told the delegates:

“Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition when it can.

The right-wing press reacted predictably. But, as is often the case in politics, the controversy is unwarranted. Cable earned a PhD in Economics, so it is to be hoped he is not entirely ignorant of his subject matter, but reading a little (unorthodox) history might help to shed light on what he really means.

In his magnum opus “Tragedy And Hope”, which was first published in 1968, Professor Carroll Quigley makes essentially the same observations; page 452:

Business hates competition. Such competition might appear in various forms ... [making] planning difficult, and [jeopardising] profits. Businessmen prefer to get together with competitors so that they can cooperate to exploit consumers to the benefit of profits instead of competing with each other to the injury of profits.

But it is not only business that hates competition, earlier, on pages 380-1, the good Professor points out that:

... the picture which Marx had drawn of more and more numerous workers reduced to lower and lower standards of living by fewer and fewer exploitative capitalists proved to be completely erroneous in the more advanced industrial countries in the twentieth century. Instead, what occurred could be pictured as a cooperative effort by unionized workers and monopolized industry to exploit unorganized consumers by raising prices higher and higher to provide both higher wages and higher profits

READ MORE...

The BNP Reform Group held a conference today.  No doubt video will be released in due course.  The conference was announced on the Reform Group’s blog just yesterday.  The second comment in the thread to the announcement bewailed the undoubted fact that:

Time is running out [and] we nationalists are in desperate need of an inspirational leader and vision for our country.

This evening I posted a direct reply which may or may not find its way onto the thread.  Independent thinking is not necessarily encouraged.  The Reform Group appears to have been won over by Lee Barnes’ culturist notions, and at least one traditionalist contributor there who is well known to us, and who disagrees with Lee, has been frozen out.  Surely not an inspiring decision.

This was my reply, and sets out where I think nationalism in Britain must start from.

First, if you want an inspirational leader to materialise you, the political foot-soldiers, must accept certain (very large) premises.  One of those - very important - is that there is currently no one in the movement who displays the intellectual grasp or the personal qualities needed for nationalism to keep its appointment with history.  To draw such extraordinary talent to the cause you must give it an inspirational form.  This is not the same thing as “political realism” or “accepting that change is irreversible”.  Culturism (or civicism) in any form will fail the test.  Inspiration does not attach itself to defeatism, and no defeatist can call a threatened people to his standard.

To give the cause an inspirational form you must adhere to the following:

1. The Nationalist cause is, at heart, existentialist.  It is about the genetic continuity of the true British people - most particularly today, the English people.  It is not about the survival of culture or civilisation or any form of accommodationism.  There can be no accommodation with a severe and certain threat to our existence.

2. It is the Money Power that is truly waging an existential war against our people, and it is the Money Power that must be destroyed.  That means taking to ourselves the power to issue our own currency, and abolishing usuary by abolishing existing debt at every level.

3. Even when the hard things have been done and the future for our people appears to be secure, yet the greatest task lies ahead.  This is to replace liberalism as the general system of philosophical belief by which our thoughts and values reach us.  It will be doubly hard because there is no extant philosophy of a European life that is ready to hand.  It must be created, and it will be.

The demand for survival ... the abolition of debt ... a philosophy of life befitting the European character ... if nationalism is made intellectually expansive in this way it will attract to itself the men and women it needs to address the modern political age.  The petty policies, the rough and tumble, the whole exordia of political life in Britain will follow.  But that is not where we need to begin.

Last point.  It’s probably best to decide when to cut adrift emotionally from the BNP, and leave it to Griffin and Dowson.  An inspiring new movement with an inspiring new name (ideally, a name for a mass movement, not merely another - yet another - petty party of the nationalist right) is going to have to happen eventually, I believe, and will surely be our last chance to do what we must to remain who we are.

The website:

http://bnpreform.com/

The video :

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.

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.