Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

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...

The judge also accepted ‘powerful submissions’ from the Commission that the BNP’s proposed new constitution is likely to remain unlawful. We will be back in court in March where we hope to conclude this matter by ensuring that whatever constitution the BNP adopts does not break discrimination laws.

John Wadham, EHRC, quoted in a Commission press release following the BNP’s return to the county court today.

The two parts of this statement contain the entire purpose of the EHRC in its action against the BNP.  The first part is to make the party non-racial in its politics.  The second is to render it financially incapable of campaigning in the (May 6th) General Election.

It is part one - the exclusion of all reference to the native British in the party constitution - that is of significance, and more for what it reveals about the historical moment than any political or legal aspects.  In fact, I would go further and say that unless the EHRC pushes its luck to the point of taking out a prosecution against one of the BNP’s leaders for publicly speaking of Britain’s native peoples, none of the legal or political consequences of today’s ruling will do any real, lasting damage.  Instead, the party will simply hold the two AGMs required of it and the voting membership will come to the view that, to quote Lee Barnes:

The sole aim of us participating in the political process is to take power.

Amen to that.  Everything is now clarified.  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, and well enough put by a commenter to the BNP’s website named Rijker:

This is no longer your country.
You cannot have a culture of your own.
You can not represent yourselves in Parliament.
You are to be persecuted until you no longer exist.

Out of this moment will quickly emerge a new clarity and urgency in racialist discourse, and not the death of racialist discourse the EHRC would wish.  What would have been seen by the public as the most extreme and contentious interpretation of “immigration” - that of a designed genocide by population transfer - will slowly but surely become the accepted version of events.  And when that happens, a general awakening is close.

Inevitablism has just been given a huge shot in the arm.

The three hundred or more delegates to the BNP Conference in Wigan have voted overwhelmingly to commit the party to the leadership’s policy of remaining within the law, remaining a party able to fight elections, and admitting non-whites to membership.  Nick Griffin’s own amendments were accepted.  It is thought this means that sub-groups will be formed to house the non-white applicants.

Does the membership change mean that the party has lost its fourteen-word soul?  Or is it merely a cosmetic and inevitable stratagem to satisfy the requirements of British law?  Or is it, in fact, a golden opportunity for the party to advance its cause by the very laws that the Establishment has used to persecute it?

Here’s Lee Barnes with the upside:

The issue is ... where now for the ‘anti-fascists’ ?

For the general public, who believe their lies, the constant scream of ‘racists’ and ‘nazis’ is the primary weapon in the arsenal of the anti-BNP coalition. But that weapon is now rendered defunct. They cannot call the BNP ‘racist’ anymore as we will have many non-white members joining. They can’t call the BNP ‘nazi’ anymore as our new non-white members are obviously not nazis. They can’t call the BNP ‘racist’ anymore either as non-whites will be joining. Therefore the whole tactics and strategy of the Far Left and the media has to change - but how ?

They haven’t got a clue.

Lee goes on to claim that the membership change is “a political revolution”:

READ MORE...

This entry is for MR readers who would like to post their reactions to Nick Griffin’s QT performance.

The programme, which was recorded earlier this evening, was reported as the lead item on BBC News at ten this evening.  Edited highlights on the BBC website are here.  It looks and sounds very like a lynch party, which is perhaps not surprising.  Whether there were any BNP members in the audience to support Griffin I don’t know.  I suspect that there were, and that none of them were permitted to ask searching questions of the other panellists.

Anyhow, it’s time for the real broadcast.  So, see you after that!

UPDATE: QT AND THE BNP BELOW THE FOLD

Thanks to Dan’s find and to Dasein, we can now embed all parts of the programme so readers outside the UK can see exactly what it is we are talking about!

READ MORE...