Posted by Dan Dare on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 02:39 | #

If they are not too Jewish, Cameron’s little circle of advisors may even ponder quietly whether it isn’t actually quite a good idea to relax all that mad-keen anti-racism of the opposition years.

Just can’t see that coming to pass GW, Jews or no. Practically anyone with any backbone has been long since purged from the parliamentary party, and the Conservatives are as ardent as NuLabor for all-women shortlists and parachuting ethnics into safe seats (when they’re not ennobling them that is).

And then I wonder what Enoch would have made of this ...

The new-look Tory woman

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 03:21 | #

I hope this doesn’t sound too unkind but she looks like an extra from the Planet of the Apes.

Posted by Dr. Graham Lister on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:29 | #

That’s being rather kind Friedrich

Posted by Bill on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:50 | #

Britain and America are joined at the hip

Not much to disagree with here GW.  The inevitability (that word again) of it all - is grinding itself out.

To what end is not at all clear - but that’s in the future and the lap of the Gods.

My gaze is being diverted more and more across the pond.  What is going on over there?  From following events here on the blogosphere, it is almost impossible to gauge what the true position is in the awakening stakes and emerging embryo resistance.

White nationalism isn’t the same chemistry as British Nationalism, will they ever converge?

The view from the United States isn’t very clear, the view from here is disjointed and fragmented and lacks focus and cohesion.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying this any way reflects the true position in America but from my viewpoint it’s difficult to get a handle.  Maybe the whole thing is moving so fast it’s in a state of flux.

Having said that, I get the distinct impression that America is possibly forging ahead (pissed off) of Britain, I think the economic conditions in America are having a far more severe impact on the citizenry than over here in (welfare state) Britain, this, combined with widespread gun ownership and wide open spaces, places America in a different league - things could get very violent.

Britain and America are joined at the hip in this venture, all for one - one for all, which one is the brains behind it all - is up for grabs.

Britain’s (Europe and white civilisation’s) ability to determine its own future will stand and fall on the success (or otherwise) of white America.

So, come on you guys - how’s it look’n over there?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:55 | #

she looks like an extra from the Planet of the Apes.

From the latest version, perhaps, though they used white actors and actresses under all the monkey make-up.  Doubtless, they wouldn’t feel comfortable with too much natural prognathicity.  But let no white black-up to play a negro - that would be “waycism” and “oppweshun” for sure.

It will be very interesting to see to what extent Tories in power still genuflect to New Labour’s politics of English race-replacement and what formative effect that has on the BNP.

Numbers-wise, the process of replacement will go essentially unimpeded.  But there will be the inevitable window-dressing about getting tough with illegals and bogus asylum seekers.  The unknown, however, is in the approach to integration.  This was euphemised as social inclusion by the Blairites in the nineties, and a package of assumptions about its moral good came with it.  I think we will see some changes here, with an emphasis on earned inclusion, though I admit the all-women shortlists don’t auger well for that.

Posted by Bill on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:35 | #

Red squirrels fight for survival

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/outdoors/6338669/Red-squirrels-fight-for-survival.html

Anybody like to add a comment?

Never mind about the Red squirrel, what about me?

Posted by Bill on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:09 | #

Migration scare.

There does seem to me a slow-burn strategy on the BBC of migration scares very much along the lines of swine flu.  They keep popping up.

Overtime, this drip drip feed of images of boatfulls of desperate people of all shades and attire bouncing and bobbing about in huge azure seas off some far land starts to impact on the Bitish viewer’s psyche, especially when the grave tones of the BBC man tells them the migrant’s fervent wish is to get to Britain.

How many votes are such clips worth to the BNP?

Keep it up BBC.

She looks like an extra from the Planet of the Apes.

What type of constituency are these candidates placed in?  One suspects generously enriched ones.

It strikes me that non-white candidates have attracted some white voters ever since they were invented.

What sort of white mentality is it that could conceive for one moment a non-white politician would represent whites interest?

Makes yer fink, Dunnit?

Posted by Bill on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:44 | #

She looks like an extra from the Planet of the Apes.

October 17, 2009, 08:55 AM

prognathicity….....................“oppweshun”

Priceless GW - Priceless!

Posted by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:25 | #

Red squirrels fight for survival ... Anybody like to add a comment?

Yes young man, I certainly would ...

‘‘Be warned: we intend to out-birth white Britons, who will end up as rare as red squirrels’

Yours ever

Yazzer

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:48 | #

Will the ADL put him on its “greatest haters” list?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133885

IDF Prof.: Extreme Left Wants African Workers to Destroy Israel
Tishrei 28, 5770, 16 October 09 12:11
by Gil Ronen

(Israelnationalnews.com) African illegal immigrants are a strategic
problem of the first degree, according to Professor Arnon Sofer, an
expert on demographics and the head of the the IDF’s National Security
College. The campaign for taking in the African immigrants was mounted
by extreme leftists, Sofer told Arutz Sheva’s Hebrew service Friday.

“They want us to absorb 1,200 sweet children, but where is the red line?
250,000 children of foreign workers? Two million?” The extreme leftists,
said Sofer, want to destroy the Zionist state.  “They do not want a
Jewish state but a state ‘of human beings.’ They do not understand that
this is not the reason why we are here and that if their vision becomes
a reality the Jews will become a minority that will be slaughtered by
the majority.”

“Those who call them Darfur refugees are wrong and they mislead others:
these are not refugees but immigrants,” he explained. “We must say the
truth: the illegal work immigrants who come from Africa are a great
danger for us. Europe has sealed its gates before them. The dastardly
Europeans fenced them in under a guise of liberality and enclosed them
within walls… they created concentration camps in Europe… and they
preach morality to us. In Spain they have labor camp and they kick
hundreds of thousands out of Spain.”

‘Let’s just move to Los Angeles’
The African illegal immigrant population joins other existing
demographic threats, Sofer explained. The Arabs who entered Israel
[after the Oslo accord – ed.] number 250,000, he said. In addition there
are 250,000 foreign laborers and tens of thousands of African immigrants
and so we could reach almost a million non-Jews who flood the country
illegally and this is a huge strategic problem because if this trend
continues this country will not be able to safeguard its status as a
Jewish state.

“If we do not want a Jewish state we can close up shop and go to Boston,
New York or Los Angeles.”

Sofer warned that some of the African immigrants are Muslims and they
could include terrorists. In addition, he said, many are sick with
tuberculosis or AIDS.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:59 | #

I’m not at all sure of my view on this. I think the actual EHRC ruling can be handled many ways and isn’t that big a deal on its own. Tactically i think it was a mis-step as fighting the ruling a bit harder would have sent a clearer message to the membership. By rolling over so easily it gives hostile elements the opportunity to say Griffin is going “respectable”. So i don’t know how much damage this change will do - it may be little to none or it may be significant. There’s a lot of benefit from changing the constitution while at the same time keeping the party White by other methods but if the change does cause any damage i think it will be because of how it’s been handled.

As to longer term tactics i’m unsure there too. In general terms i’d agree with GW except on the timing. I think the BNP needs to build a stronger foundation in traditional Labour areas first. Respectable middle-class people are not going to join the BNP in swarms until it has made itself more respectable through the validation of more consistent democratic success. However i’m also intrigued by the possibility of UKIP and the BNP working some kind of complementary tandem.

One problem i foresee with the BNP is they could get themselves into a Lib-Dem type situation where they have around 18-20% of the vote but it’s spread evenly around the country making it hard to actually win any elections.

I wonder sometimes if the BNP focused on being a kind of Nationalist Labour Party and leaving space for UKIP to become the Nationalist Conservative Party then they might both end up having enough concentrated voters to win MPs.

This is based on the assumption that Cameron will definitely betray the country over the EU and UKIP will then get a major influx of ex-Conservatives. It would probably need the leadership of BNP and UKIP to at least have a tacit agreement on the nationalist halves of their respective platforms and to attack each other but not too hard. The first stage end-game would then be a coalition BNP-UKIP government.

This is purely thinking aloud and i wouldn’t consider it a good strategy in any country other than Britain unless that country was as (culturally) class-conscious as Britain.

Posted by RF on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:46 | #

Red squirrels fight for survival ... Anybody like to add a comment?

Yes young man, I certainly would ...

‘’Be warned: we intend to out-birth white Britons, who will end up as rare as red squirrels’

Yours ever

Yazzer

Sure, you can try. Fortunately for us, though, you moslem brethren is not easily manageable because of its natural and added due to inbreeding stupidity. Your people will try to usurp power far before it could be done. Then we will see.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:46 | #

”I’m also intrigued by the possibility of UKIP and the BNP working some kind of complementary tandem.”  (—Wandrin)

And whyever not?  They’re actually closer than people would think on the basis of Farage’s “the BNP!  Oh horrors!” grandstanding not too long ago.  Both are Euroskeptics of course, and UKIP also want restrictions on immigration, though not as far-ranging as the BNP wants and they make no mention of repatriation.  But the two parties are close in a couple of very important ways.

”I wonder sometimes if the BNP focused on being a kind of Nationalist Labour Party and leaving space for UKIP to become the Nationalist Conservative Party then they might both end up having enough concentrated voters to win MPs. […] It would probably need the leadership of BNP and UKIP to at least have a tacit agreement on the nationalist halves of their respective platforms and to attack each other but not too hard.  The first stage end-game would then be a coalition BNP-UKIP government.”

I like the way Wandrin thinks.  I really, really, really like the way this man thinks.

”This is based on the assumption that Cameron will definitely betray the country”

But can there be any doubt about that whatsoever???  There’s no doubt about it:  Cameron will <u>definitely</u> betray the country.  It’s a done deal, as good as done.  In this country we all saw “conservative” George Bush do it.  Over there, everyone with eyes saw how the “conservative” Hungarian Midget did it, and the “conservative” Karma Chameleon’s going to copy The Midget.  During the election campaign he’ll pull a Sarko, making a head-feint “to the hard right” on immigration, exactly as Sarko did, probably to include something fairly dramatic just before Election Day, then once in office he’ll turn around and betray the people on immigration exactly as Sarko did.  As sure as Cameron was born he’s going to do it.  Check out the bookie odds at Ladbrokes, you’ll see.  See what odds they’re giving on Cameron’s actually getting tough on immigration.  I’d be very surprised if I’m wrong.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:49 | #

Friedrich Braun, 2:21 AM, and “Dr. Graham Lister” are both correct.  What you’re looking at in that photo is not a distinct race from us but a distinct species of human from us.  This goes beyond race and qualifies as a different species.

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 22:13 | #

@Fred

And whyever not?  They’re actually closer than people would think

At least on the EU issue and getting out of the EU and regaining control over immigration policy would slow the genocide down a tad. It might help. The change to the constitution could provide cover for this.

But can there be any doubt about that whatsoever???  There’s no doubt about it:  Cameron will definitely betray the country.

I don’t think there’s any doubt they’ll do it if they can. I don’t know enough about the Conservative party to know how much internal resistance there will be. I expect it to happen but i’m not 100% sure.

Posted by Lean, Melancholy and Beardless on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:22 | #

The ‘power-base’ argument is the way to go.
As many have repeated here ad-infinitum , Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system functions very well in its intended capacity (ie ensuring near continuous Tory Party rule since the English civil war of the 1640s), thus relegating British politics to a permanent state of knockabout Punch & Judy show vaudeville in which the protagonists are the Tories and another.
The other happened to be the Whigs until 1918, but the extension of the franchise and the self-identification of working-class self-interest, at least since Chartist times, lead to the formation and eventual victory (but always as the juniors to the omnipotent Tories, when the Tories happened to f*ck up) of the Labour Party.
Labour’s hey-day must now be seen as the Wilson administrations.

Anyway my point is that a sense of loyalty and identity to the key policy strands of the BNP must be inculcated in those whom Labour has literally f*cked-over (actually the people the party was supposed to represent). Now that the Blairite bullshit has largely worn-off (together with its globalisation, immigrationist and ‘liberalising’ agenda), effort must be made develop ‘clusters’ or ‘power-bases’, if you will of support in specifically delineated geographical areas (eg Barking and Dagenham in London), that seem to offer the key ingredients (demoralized working class populace, fleeing the Bengalis in Bethnal Green, council house waiting ists, the chavvy St. George flag football and scaffolder mentality).Here we must build up the BNP habit as part of the ‘culture’ and ‘family loyalty’, we must engrain with these people.
A monumental task I have you. Though it pains me to say it these are people whose only real interest seems to be Eastenders, football, Jade Goody, Jordan, Heat magazine, Bingo, alcohol and general moronity.They tend to have zero interest in anything cerebral, let alone politics and their own demise.It also pains me to admit that in general, 2nd generation muslims are much more savvy politically, and tend to be more ‘respectable’ in regards to their general demeanour.
Also I must note that a good few of the councillors that the BNP returned in Dagenham (washed-up, middle aged types with strong cockney accents and little education - perhaps I should call them ‘salt of the Earth’), had daughters or grand-daughters who were how should I put this ‘wog-stuffed’ with little darkies in tow. - That about says it all.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:53 | #

washed-up, middle aged types with strong cockney accents and little education - perhaps I should call them ‘salt of the Earth’), had daughters or grand-daughters who were how should I put this ‘wog-stuffed’ with little darkies in tow.

LOL!  I wonder what their reaction would be to GW’s (justified) plan of deporting all non-Whites and mongrels.  Of course GW’s plan doesn’t include genetic testing and anti-miscegenation laws, so it could be worse.  Yet axiomatically only trash mix, so it wouldn’t be any great loss to see White race-mixers deported as well.

Posted by hyperbatin' on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:03 | #

Though it pains me to say it these are people whose only real interest seems to be Eastenders, football, Jade Goody, Jordan, Heat magazine, Bingo, alcohol and general moronity.They tend to have zero interest in anything cerebral, let alone politics and their own demise.

You just described average Britons of the past three or four ... wait: always. Lousiest sots on earth.

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:19 | #

Also I must note that a good few of the councillors that the BNP returned in Dagenham (washed-up, middle aged types with strong cockney accents and little education - perhaps I should call them ‘salt of the Earth’), had daughters or grand-daughters who were how should I put this ‘wog-stuffed’ with little darkies in tow. - That about says it all.

Do you have any facts you could share to support these assertions? Looking at the current list of the BNP 13 councillors I’d suggest that only a few of them (perhaps 3) would match your profile as ‘salt of the earth types’. And which of these councillors have the dusky relatives that you refer to?

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:19 | #

Wandrin,

It is the intimate, lifelong connection we all have with liberalism which causes us to think only in terms of conservatism <> socialism.  But these are not really the poles of a genuinely nationalist polity, and if we are truly revolutionary nationalists, and not just common-or-garden patriots with a racial agenda, we would do well to get away from such conventional and stultifying analysis.  That might frustrate the more activist-inclined who just want to capture the votes of this bloc and that.  But as thinking people we can give shape and direction to the entire process - if we are any good at all at it.

I’ve argued that Volkishness <> palingenesis is much nearer the nationalist polar mark.  So, on the one hand we get the right of the people to live as and be themselves according to their own beloved custom and culture, and to live in peace and security, and in solitude.  On the other we get the interest of the people in declaring their name before the world, in regaining mastery over their own destiny and over all the agents of destruction in their collective life - those within and those without - and aspiring to greatness for our grandchildren and all those who will stand in our and their stead in the future of our people.  More or less.

It is somewhat humbling to return to practical thinking and apply this unfamiliar polarity to the various sectors of the native British electorate.  How very far we are from being real nationalists!

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:22 | #

She could definitely play in this episode…without makeup or any special effects.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:24 | #

Captainchaos: Yet axiomatically only trash mix, so it wouldn’t be any great loss to see White race-mixers deported as well.

No great loss, perhaps.  But somewhere better than Darfur.  Detroit maybe!

Posted by Friedrich Braun on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:37 | #

We all know the reason some races do more poorly than others is because we expect them to do more poorly. It’s all about prejudice and low expectations. That’s why blacks do so much better in countries and societies where they’re left to themselves - Nigeria, Togo, Zimbabwe, Haiti, Detroit, Gary, Indiana, ad infinitum.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:43 | #

Race-mixers need their own ethnostate, such as their ‘ethno’ is.  I propose it be near the Mexican border so they can feast their eyes on the shantytowns on the other side of the river.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:55 | #

Why not SoCal?  Nice weather.  Whites getting out fast.  Ideal.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:50 | #

How very far we are from being real nationalists!

That’s sort of my point really. I don’t think any real nationalist party on their own have any chance in the current conditions (apart from the USA). Any real nationalist party that managed to get into power would be bombed into submission by NATO as soon as they tried to do anything really nationalist. I think the French nuclear deterrent is genuinely independent but if a real nationalist party looked like it was going to gain power i think the French elite would let themselves be bribed into seeing their nukes spirited away.

So i think it has to be done in two stages.

The first-stage party has to gain power with a platform that isn’t really nationalist and then use that power to try and somehow neutralize the threat from the USA, NATO and the EU. One way of trying to achieve this might be to try and get other nationalist parties elected thereby gaining some strength in numbers e.g BBC Free Europe. Only once a solid bloc of first-stage nationalist governments had been formed (or the USA had been freed from their hostile elite) could you risk some real nationalism (and in those circumstances it might even turn out to be relatively painless).

So i’d say a first-stage nationalist party only actually needs to have one non-negotiable policy - zero immigration* Everything else could be straightforward populism. Lenin heard demonstrators shouting for “Land, Peace and Bread” and so he had the Bolsheviks put “Land, Peace and Bread” on placards. So the equivalent for a first-stage nationalist party could be in each policy area to pick the policy that is the most popular with the public. The aim would be to reduce the barriers to support down to the bare minimum with the one core policy being the USP.

So yes you’re right. The more i think on this the more nationalist ideology barely exists. It’s pure tactics apart from the one policy. The reason for that is i don’t think there’s a choice at present. I think there needs to be two stages and the first stage party has to be almost 100% tactics apart from that one single policy rock of zero immigration*, we’re full. Implementing that policy would hopefully provide the time to gain allies before the next step.

There does need to be some second stage thinking though and i’m not sure how that would work. My current view is along the lines of maybe a more intellectual cadre-building party that doesn’t contest elections but instead prepares for the second stage. Online forums could also be the sort of place people could discuss the details of the second stage if and when it became possible.

It’s hard to see how the second stage would work but i’m pretty convinced real nationalism would have to be done in two stages unless all of USA, NATO and the EU were too much in crisis to intervene which is too much of a coincidence to bank on in my view.

* The one exception to the zero immigration policy would be a right of return for those of British descent like Israel and i think India. This would be used to put a marker down about blood but without any need to be too specific.

Posted by Frank on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 07:42 | #

So if we don’t get busy here we’ll be partly responsible for Europe’s demise as well… Wandrin you’re probably right, but we’re all hoping Europe will save us by going nationalist and pulling us with it…

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:11 | #

@Frank
Same here in reverse. I’m hoping that forward steps in any one country will create a ripple effect elsewhere and a virtuous spiral will come into effect across all the White nations. Fingers crossed.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:33 | #

Fighting race-replacement and fomenting White racial consciousness at the level of political organization, and mainstream media coverage of that, is more progressed in Western Europe than America.  Particularly salient is that phenomenon in Britain, as it is an English speaking country, the lingua franca of the Anglosphere.  Assuming the trend of a more progressed political expression of nationalism and its attendant mainstream media coverage holds as contrasted with America, and it continues to progress, it is reasonable to assume the mainstream media in America will begin to report on those political developments across the Atlantic.  Which could be invaluable to our efforts in America as a ‘camel’s nose under the tent’ phenomenon given media coverage has the effect of making White Americans more aware of their racial interests and imbues it with an air of respectability as expressed through democratic politics in Europe.  After all, the lemmings will not cease to drive for the cliff until they think it “respectable” not to do so.

Posted by Wandrin on Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:10 | #

@CC
Yes, a lot of the benefits of this kind of political activity aren’t obvious in the immediate arena. I always get a morale boost from good results elsewhere like Austria or France.

On a similar theme, i started at Stormfont a few days ago to push the Boshevik holocaust meme and got banned very rapidly for, (i think), flaming at some guy in the UK over the BNP getting only 70 votes in a local election (out of about 1400 IIRC). Those 70 votes might have cost 5-6000 leaflets and numerous man-hours and on the surface it looks like a waste of time but if it also got 2-300 people sneakily looking at the BNP website and finding the sort of information that the enemy mass media tries to suppress then it is worth it (imo).

Democratic political activty doesn’t just have to be about electoral success it can be about all sorts of other things like publicizing a website full of suppressed or non-mainstream information. The Greens have been doing this for years. Political activity as publicity. This is especially true if you’re some kind of nationalist organization as you’re guaranteed free publicity from local newspapers attacking you which makes people more likely to read your leaflets with the web address.

On the other hand the big risk of this kind of activism is the nationalists start to chase votes too much and slowly sink into respectable.

Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:28 | #

The view from the United States isn’t very clear, the view from here is disjointed and fragmented and lacks focus and cohesion.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying this any way reflects the true position in America but from my viewpoint it’s difficult to get a handle.  Maybe the whole thing is moving so fast it’s in a state of flux.

The problem over here is that partisanship and paranoia are out of control in truly racialist circles.  There are a lot of implicit racialists but, to be honest, WN is not reaching them for the most part.  Due to a long history of infiltration, white activists are scared of their own shadows…and for good reason, what with all the informants and FBI assets.

Having said that, I get the distinct impression that America is possibly forging ahead (pissed off) of Britain, I think the economic conditions in America are having a far more severe impact on the citizenry than over here in (welfare state) Britain, this, combined with widespread gun ownership and wide open spaces, places America in a different league - things could get very violent.

I think we are ahead of Britain in terms of racialism and have been for some time.  There is a large rural population here who are very hostile towards the transformation of the country.  There is also an implicit awareness that the economy favors the freeloaders and that productive jobs continue to become more scarce - these things will weigh in favor of our efforts but it is too early to see improvement, imho.

As I said, there is no unified effort here, and in the absence of that there is only so far one can go.

Posted by Mark IJsseldijk on Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:30 | #

Last post was @ Bill, btw.

Posted by BGD on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:28 | #

Posted by Wandrin on October 18, 2009, 05:50 AM | #

I don’t think any real nationalist party on their own have any chance in the current conditions (apart from the USA)..... So i think it has to be done in two stages….The first-stage party has to gain power with a platform that isn’t really nationalist and then use that power to try and somehow neutralize the threat ..Only once a solid bloc of first-stage nationalist governments had been formed (or the USA had been freed from their hostile elite) could you risk some real nationalism (and in those circumstances it might even turn out to be relatively painless).

I would assume the need for too much coordination would prevent this. All the members of those various pre-nationalist blocs would have to share a surface message and be in agreement on a lower level aim. How practical in one nation, let alone 15 in the hope that breakthroughs might be made in two or three?

The BNP now builds its new outward public message around this ‘colonialist’ waffle. But as the party grows it will need to take on board thousands of new members. Those who make it to any form of leadership class would have to be inculcated into the ‘true’ purpose (some obscure Albert Pike style ritual?) and importantly be on-side and not run to the media. That’s if they are not educated plants in the first place.

I guess it might work if leading information sources in these nations (such as this forum) was on-message and grew in tandem but..

As you say the machinery of the interdependent/globalist world is now in place and success in one nation is just the start of the struggle. The recent case of the returned Iraqi asylum seekers proves how hard the process would be. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gAYCRDcaEVuBzGUuK_K3goKeNcng I gue.ss the short term options here might be a) free cities where these chipped immigrants would be allowed to remain temporarily b) placement in alternative nations whose government ministers might be amenable to large Swiss bank accounts (ie a Kazakh-type state without mineral resources) and where those unwilling for repatriation could be threatened with.

Bedrock concern with the issue of the thread: I personally find the abandonment of the argument by senior BNP of the race replacement issue to be pragmatism / guile too far (or something worse). I can’t believe that they can fail to make a reasonable sounding argument to the British public to place the awareness of this at the forefront of their minds. Understood the stated purpose of this site is to give a philosophical and political underpinning to the broad ‘movement.’

As a side note I used a variant of this race-replace perspective at a party on Saturday night past to people who would be thrown into full thought-crime mode at the attachment of the BNP to the argument but by avoiding that and placing the idea of growing Muslim population as a threat to their hedonistic lifestyle it was quite successful. The next stage is pushing (philosophical) liberalism as a product of Western individualism and at least a seed is planted. A seed not in the best soil but..

It’s not so hard for the BNP to push the demographic change is it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Wandrin on October 18, 2009, 05:50 AM | #

I don’t think any real nationalist party on their own have any chance in the current conditions (apart from the USA)..... So i think it has to be done in two stages….The first-stage party has to gain power with a platform that isn’t really nationalist and then use that power to try and somehow neutralize the threat ..Only once a solid bloc of first-stage nationalist governments had been formed (or the USA had been freed from their hostile elite) could you risk some real nationalism (and in those circumstances it might even turn out to be relatively painless).

I would assume the need for too much coordination would prevent this. All the members of those various pre-nationalist blocs would have to share a surface message and be in agreement on a lower level aim. How practical in one nation, let alone 15 in the hope that breakthroughs might be made in two or three?

The BNP now builds its new outward public message around this ‘colonialist’ waffle. But as the party grows it will need to take on board thousands of new members. Those who make it to any form of leadership class would have to be inculcated into the ‘true’ purpose (some obscure Albert Pike style ritual?) and importantly be on-side and not run to the media. That’s if they are not educated plants in the first place.

I guess it might work if leading information sources in these nations (such as this forum) was on-message and grew in tandem but..

As you say the machinery of the interdependent/globalist world is now in place and success in one nation is just the start of the struggle. The recent case of the returned Iraqi asylum seekers proves how hard the process would be. I guess the short term options here might be a) free cities where these chipped immigrants would be allowed to remain temporarily b) placement in alternate nations whose government ministers might be amenable to large Swiss bank accounts (a Kazakh-type state without mineral resources) and where those unwilling for repatriation could be threatened with.

Bedrock concern with the issue of the thread: I personally find the abandonment of the argument by senior BNP of the race replacement issue to be pragmatism / guile too far. Or something worse. I can’t believe the BNP can fail to make a reasonable sounding argument of r-r to the British public to place the awareness of this at the forefront of their minds. As the stated purpose of this site is to give a philosophical and political underpinning to the broad ‘movement’ hopeful that might filter through rather than the BNP suffering death by a thousand cuts. Seems many though agree with this compromise.

As a side note I used a variant of the race-replace perspective at a party on Saturday night past to people who would be thrown into full thought-crime mode at the attachment of the BNP to the argument but by avoiding that and placing the idea of growing Muslim population as a threat to their semi-hedonistic lifestyle it was quite successful. Thereafter pushing (philosophical) liberalism as a product of (biological) Western individualism and at least a seed is planted. A seed not in the best soil but..

It’s not so hard for the BNP to push the demographic change is it?

Posted by BGD on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:32 | #

Apol for length of reply - browser crashed so it seems double pasted the response into text file..

Posted by Wandrin on Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:43 | #

BGD

I would assume the need for too much coordination would prevent this. All the members of those various pre-nationalist blocs would have to share a surface message and be in agreement on a lower level aim. How practical in one nation, let alone 15 in the hope that breakthroughs might be made in two or three?

I agree it’s very tricky. I came to the view mostly by a process of elimination of the other options.

If a European party with a NF level or David Duke level political program came to power they’d be bombed into submission. This is guaranteed (assuming that either the US was still hijacked by the enemy or the EU could muster sufficient military force).

This leaves the coming to power of a party whose program is below the bombing threshold. I’d suggest that platform might be zero-immigration plus forceful (but not too obviously brutal) repatriation of all illegal invaders. That wouldn’t be enough in the long-term so there’d need to be a second stage and the only way i can imagine that occuring under the present conditions is if a large bloc of Euro countries got to the first stage first and then acted as a group.

However they wouldn’t need to act as a group until that point. One nationalist party succeeding on the first stage platform would act as an example which others might copy. If enough do that and succeed then you automatically have your bloc of first stage nationalist governments. And if you had that sort of bloc they could do their coordination sitting around a big international conference table in Paris.

In the interim people could be deniably discussing second stage ideas in forums like this while their political day job revolved entirely around the first stage stuff.

I’m not saying this is a good plan i’m saying i think it’s the only way i can imagine it working (under current conditions) without being bombed.

(I don’t think the voluntary repatriation of illegals without being bombed will be a problem for a government that seriously wants to do it - bribery, as you mention being one option. And once the word gets out that everyone gets sent back to where they came from (or somewhere worse) then they’ll stop coming.)

Posted by BGd on Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:35 | #

Perhaps Wandrin. Agree our options are very limited. It’s not just the external threats either. Any successful crypto-nationalist party would face immediate problems internally, mainly from the judiciary when trying to execute any policies. The recent placemen in the Lords would probably hold up any bills for the first term too.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:57 | #

BGD - I don’t actually believe that the judiciary would form any significant obstacle to the execution of policies enacted by a Parliament in which a patriotic party held a majority. The British judiciary is not politically activist as it is in the US. If they interpret the law in ways which are contrary to the wishes of the lParliament then that is the legislators’ collective fault for not removing potential ambiguity during the process.

Your point about the obstructionist capability of the HoL though, stuffed as it is ethnics and other place-people, is a very valid one.

Posted by BGD on Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:50 | #

I am not a legal man but I was thinking Dan on areas such as the treaties we have signed regarding the protection of refugees and the the precedents this has set in British law and also the appeals processes that people would be able to engage in and how the inclinations of QCs. I vaguely remember the problems that good old ;D Michael Howard suffered at the hands of what her termed “judicial activism.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:52 | #

Let’s get this entire Telegraph article,which was linked in the other thread, on record:
_______________________________________________

LABOUR WANTED MASS IMMIGRATION TO MAKE UK MORE MULTICULTURAL, SAYS FORMER ADVISOR

Labour threw open Britain’s borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a more multicultural country, a former Government adviser has revealed

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor

Published: 6:42PM BST 23 Oct 2009

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change [the race of] the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity,” according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote.”

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration [i.e., race-replacement] for “cynical” political reasons.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s.

Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the “major shift” in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.

He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.

He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.

He wrote: “Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

“I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

The “deliberate policy,” from late 2000 until “at least February last year,” when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.

On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour’s immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.

In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a “driving political purpose” behind immigration policy.

He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has “enriched” Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

But he acknowledged that “nervous” ministers made no mention of the policy at the time for fear of alienating Labour voters.

“Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

“But ministers wouldn’t talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.”

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said:  “Now at least the truth is out, and it’s dynamite.

“Many have long suspected that mass immigration under Labour was not just a cock up but also a conspiracy.  They were right.

“This Government has admitted three million immigrants for cynical political reasons concealed by dodgy economic camouflage.”

The chairmen of the cross-party Group for Balanced Migration, MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames, said:  “We welcome this statement by an ex-adviser, which the whole country knows to be true.

“It is the first beam of truth that has officially been shone on the immigration issue in Britain.”

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 05:53 | #

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

Posted by Wandrin on Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:09 | #

BGD

I am not a legal man but I was thinking Dan on areas such as the treaties we have signed regarding the protection of refugees

I don’t know the legalities either but i’d say withdrawing from the refugee treaty should be one of the first steps as that would send a very clear signal to invaders.

Fred
Wow. I think that’s dynamite if it becomes widely known