Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

As nationalism is rising across continental Europe it is in meltdown in Britain thanks to a long litany of disastrous management errors and political and legal misjudgements by Nick Griffin.  Below the fold is a news piece that appeared on the Guardian site this morning. It is written by Matthew Taylor, who has form, and quotes the usual hostile sources.  But it has no need of mischaracterisation.  It can and does fairly and accurately describe the crisis in political nationalism in Britain.  There is no doubt about where our only viable political brand is heading.

And there is no silver lining to this political tragedy.  The Reform 2011 initiative is in limbo.  Eddy Butler, among others, is now a civic nationalist at the English Democrats. Lee’s British Freedom Party appears not to have made it to the start line.

Only the National Front has stuck to the racial nationalist faith, even while that faith has been declared illegal as a result of Griffin’s defiance of the EHRC last year.  In fact, so keen on racial nationalism is the present generation of NF folk, they call themselves a White Nationalist party.

The gainer in all this has been UKIP, a party which takes anti-nationalism to the extreme of anti-racism. It is very likely to score a significant victory in next month’s local authority elections, and may now have the kind of momentum and financial backing that will facilitate a serious General Election campaign two years from now.

Where the BNP will be in two years’ time doesn’t bear thinking about.  Griffin said at one point that he will stand down in 2013.  He may not get the chance if the current legal actions against the party and its officers for recovery of commercial debt succeed.

READ MORE...

by David Hamilton

A totalitarian method used by the British state is infiltrating state agents into legitimate and rival political parties to discredit and destabilise them and keep the Global elites in power.

The Express newspaper of 18th February 1999 revealed that the Security Services were going to infiltrate:

Scotland Yard and MI5 are planning a huge covert operation to break up violent racist organizations. The Express has learned that intelligence officers will infiltrate far Right groups such as the British National Party.

Since Griffin became leader in 1999 the BNP has been contained when it was riding a wave and now is being destabilised. The tide turned for the BNP in 2001, due to media promotion and hard work of organisers in Oldham and Burnley. Two areas Griffin has destroyed.

Griffin and others contained that growth by quickly undermining branches in areas that growth had taken place in by sacking organisers where it did. East London was the first, followed by Oldham and Burnley later Bradford and Birmingham. The BNP’s peak was contained and undermined by state ops working within.

Around that time previous BNP leader John Tyndall was suspicious of Griffin:

Many of us noticed that shortly before or shortly after the leadership change that took place in the BNP in 1999 a number of new figures emerged in the party, little or nothing of whom had been known previously; and many of these graduated quickly to senior positions. Where were they coming from? What was their motivation? Were they with us to help or hinder?

Absolutely certain answers to these questions cannot be supplied, but it was noticeable that virtually all of these people aligned themselves decisively with the so-called ‘modernising’ faction in the party which had gained the ascendancy through the leadership change.(1)

THE Scottish National Party was spied on by British secret service agents, previously classified Government files seen by Scotland on Sunday have finally proved:

The dossiers contain first-hand accounts from numerous unnamed agents of party meetings, and also include names of SNP members and sympathisers. They also provided transcripts of speeches and give particular attention to members they believed were on the more radical and militant wing of the party.

READ MORE...

So John Wadham’s attempt to have Nick Griffin, Simon Darby and Tanya Lumby found in contempt of court for failing to comply with the county court judgement against the BNP has failed.  Well over a year of legal battle - in the event, entirely unnecessary legal battle - is over.  The BNP under Griffin emerges as a cultural nationalist party with a mountainous debt and ravaged activist base, the better part of which quit to join the now rudderless Reform Group and Lee Barnes’ probably still-born British Freedom Party (Lee?).  The blood-letting in the movement won’t be ended by this judgement.  On the contrary, the reformers won’t expect Griffin to accept them back in the fold - how many would go?  They won’t give up, so they must now play the long game.

It’s all quite astonishing only eighteen months after the heady days of the European Parliament Elections in early June 2009.  May’s general election and the humilation in Barking has been followed by some miserable local election results.  And that’s where candidates could be found to stand.  Amid the ruins Griffin speaks of rebuilding.  But there has to be a strong likelihood that party prospects will not improve until he finally steps aside, supposedly in 2013, though nobody really believes that.

Looking ahead, now that racial or ethno-nationalism has been placed outside the law, the party seems likely to move further in the direction of culturism.  Politicians, even those whose hearts are with their people, want to be relevant.  They will look at the success of Geert Wilders today.  Well, what’s the point of loyalty to racial nationalism, they will say, if the voter won’t buy it?

The radical thinker will respond that metapolitics, not accomodationism, makes possible revolutionary parties and political careers.  The lack of a metapolitical reservoir is the most fundamental of all the reasons the BNP cannot progress.  Yes, Wilders makes electoral progress.  But he draws from liberalism.  He has no interest in real systemic change.  What, then, is the historical purpose of the BNP?  Where is its soul?  In winning elections.  In operating within the law.  In culturism, will increasingly be the reply.  History will look after itself.

The cultural answer will leave the movement having to create other, non-political vehicles for espousal of racial nationalist values and ideas.  The argument for English survival will fall to new players.  It won’t take long, believe me.

I thought I might draw your attention to a BBC News 24 interview in which the interviewer Ben Brown did an exceptional job of accusing a man with cerebral palsy of bringing upon himself the violence he suffered from riot police at last weekend’s anarcho-student rumpus in London.

These are the choice cuts:

Brown: There’s a suggestion that you were rolling towards the police in your wheelchair. Is that true?

McIntyre: I think justifying a police officer pulling a disabled person out of a wheelchair and dragging them across a concrete road is quite ridiculous and I’m surprised that you just tried to do so.

Brown: So that’s not true - you were not wheeling yourself towards the police?

McIntire: Well, I can’t physically use my wheelchair myself.  My brother was pushing me.

Brown: Were you throwing anything at the police at all during that day?

McIntire: I was not throwing anything at the police that day.

Brown: Shout anything provocative, or throw anything that would have induced the police to do that to you?

McIntire: Do you really think a person with cerebral palsy in a wheelchair can pose a threat to a police officer who is armed with weapons?

As an encapsulation of the moral superiority of the victim, this small event takes some beating.  Not that the Metropolitan Police are shy about beating anything once they savour the Big-Me moment in the helmet, the riot shield and the stab-proof, fire-proof, thought-proof uniform.  Nonetheless, it is the little man in the wheelchair who is going to be the nation’s hero.  The government, the Establishment really, has already lost this battle ... not for the chance to confiscate a greater and greater share of our dwindling cash and throw it at the banks and the bond market, but for the consent of the people.

Nationalists need to sit up and pay attention right now.  The moment to develop a critique of debt and fractional reserve banking - something missing from political nationalism in Britain for many years - is here.  The electoral reward for getting it right will be vast.  But as yet there is no sign of Griffin realising this screamingly obvious fact.

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.