Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...