Posted by L Stewart on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:31 | #

I returned to England in 2001 after 35 years abroad, and was appalled at the state of the country - virtually every aspect, but most particularly the swamping of huge areas by immigrants.

Abandoning the Conservative Party after it became clear that they offer no solution (they are part of the problem), I eventually made the decision to turn to the British National Party, as the only movement having clear, decisive solutions, and a realistic chance of future electoral success.

My question is : how can there possibly be a “non-party and broadly based campaign against mass immigration and multiracialism”?  A campaign must intend that its aims be adopted by one or more parties if they are ever to be implemented, but none of the major parties would EVER do so, while the BNP already does. At this very moment it is fighting valiantly against enormous odds and with little help from many, many people whose social standing, influence, and funds would be of inestimable value.

Posted by Geoff Beck on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:37 | #

I’m keen to hear answers to Mr. Stewart’s questions, as an outside observer. (Though I just received my first issue of BNP’s <u>The Voice of Freedom</u>)

Mr. Stewart, where did you live before returning to Britain?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 23:13 | #

I don’t think there’s any mystery about Derek Turner’s intentions.  He is working at the level of the Westminster Village and the wider political world of the media and the “Think-Tank right”.  They are his target audience, his niche market.  If he set up a new political party or began working for the BNP he would alienate them and cut himself adrift commercially and politically.

Is there any point in campaigning for mainstream opinion?  Yes, politicians and media people need to be constantly reminded that they may have submitted to the cultural left, but they will not be abandoned to the comfortable delusion that the opinions and loyalties of their voters - ordinary Englishmen like themselves - changed with them.

In mainstream political debate Derek is almost a lone voice from the real world.  I applaud him and wish his new initiative well.

Posted by Svigor on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:03 | #

Mr. Stewart, I think the idea is to transcend party.  Perhaps the BNP will correlate 100% with those who sign on, but I doubt it.

What if someone doesn’t like or want to be associated with the BNP (or whomever), and is a one-issue voter on mass multiracial immigration?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:17 | #

Gleaned over at <u>The Ambler</u> tonight:

”<u>3. What is your idea of perfect happiness?</u>  Being back in the Oxfordshire village where I spent much of my childhood, except that now it is probably a filthy crime-infested imam-infested London exurb.”

Posted by L Stewart on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 02:29 | #

I don’t intend to repeatedly ‘bang my drum’on this topic, but will submit these further observations.

The opinions/delusions of main-party politicians on mass immigration and forced multiracialism are of no consequence : they have already created the mess, and have neither the desire nor the will/ability to correct it. It achieves nothing to simply dent their smugness by showing them that not everyone shares their views - unless sufficient individuals can be persuaded to admit their fault and lend their voices to sanity. But even then, unless a political vehicle like the BNP has been firmly established, who will implement the new policy ? A ‘one-issue voter’ still needs a party to vote for, and as Derek Turner aims to be specifically ‘non-party’, his approach provides no solution (although it may do some good in generating an atmosphere in which rational discussion can take place).

I don’t suppose many voters agree with every single thing their chosen party stands for. I can only suggest that having identified one that seems to have the best policy on the important issue/s,the rest of its programme be objectively examined (not assumed, in terms of what its opponents put out).
In my case, I went a little further and attended a few meetings to assess the calibre & type of its officials - and was delighted to find out that the Media had lied (and lied horribly) about that, too.

Posted by Stuka on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:50 | #

Glad to see Right NOW! mag is still going strong. BTW, anyone here ever attend any of the Right NOW! gatherings in central London in the mid- to late-‘90s? There was a splendid little pub in Pimlico directly across the river from MI5 headquarters…

Best of luck, Derek!

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:37 | #

L Stewart,

I think that the BNP will be at least as successful electorally as Le Front National.  The evidence at present - and one must acknowledge here that public opinion is likely to flux as the AQ offensive proceeds - is that 20% to 25% is the likely ceiling in voter support for a nationalist party.  Under our FPTP system that does not bode well.

But ... a growing voice in the mainstream is a second front.  It will work away at the cracks opening up as the BNP advances.  Since the BNP is going to have most effect in Labour seats that’s where cracks may appear.  Hence the non-party basis for Derek’s campaign, I would think.  He is interested in policy impact - real results, not merely the delivery of more nationalist-minded representation in the Tory shires.

For me, the acid test for Derek’s new group will be its approach to repatriation.  If it simply argues for restrictionism it will never “save the West”.  One recognises, of course, that at the outset restrictionism may be all that is practical.  But repatriation is the key.

Posted by Andrew L on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:38 | #

The Tax burdon there must be shocking, with all the hand-outs to the unemployable and refugee’s Illegal and all, still get paid for nothing, then the birth rate and more money for nothing. Great way to run an Economy straight into the ground, but it is only Taxes levied on the hard working Poms and Guest Workers, and the Post modern Cricket side, Ha. sorry had to slip that in.
Is Phil on Holidays

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 09:50 | #

Back next week, I believe, Andrew.

Posted by Andrew L on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:23 | #

One of the best ways, Is embaress the Leftoids. My elder Sister is a bit of a greenie, and heavy Marxis indoctrinated, “Elite”.
When she advocates strongly for POOR refugee’s,  poor persicuted culturless people they are, Untill the crane truck arrived on her 36 acre waterfront property, with 1400 planks of 4"2 timber RSJ,when the driver asked where to put it, SCREAMS, well I tried to help, by suppling some materials and offered labour to build some accommodation for some of the refugee’s ON HER PROPERT, amazingly how fast the philosophy of good deeds change, and she has not spoken to me for three years, ha, best 1700 dollars AU I ever spent. The driver took the load back, but I paid for it.
So batman philosophy is true, and so is JR’s theory of Leftoids, they are worse. Good deeds are not done or in range of leftoids, just the thought as long as it does not apply to them.Do not expect them to be helpful.
That ought be easy to prove

Posted by Lurker on Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:15 | #

Blimey Andrew!

Posted by dan dare on Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:34 | #

GW

I agree with your endorsement for Derek’s estimable journal and am looking forward to reading the latest issue when it eventually turns up here.

However, I’m just a little confused about the aims of this anti-immigration campaign, and also concerned that it might be encroaching somewhat on the excellent work that MigrationwatchUK has been doing in the last few years.

Is there anything in the actual announcement in RN! that addresses that question?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 27 Jul 2005 01:14 | #

“I’m just a little confused about the aims of this anti-immigration campaign”  (—Dan Dare)

It’s not an “anti-immigration” campaign but an anti-excessive-incompatible-immigration campaign—an anti-race-replacement campaign, in other words, since sooner or later that’ll be the demographic and political end-result of excessive incompatible immigration:  race-replacement, or the equivalent thereof for all practical purposes.  Sorry, but it’s inevitable and it’s got to be stopped now before a point of no return is reached.  Britain had what is properly called “immigration” all along—let a few people in, try to select them so as to be as compatible as possible and if it’s not possible, then in as small numbers as possible for the incompatibles, don’t let such a flood of them in that there’ll be social strife or the natives will be replaced, and so on.  That’s “immigration.”  The host nation comes out of the process still racially and culturally intact and recognizable.  What’s going on now isn’t that.  It isn’t “immigration.”  It’s overt race-replacement, it’s deliberately being forced on us by a combination of the various usual suspects who won’t let decent folk speak out against it, and it’s got to be halted.  The individuals and groups trying to call to people’s attention the urgent need to halt it are not properly referred to as “anti-immigration.”  The other side calls them that, in fact, as a tactical slur.  These individuals and groups trying to halt it would love naught better than a return to the days of what could properly be called “immigration,” a process of welcoming others into your country in their time of need, from which you, the host, emerge with your own identity still intact.  If we had “immigration,” none of these groups would have formed in the first place, as there’d be absolutely no problem.

Posted by dan dare on Wed, 27 Jul 2005 02:40 | #

Fred - I am grateful to you for correcting my clumsy choice of descriptor.