Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

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...

Just as we saw in the run up to last May’s European Parliament elections, the media is cranking up its BNP “coverage”.  Yesterday we were treated to a nearly balanced opener from the Sunday Times.  Today we were given articles in the Telegraph here and, pathetically, here, in the Mail here and, obliquely, in the Independent here.

I suspect that the attack will take on a different, more focussed form this time.  The BNP are standing a record 326 candidates.  But that’s little more than half the constituencies throughout the country, and the constituencies where the party has a chance of doing well are limited to three or four, all with a current big Labour majority.  The two most realistic chances are Barking and Dagenham, where Richard Barnbrook “agreed” to stand aside for Nick Griffin, and Stoke Central, where Alby Walker did not agree to stand aside for Simon Darby (but had to anyway).  Emma Colgate could poll respectably in Thurrock, notwithstanding the fact that nobody is totally sure whether she is in or out of the party following the last (and let us hope it is the last) Collett affair.  Roger Roberts may do likewise in Dewsbury.

As for the rest, including the council elections on the same day, the objective has to be to show a presence, to increase support (in terms of second and third places where fourths and fifths were had previously), to save deposits, and to build, build, build.  To that end, it is a little strange that the party is campaigning on three principal issues: withdrawal from Afghanistan, a halt to the immigration invasion, and an end to the ‘Global Warming’ conspiracy.  The voting public’s first concern is for the economy and jobs.  But the BNP seems not to understand how to address that (bringing some economic literacy on-board would seem a good start).  Also high on the list of concerns is the related issue of the unaccountability of Westminster and corruption of the political class.  But, again, it is not a major issue in party thinking.

Personally, I would like to see them campaign hard for freedom of speech and association, and an end to cultural warfare in public life, most especially in education (it will have to do so anyway if it wants to attract support from the Conservative/UKIP voting middle-classes).  All told, there is an extraordinary opportunity for the party to sculpt a powerful, attractive and wholly unique ideological niche for itself, and one that the left cannot reply to with the usual smears.

As Simon Heffer noted last week of the mainstream parties:

the choice of voting for staying in Europe or staying in Europe, massive immigration or massive immigration, an enormous and unnecessary public sector or an enormous and unnecessary public sector and more mind-numbing political correctness or more mind-numbing political correctness.

Heffer is a right-wing Tory, and is appealing for a right-wing Tory platform.  But his point holds true for the BNP as well.  Does anyone feel that it is responding appropriately?

Perhaps part of the problem is that, regardless of what they do, growth in support for the party is “inevitable”.  In 2005 it achieved 0.7% of the vote, totalling 192,746 votes, a performance which was three times better than in 2001.  General elections tend to see the votes of minor parties squeezed.  But a performance that is very far adrift of the 940,000 votes in May’s Europeans, or around 3.5% of the 2005 total of 27,110,727, will be taken as a disappointment in the circumstances.

Of course, the media may have something to say about that as well.

The BBC is reporting on its ticker service that Judge Paul Collins, sitting in the Central London County Court, has ruled that the BNP’s new membership rules are “likely to discriminate”.  The basis for this ruling appears to be that prospective members sign up to principles including a duty to oppose the promotion of any form of “integration or assimilation” that impacted on the “indigenous British”, and to support the “maintenance and existence of the unity and integrity of the indigenous British”.

If this is the case, we have indeed arrived at the existential moment I described in my last blog on the party‘s legal travails:

We have reached a defining moment in the long process of racial destruction which began with the Atlee government turning its back on the people’s rights and instincts in 1948. The BNP has stripped away everything but the one essential principle that it must fight, and fight, and fight. The Establishment has, in attempting to force the discourse of the BNP to match its own, stripped away everything but the one essential principle that the native British must die as native Britons. This is no longer about “fascism” or “the hard right” or even “hate”. It is existential …

We need more information to come out before a proper assessment of the scale of the damage can be made.  But it looks like the BNP will now have to lodge an appeal against the ruling in order to be able to contest the forthcoming General Election.

Downstream from this ruling is the prospect that anti-discrimination law will be clarified and, possible then, hate speech law will be extended to make the expression of nationalist sentiment illegal too.  This, in my view, is the logical end-game.  The British government has already “affirmed” at the UN and in the EU that there is no such thing as an indigenous Briton.  These people really do mean to destroy us.

The consequences of such a legal trajectory would be that thousands of good men and women will be imprisoned and have their lives destroyed because they love their people and they love justice and freedom too much to remain silent, and unknown numbers of others will quickly come to see violence as the only path to our survival still open.

David Cameron gave a speech sans notes to his party’s Spring Conference today (ie, it was more sincere than usual).  It included a jaw-dropping three-minute passage that makes very satisfying listening for every BNP member.  His theme was “winning it for Britain”.  I won’t write anymore.  Just listen for yourself - in particular for the loudest cheer.

Hat tip to Simon Darby

by Rod Cameron

New Labour’s decision to put the EHRC dog onto the BNP has cost New Labour dearly. Not only has New Labour disowned its Working Class roots, but also it has handed over on a silver plate the most precious part of its history, its formative years, to the BNP. History of a century and more ago has repeated. The danger inherent to becoming part of the Establishment is to forget your forebears and their struggles, and then you surrender your political soul. I offer you this analogy.

THE BRITISH LABOUR MOVEMENT AND THE BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY

The decision by Nick Griffin to change the constitution of the BNP to allow blacks and Asians to join, following pressure from the EHRC, should be received by the BNP with a certain sanguinity. Knowledge of the rise of the British Labour Movement will result in a wry acceptance that this is “par for the course”. Not for the first time social realities are being ignored and Establishmentarian forces are arrayed against the political newcomer.

The Social Reality

Trade unionism and opposition to immigration were preservationist/survivalist reactions to social realities. The Labour Movement was motivated by the need for working-class preservation. The BNP arises from the desire for ethnic self-preservation.

Establishmentarian Reactions

READ MORE...

by Alexander Baron

Earlier this month, the British National Party voted to accept non-white members. This was done, ostensibly, under pressure from the grandly styled Equality And Human Rights Commission, a body that has in the past sought and obtained prosecutions for the publication of racist cartoons and poked its proboscis into every aspect of traditional British life attempting to mould it to the race-mixers’ agenda. The far right has of course been the target of the liberal self-styled ruling élite for decades, and in spite of the left’s vacuous and increasingly tiresome charges of the establishment’s racism, there has been a de facto conspiracy to suppress all (white) racial-nationalist movements and parties in both the media and other circles. The contrived prosecutions and convictions of John Tyndall, Nick Griffin, the gullible but sorely misguided Lady Birdwood, and many others, is proof positive of that. Now though that one albeit fringe party has enjoyed a modicum of success, a new tactic has been devised. Suddenly, it has been discovered that the BNP’s constitution is illegal because it discriminates against non-whites, and the BNP has thrown in the towel without so much as a whimper. But does it matter?

There have been racial-nationalist movements in Britain for a century or more; an organisation called the British National Party was formed by a wholesale fish merchant named Edward Godfrey of Hayes, Middlesex (where I grew up incidentally) during the Second World War, but the BNP as it exists today is a child of the National Front. The Front was founded in 1967 by that greatest of British patriots A.K. Chesterton, who had previously founded the League Of Empire Loyalists. Three years later, he was forced out, the Party soon falling under the control of John Tyndall and Martin Webster. In 1980, Tyndall made a bold decision, resigning from the organisation and forming the New National Front. The basis for this was – he claimed – a homosexual network that was operating inside the organisation. In fact, this “network” consisted principally if not entirely of Martin Webster, whose homosexuality could not have been unknown to Tyndall but had been tolerated by him and other senior members because of his undoubted abilities.

The real reason for the split was that the authoritarian Tyndall wanted more or less total control over what had always been a thoroughly democratic organisation – notwithstanding the oft’ repeated and tiresome “Nazi” epithet. Tyndall’s new party was the most successful of the various NF splinter groups, and shortly changed its name to the British National Party, which it remains today under the leadership of Nick Griffin.

READ MORE...