Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:08 | #

The accusation of “Nazi” is indeed crippling in its power to shame, which is why Griffin’s strategy of moving the party toward ‘respectability’ has clearly yielded electoral success that would not have been had but for.  Where to go from here and not squander that veneer of ‘respectability’?  I would suggest making advocacy for the right of indigenous British to remain a majority in their homeland in perpetuity a motif of party pronouncements, along with attempting to forge indigenous British group consciousness and cohesion within the context of a multiracial society - to call the bluff of advocates of multiracialism with the contention that racial identity for White British is as legitimate as it is for the multitude of others, that anything less would not be ‘fair’.  If Griffin indeed has the best interests of his people at heart, using the party as a vehicle for reinvigorating racial consciousness even aside from electoral success must be within his consideration.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:29 | #

Further, non-White party membership could be framed as the participation of non-Whites who are friends of the indigenous British in that they are people also committed to their particular identity and to the right of indigenous British to preserve their identity in their own homeland.  Because, as the Pakistani who debated Darby said, he would not like it if his own country were swamped by Chinese, but, unless he is a hypocrite, he could not object to the presence of some Chinese in Pakistan who were committed to maintaining a Chinese identity so long as they had the good manners not to insist upon overwhelming Pakistani identity in the process.  Non-White party members who could be disposed to give voice to that line could be a coup.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:07 | #

In that vein, it would be at least interesting to see the results of, and worth a try, to groom, say, a reasonably articulate and pliable Afro-Caribbean to give explicit voice to the strategy outlined in my second comment in this thread.  An Afro-Caribbean well compensated (monetarily) for his efforts could prove an especially motivated advocate.  The angle: utilize MacDonaldian social identity processes to make more salient indigenous British identity in the minds of indigenous British as they hear the Other tell that that they are the Other in his eyes, and he looks upon their identity positively.  The upshot: indigenous British identity reforged and reaffirmed.  This sly strategy shouldn’t be beyond the ability of Britons, with their rich tradition of Black Propaganda, if you’ll pardon the pun.

The Jews utilize that tack with their goy front men, and it proves effective.

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 05:27 | #

Such a man could be instructed to discourage miscegenation as contrary to a thoroughgoing vision of multiracialism as miscegenation is inherently destructive of multiracialism and cultural distinctiveness.  He could even be given an Orwellian title such as Party Officer of Ethnic Tolerance and Understanding.  When confronted by lefties that he was actually a paid stooge effecting a strategy of soft Balkanization for his “Nazi” masters he could respond with indignation to such a “racist” accusation and refer his frothing interlocutor to his title of POETU.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 07:36 | #

So the BBC would be cool with an all Asian Britain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8360185.stm

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:50 | #

They cannot call the BNP ‘racist’ anymore as we will have many non-white members joining.

Of course they can and they absolutely will. Any white person who in any way espouses views that hinder our genocide will be called a racist and a Nazi. They do it to “respectable” Conservatives all the time, that’s why Conservatives won’t say a word about immigration. Mr Barnes talks like our enemy actually care about this nonsense. They want to eradicate us - they’re genocidal racists - they use those words against us as a tactic because it works not because they believe it and the tactic will continue to work as long as they dominate the media because they get to define what “racist” means.

There are plenty of foreigners in the UK who are anti-Islam but not anti-immigration. They’re the most likely to join and will inevitably act as a fifth column even if their intentions are honourable.

This change undercuts the BNP’s unique selling point as the sole representative of the indigenous people against a mainstream that is destroying us.

Lastly and most importantly a party like the BNP has to be seen as not part of the mainstream. For the average person coming out of the mainstream joining the BNP needs to feel like a transformative moment - crossing a personal Rubicon - as this will make their attachment more one of identity than opinion. When i hear anyone from the BNP talking about becoming part of the mainstream my heart sinks.

Depressing stuff.

The law is changing and there’s no point driving full-speed into a brick wall but i think there is a risk here of people in the BNP talking themselves into thinking this is a good thing when it’s not.

In truth i think Griffin wanted this and believes it is the best strategy. He’ll probably be proved right in the short term but it will cause problems in the long term.

Ah well, i still view the BNP as the first stage of the moon rocket so nothing’s really changed.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:28 | #

Griffin is still being reactive which just hands the initiative to the opponent.  As things stand, the only thing that matters is to get the people to understand that whoever they vote for among the Lib Lab Con trick, they are voting for East German style communism - Stasi and all. (NWO)

It grieves me to see that intelligent nationalist conservatives have, and will continue - to vote for communism.

We will not see any breakthrough until the immigration debate becomes general election mainstream, which means the media will make every attempt to prevent this from happening.  I see there’s another piece in the Telegraph this morning….   

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/janetdaley/6570143/Voters-will-no-longer-be-told-what-to-do.html

... where the author is doing her bit to this end.

The only people who can force this issue and provoke an anti British reaction from the MSM is the BNP.

If the people still don’t get it then another dose of Stasi style communism is ready in waiting, which of course willl happen anyway.

Wandrin  above 9.50 am.

Pretty much in agreement, not much to argue with there.  This whole ball of wax from the opposition is nothing but a baseball bat to beat us around the head with, they will stop at nothing.

Just a question, what would happen if half a million enrichers decided to join the party? (no pun intended)

Posted by Angry Beard on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:59 | #

I hate to keep banging on the same drum, GW, but the BNP is the ONLY hope Anglo-Saxon England has got.
As I tried to explain in another thread (and was spat upon for merely vocalizing this opinion), the demographic situation is now so dire (an actual majority of births are now wog), that the window of opportunity for your ‘glorious day’ in which ““Mabus shall arise from the east with his angelic host and annoint the righteous king”, is drawing ever further - and there’s no sign of the ‘great king of the mongols’ being ‘resuscitated’ any time soon.
Our only hope lies in a ‘popular front’ organisation in the mould of Sinn Fein or the PLO, for example, that somehow seeks to embody the aspirations and national feeling of a disenfranchised people.The idea is that the BNP must represent a ‘proxy’ of the Anglo-Saxon folk-government and all that goes with it in the same way that Sinn Fein embodied the folk feeling of the nationalist Irish people for a nation-state of their own.
Love him or hate him (his Question Time performance with attending obsequeiousness and gurning was embarrassing - but not typical), Griffo is an intelligent and astute leader (he showed his quality recently by issuing a *fatwa* against those stupid bastards the EDL, who rightly sees as an MI5 ‘cover’ organisation), who intuits all of the above and is looking for realistic strategies (ie the ‘cluster’ model), rather than intellectual masturbation and the ‘Dungeons and Dragons’ school of political theorizing.
- We live under a totalitarian, illiberal government that has zero regard for basic human rights (ie freedom of association).Therefore for the BNP to survive - and actually have a destiny (slowly building a power-base amongst those whom labour have thrown on the dung-hill) - it needs to tactically comply and pay lip srvice to the real fascists rather than ‘cut its nose off to spite its face’ in a futile political tantrum - and destroy years of hard work and its best position in nationalist history in the process.
The key words are ‘lip-service’ - rather like the Japanese do with women’s ‘rights’ to get the Uncle Sam bully of its back.Let the wogs in if they are sypid enough to join, but wilfully ignore them.
As I stated elsewhere, all real power sholud be held by a closed brotherhood - a temple within a temple - whose aims and ideals must remain forever secret from the profane.Needless to say the only ‘god’ worshipped by the ‘dark brotherhood’ will be EGI.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:22 | #

The aim of all serious political parties is to get elected.

That is the whole point of participating in the political process.

The aim of getting into power is to enable us to change the laws of this country for OUR advantage.

But until we get into power we have to play by the rules that our enemies make for us.

Sure we could ignore the laws and court case and speed up the engines and aim the Titanic at the iceberg, but where then would that leave British Nationalism - back in its traditional impotent social and political ghetto.

We have less than thirty years before the indigenous British folk become a demographic minority in their own country - and unless we play by the rules of the game we will lose. 

Once we become a minority then we can never take our country back by peaceful and democratic means - but we can right now.

Those that want Nationalism to remain a powerless, marginalised cult of ‘ghetto politics’ based on putting purism before pragmatism have held sway over the politics of nationalism for the last fifty years.

And look where Nationalism was before the BNP adopted common sense as opposed to purist posturing, a tiny, marginalised movement in the margins of society and politics.

Those that call the BNP sell outs are dinosaurs.

History has left them behind, and thats why they bellow and moan about the BNP’s progress.

We have been proved right, they have been proved wrong.

These same dinosaurs slander and smear every Nationalist party in Europe, from the FN to the VB, who have the exact same membership policy of the BNP.

Are we all traitors ?

Are all those parties who ‘sell out’ and attain a position of political power in order to work for the interests of our peoples, nations and cultures in the real world, also traitors ?

It appears that the morons who think success = failure and popularity = treason echo a similar sentiment to the enemies of nationalism - and I suspect that is no coincidence.

The ONLY people who dont want the BNP to do well and take power are the extremist idiots on the far right, the far left and the rest of the establishment parties and media.

When the gobshites of the far right are saying the same as the far left, the media, the liberals, and the establishment parties and attacking the BNP for its political success - then I suggest they are the real traitors to nationalism, not the BNP. 

The ’ I want to be a big fish in a small pond syndrome’ of the extreme wing of the Nationalist movement, has led us nowhere except into factionalism, extremism and political ghettoisation.

There will be no problems of entryism into the BNP for the reasons I defined.

The BNP members are pragmatists, they know that attaining power and applying power in Parliament is far more important than posturing and posing as the ‘defenders of the British people’ from the back room of half empty pub to a cabal of purists who think anything less than Nazism is a sell out.

If the British people wanted to vote for a party with a policy of compulsory repatriation for everyone who isnt white they have the had the chance to vote for that year after with the NF, and they havent.

If they wanted Nazism they could have voted for the White Nationalist Party or whatever its cult members call it now, and they didnt.

The British people, in spite of the relentless media attacks on the BNP, voted BNP.

Now we can move further into the mainstream.

That is why they are frightened of us, because we no longer listen to the morons of the old dinosaur right that led us nowhere.

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:31 | #

Bill

I think there’s substantial numbers of Hindus, Sikhs, Black Christians and of course jews who’d join a party that was against muslim immigration. Most of the non-jews would be decent people and i don’t have a problem with them as individuals but inevitably over time they’d want the party to bend on non-muslim immigration.

I think the bare minimum key elements in electoral nationalist politics have to be:

1) Zero legal immigration.
2) Zero tolerance of illegal immigration.
3) Right of return for those of indigenous descent.
4) Some hint of partial repatriation.

The above points should be wrapped in a simple statement of belief that the indigenous have a right to preserve themselves if they so wish.

That’s basically how i’d try and get round the CRE ruling - have membership be based on accepting a list of points like the above.

nb I’m not saying the above three points are enough. I’m saying they are within the acceptable range for the mainstream public while at the same time being totally unacceptable to the enemy thereby forcing them to attack.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:31 | #

Wandrin: In truth I think Griffin wanted this and believes it is the best strategy. He’ll probably be proved right in the short term but it will cause problems in the long term.

I believe that nothing can happen for four years anyway because new members won’t have voting rights.

A greater problem than entryist non-whites would be if Jews with, in the context of the present party heirarchy, good minds and biddable leadership qualities worked their way towards the top.

Angry Beard,

Apparently, you cannot comprehend what humans are capable of, or the lengths to which they will go to survive.  Neither can you comprehend the concept of ideological drift (that’s what makes an entire political milieu sashay wholesale in one direction or another).  Neither can you comprehend the revolutionary nature of even the BNP’s petty nationalism - why do you think the entire political class is so rabid in its condemnation of them?

If the political class, which is very dumb indeed, gets it why don’t you?

Posted by john fitzgerald on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:42 | #

I,m ok with it, was four or so years back when it was first voted on. Now we should prepare for the elites next attack. God help us.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:46 | #

I think the bare minimum key elements in electoral nationalist politics have to be:

1) Zero legal immigration.
2) Zero tolerance of illegal immigration.
3) Right of return for those of indigenous descent.
4) Some hint of partial repatriation.

Along with those I would add ;

6) The deportation of all illegal entrants, bogus asylum seekers, economic migrants, convicted criminals who have committed serious crimes who have been given naturalised citizenship status, all illegal entrants, all visa overstayers, all those who were granted asylum and whose nations are now declared to be peaceful, all terrorists and supporters of terrorism, those that want to impose their laws and values on us eg proponents of sharia law - REGARDLESS OF THEIR RACE, RELIGION AND NATIONALITY

7) The deportation of all colonists who have been allowed to settle in this country but who have refused to assimilate into British culture. They will be given a five year period to learn English, abandon their ethnic ancestral identity and assimilate or they will leave.

8) The removal of multi-culturalism and the imposition of British culture

9) the banning of all rights to hold dual nationality citizenship status

10) the banning of being able to import in wives / husbands from abroad

11) the banning of all groups such as the Muslim Parliament, rabbanical courts, sharia law courts who seek separatist goals etc

12) The banning of all refugee groups from recieving public, charity and lottery money and the closing down of all ethno-specific charities and organisations eg the black police officers association

13) the banning of legal aid for refugee and asylum seekers - let the left wing politicians pay for the court cases themselves

14) the prioritisation of local people for local housing who have been settled in an area and who have long established family roots in an area

15) a ban for refugees and asylum seekers claiming benefits, access to the NHS and housing

16) the deportation of all those refugees, asylum seekers given amnesties under previous governments after their cases have been reviewed in light of new conditions in their home nations

17) the deportation of all economically inactive migrant workers

These are just the bare minimum.

When we are in power we will employ people to look for ways to reduce the UK population.

We have the will - once we have the power then the Nationalist Revolution begins.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:04 | #

And of course the repeal of the race relations acts, the banning of all affirmative action and positive action plans and schemes, the passing of a new nationality act that re-defines citizenship for British citizens and bans people from holding dual nationality status and the removal of all anti-free speech laws.

Posted by Angry Beard on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:41 | #

Latest genetic research indicates that the indigenous population of Great Britain is largely genetically homogenous and apparently, in the main, can trace back a continuity of settlement on this island for at least 8000 years - which happens to correspond with the thawing of the great ice shhets after the last ice age.Apparently the model held previously by historians of waves of invaders from the continent (ie Celts and of course most notably Anglo-Saxons from Germany), is erroeous in that genetic elites from those ethnies never made a substantial change to the indigenous ethnic make-up despite the changes to place and river names and to language.
Therefore the 8000 year-old continuity must be seen in context of the 60 year-old wholseale race-replacement situation Britain now faces.In this context, when we look back at the broad pageant of English history, many historic names are thrown up as ‘great defenders’ of English sovereignty (eg Elizabeth I, Churchill, Henry VIII, Wellington, Nelson etc etc), but from a purely geneic point of view, none of the above can be said to face the pivotal task that faces Nick Griffin, in the next few short decades.The reasons for Griffo’s oerous burden are manifold (third world population explosion due to modern medicine, modern communications hat allow planeloads of wogs to disgorge by the hour, a political system that cuts out the rights of the majority to serve an elite etc).
The irony is that the Big Griff himself (England’s most crucial defender in 8000 years), is racially, a “Paddy” (no offence intended to anyone here).
He traces his roots back to the village of Ballygriffin, County Cork and recently made a pilgrimage back to his ancestral seat.

“Bunnies can and WILL go to France.”

Posted by Wandrin on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:42 | #

Lee,

When i say “minimum needed” i just mean the minimum needed to ensure relentless attacks from the media as i see those attacks as the single best radicalization tool we have as long as those attacks seem disproportionate and unreasonable e.g Question Time.

My main quibble is with the idea that there’s any way of avoiding accusations of “racist” because as long as our enemies dominate the media and thereby get to define what the word means they’ll continue to use it against us. The attacks are inevitable. The aim is to use them to our advantage.

GW,

A greater problem than entryist non-whites would be if Jews with, in the context of the present party heirarchy, good minds and biddable leadership qualities worked their way towards the top.

It’s not entryist non-whites that worries me. What i’m worried about is decent Sikhs and Hindus with honourable intentions who are worried about the islamic endgame the enemy has planned for us. The problem is these people are a threat to us through weight of numbers rather than any malign intent but because they are a decent bunch in themselves they may eventually act as a de-radicalizing force.

Hopefully i’m wrong.

I agree that jewish entryism is much more worrying and also much more likely as they’d think non-white members would give them more camouflage.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:51 | #

When i say “minimum needed” i just mean the minimum needed to ensure relentless attacks from the media as i see those attacks as the single best radicalization tool we have as long as those attacks seem disproportionate and unreasonable e.g Question Time.

My main quibble is with the idea that there’s any way of avoiding accusations of “racist” because as long as our enemies dominate the media and thereby get to define what the word means they’ll continue to use it against us. The attacks are inevitable. The aim is to use them to our advantage.

##

Agreed. Thats why we need Naturalised British citizens to work with us to denude the power of the word.

When we have ethnic peop;le espousing the party and our views, then when the media use the word against us they just look like idiots. 

There were 336179 sikhs in the UK in 2001 - labour let 600000 people in last year alone.

There were 558342 Hindus in the UK at last count.

All naturalised citizens who are here legally and in accord with our BNP criteria for citizenship have nothing to worry about - only the illegals, economic migrants and criminals etc have.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 13:51 | #

There’s a lot of pulling and pushing of imaginary levers and buttons going on here here.  At this moment in time these levers and buttons are not connected to anything substantive.

As I outlined the other day on another thread, there is (to me) no coherent fast track strategy to obtaining a critical mass that will enable the levers and buttons to be connected anything that will provide mass impetus to an unstoppable force.

The fact of the matter is, there are huge huge numbers out there, (90% plus of our people) who haven’t a clue as to what’s going on and what is in store for them.

There is no-one that I personally know who has the remotest idea, and this picture is reinforced daily by just skimming down the tabloid blogs.

Ignorance, unawareness, busy lives, mortgage to pay, kids to feed, disinterest, apathy, they’re all the same mantra. Match of the Day, Strictly Come Dancing - call it what you will.  But until these people (millions) become awake and and concerned for their children and grand children’s future, then we here will still continue to flounder, still continue to pontificate, still continue to philosophise, still pull our hair out, still crystal gaze, still push none existent buttons, still pull non existent levers, and still, we’ll continue to be stuffed by the opposition. 

Please tell me I’m wrong and that I’m missing something here.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:01 | #

Please tell me I’m wrong and that I’m missing something here.

####

Yes, you are.

Its called ‘getting on with it’.

Critical mass is caused when all the elements are in motion, so until we all get working and drop just keyboard activism and moaning, critical mass wont be reached.

Become a ‘One Man Revolution’ - get out into your community, get active, recruit and agitate.

At the same time assist the BNP with its political work and social outreach work.

WE MUST FIRST NATIONALISE OUR COMMUNITIES BEFORE THEY WILL VOTE FOR NATIONALIST PARTIES.

UNTIL THEY ARE TAUGHT TO HAVE AN COMMUNITY CONSCIOUSNESS, THEY WONT VOTE AS A COMMUNITY.

That means you are the revolution, for you nationalise those around you who then vote for the BNP.

Posted by Angry Beard on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:59 | #

“The political class is very dumb indeed” (GW).

Well, if that’s the case just consider this.In 1945 Great Britain, still posessed of an Empire and basking in the glory of the victory of the ‘war to end all wars” was a self-confident White nation with an actual feeling of ‘racial superiority’ and ‘manifest destiny’, and the notion that Britain would ever become a majority Afro/Indian nation would have been laughed off as ‘ridiculous’ and ‘demented fantast’.(Curious how no science fiction writer of the old school such as HG Wells, ever entertained the notion).
But the political class (who can only number in the low thousands at most), pulled-off this feat whilst the ‘not very dumb’ majority stood by ‘dumbstruck’ as it were at the fait accompli.
- As the Cockneys say “Who’s the mug?”.
As for ‘ideological drift’, well consider Greater London. 50% wog and rising-rapidly.Hackney, Harlesden, Lambeth etc modernday Rios without the sunshine, Southall, East Ham, Ilford etc Karachi without the powercuts.Just as about as bad as it possibly gets.Oh, and what did the BNP score at the last mayoral election, 5% of the vote if I recall correctly.

“Bunnies can and WILL go to France”.

Posted by Pshaw on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:11 | #

So, BNP leaders have adopted a policy of accommodating non-whites to dodge accusations of racism and nazism.

What the party needs now is Friedman’s Negative Income Tax or Bowery’s Citizen’s Dividend to make it all appear semi-plausible.

This is “Nationalism” in action, folks.

Ah, but what the hell?  It all be good.  Makes for a “fascinating read.”  Gives us an opportunity to sit at a keyboard and “make our demands heard.”

Posted by Aistulf on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:11 | #

Apparently the model held previously by historians of waves of invaders from the continent (ie Celts and of course most notably Anglo-Saxons from Germany), is erroeous in that genetic elites from those ethnies never made a substantial change to the indigenous ethnic make-up despite the changes to place and river names and to language.
-Angry Beard

This is because Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings are Aryan tribes which are genetically similar enough to the indigenous Britons that their contribution of blood was insignificant as an agent of genetic change.  To suggest that these people did not contribute a significant amount of blood is not credible based on historical accounts.

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:23 | #

So, BNP leaders have adopted a policy of accommodating non-whites to dodge accusations of racism and nazism.

###

You sound like the idiot who wrote the article on this same issue on the NF site.

No, we didnt ‘adopt’ a policy, we were forced too change the constitution after spending more money on a court case fighting this issue than the NF has seen in income over the last ten years.

There comes a time when you either fold the party or evolve the party.

We chose the latter.

Keyboard warriors can talk all they want about fighting all the way - but they dont have to pay for it and they can talk a load of old bollocks as they are bunch of non-entities who just talk shit on the internet.

We have to live in the real world.

Key board warriors always talk a good fight - but most often do nothing but moan.

The next time some keyboard warrior attacks the BNP, give us your real name and let us check out what you have done for nationalism.

If you havent ever done anything but type on the internet - then shut the fuck up and let the real nationalists get on with the real work.

We will take lectures only from those who have fought in public for nationalism.

So put up or shut up.

I want your name, what party you are in, how many times you have been a candidate for that party and what you have done in nationalism and for nationalists over the last decade.

If you dont give that information - then we know the answer dont we.

You have done fuck all.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:05 | #

Lee is correct that the doorstep and the ballot box is not the place to propose ideological purity.  It is the place to play politics and only politics.  The BNP is playing politics and, overall, playing it pretty well (with the single exception of NG’s execrable defensive display on QT).  I support the party, encourage the party, vote for the party when I can, and none of that will be affected in the least by the forced changes to the Constitution.  But ....

Let us not pretend that the party is nationalist in any really meaningful sense of the word.  It is nativist.  Now, there’s nothing wrong with that.  In fact, it is the very core of our claim on life at the end of history.  It is everything to us, and yet it is still not nationalism.  That, in so much as it exists at all after the catastophies of the 20th Century and the post-war Judaisation of discourse, is an overarching and, in terms of the liberal polity, revolutionary philosophy.  Out of it comes something more than a claim on life and, indeed, something more than anti-immigrationism, anti-semitism, etc.

The bitter pill we “nationalists” generally refuse to swallow is that we have no coherent, actionable nationalist philosophy at all.  We have instinct.  We have oppositionalism.  We have a few bits and pieces of an old jigsaw, and we have ideals and a few ambitious policies.  But these do not add up to what I am talking about.  Those who see those instincts, ideals, memories, policies, and what have you as a “nationalist philosophy” are merely showing us how small they are as men, for they have no understanding and, therefore, no respect for the scale and significance of genuine philosophy.

We will see over the next ten to twenty years how far a philosophy-free political party can go with nativism.  I am optimistic.  But to change advanced liberalism for a permanent world of life-affirming European values is a much greater undertaking, and it is an undertaking not of the ballot box but of the mind.

Posted by Pshaw on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:09 | #

We will take lectures only from those who have fought in public for nationalism.

In other words, you will take lectures only from those who’ve failed and have brought ruin to their lives and the lives of those closest to them.  Very typical of faux “Nationalism” and its jewish manipulators.

I want your name, what party you are in, how many times you have been a candidate for that party and what you have done in nationalism and for nationalists over the last decade.

The perimeter closes and the BNP follows the multiracialist path of the Republican Party.

But is it an out for an out you’re after?  Take care for what you ask for.  I reciprocate.  That’s a fucking promise.

I want your verifiable name, the names of next of kin, place of work, and all relevant addresses with GW as our mutual point of contact.  If serious, you know what to do.  So will he.

Posted by Pshaw on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:35 | #

Let us not pretend that the party is nationalist in any really meaningful sense of the word.

But don’t let that interesting little detail get in your way of supporting the BNP.

We will see over the next ten to twenty years how far a philosophy-free political party can go with nativism.

See, we are going to trick our enemies and the white electorate by adopting a multiracial, er, nativist pose. 

Why, it all be good n shit!  And I, too, remain optimistic.  Besides, if all else fails we shall have plenty of “fascinating reads” over the the next twenty years.

Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:17 | #

Mr. Scrooby. may I echo your enthusiastic support for LJB’s 17 points?
The list is as to-the-point as GW’s recent questionnaire posted “Engaging with the world” - (Oct 29)
Could I suggest that the two documents be somehow combined and edited down a bit - in a form that known posters to this site can all signal approval of - group effort - so that the result can be taken as an agreed statement of MR?
It would be so good to have a document to which all or most could approve of, and something to build on.
Something that wouldn’t generate some of the ill-feeling that sometimes appears here.
I take it that we all approve the 14 words, and wouldn’t agree to any alterations?
Perhaps we can arrive at an agreed form of the new document that could also be taken as a atatement of agred beliefs and as a basis for further action?
One form thi action could take is the circulation of the result to our political “representatives” and the posting of it on other sites.
I’ve put a shortened form of the questionnaire up for consideration in a few places.

GW, I know I’ve just called for harmony, but I wish there were a moratorium here on the use of terms like Zeitgeist and European Man - one of the strengths of this list of points is that it eschews such things. Perhaps policy statements are more attractive when philosophy- and anthropology-free.

Posted by Hunter Wallace on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:19 | #

I’ve seen it all before. This is nothing more than rightwing balderdash; spinning a catastrophic defeat, abandoning your principles, watering down your message ... as some kind of victory. Whatever. Please.

In reality, the limit of “respectable” racial and nationalist discourse has just lurched dramatically to the left. Like the GOP, the BNP will get in the business of stressing its anti-racist, inclusive, multiethnic credentials. It might realize some temporary political gain, but the long term result will be deracialization, which is infinitely more devastating than electoral irrelevancy.

Posted by Angry Beard on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:19 | #

GW,
    I’m not pontificating about ‘philosophy’, oh no, it’s even far more elemental and basic than that - I’m talking of an existential threat to the existence of English nation - in the truest sense of the word ‘existential’ ie whether the nation will actually exist at all in a few generations’.
The arguments of Aristotle were predicated on the fact that Aristotle actually drew breath in the first place and such a civilization as Greece happened to be.
Be that as it may what you decry as ‘nativism’ or ‘populism’ or whatever words you choose to belittle Griffo’s attempt to play the political game is, in fact, the only rational (now there’s a philosophical point to play with) course of action available to anyone with even a casual interest in preserving English EGI.Sorry to burst your bubble all the pontificating, cod-philosophizing, paper utopias and dreaming after dreams in the world cannot alter that fact.Reminds me a bit of the sad case of radioactivity pioneer Pierre Curie (husband to Marie), who was koncked down and killed in a Parisian street by a horse and cart whilst no doubt pondering some very heavy scientfic questions in his mind.
To re-iterate there is no soothing opium balm of alternate reality available to us.We are rooted in the here and now - what is is - and the dire existential threat is lurking around the corner to gobble us all up.
Perhaps it’s better to actually have ‘skin in the game’ and actually confront the beast head-on - with pit-fall traps and a ball of string, rather than debate ‘who should bell the cat’, no?
As I said before a secret ‘iner temple’ pulling the strings at the heart of the BNP (compltely hidden from the profane), could take care, amply, of ‘higher motives’.

Posted by Hunter Wallace on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:27 | #

The BNP is done. Stick a fork in it.

Posted by Hunter Wallace on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:30 | #

In a few decades, the BNP Chairman will be a negro like Michael Steele calling for a “Hip Hop” makeover. Maybe he will have a blog called “What Up.”

Posted by Selous Scout on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:37 | #

The political route is closing. The future of nationalism in Britain is resistance and revolutionary subversion by white street gangs, NF, EDL, C18, and paramilitary groups. They’ve left us no choice.

Posted by Angry Bead on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:43 | #

Selous Scout,
              The EDF are cunts (if you pardon my French, but no other term in the English language suffices).
It is almost certain that they are an MI5 ‘psyops’ operation.Griffo, who’s been in this game for long enough realises this and has deemed them a ‘proscribed organisation’.
Besides, their leader is a half-caste and the loudly scream their ‘anti-racist’ trendy credentials and their hatred for the BNP.

“Bunnies can and WILL go to France”.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:05 | #

Angry Beard,

I know it must be frustrating for you to read this, but you are missing several key connections in your analysis of our woes.  When I call for an ideational house in which to live, I am merely calling for a replacement for the house we are living in today.  Understand, we have no choice but to dwell in one building or another.  And these buildings, whether they are religious as in the distant past or secular as today, all have a strange facility - they shape the plastic part of us.  In replacing our liberal house we change ourselves as men.

This change is the true revolution, the permanent revolution.  And so I mess around after my own fashion at thinking about it, and about the nature of Man and about Nature itself.

Now, does that make sense to you?

Posted by Captainchaos on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:24 | #

I take it that we all approve the 14 words, and wouldn’t agree to any alterations?

Mentioning the 14 words as our implacable standard without knowledge of their provenance is improper.  Those words were the formulation of David Lane who took up arms against the anti-White system with an organization called the Order.  Those men were committed National Socialists.  All of them that were not killed in the field have died, or will die in prison.  Why did they do it?  Because for a National Socialist there can be no honor without loyalty to his people that can only be broken by death, and death is preferable to dishonor.  They are martyrs for their race, just as all the German men that laid down their lives to save the West from the apocalyptic butchery that would have been visited upon it by Bolshevism had they not stepped into the breach.  Barnes heaps crude contempt upon the greatest heroes our race ever produced, and in the next breath says his will shall never break; we will see.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:25 | #

I’ve blogged before about defining moments in life and in the context of this debate my personal defining moment almost coincided with (IMO) the BNP’s first defining moment when they won (was it 11?) local council seats in the B&D;local elections of 2006. (seems like light years away)  To me, this was Wanderin’s ignition take off time for the BNP.

The second defining moment was the winning of two European Parliamentary seats by Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons last June.

Does this qualify for ‘we have lift off’ in terms of Wanderin’s stagings?

I’ll refrain from calling BBC’s Question Time a defining moment.

Anyhow, my hopes were raised after the Euro elections as I thought here was the moment for the BNP from now on to directly challenge the media as to why they had such a earnest desire to see the nation state of Britain destroyed and it’s people replaced.

When I say the BNP have an opportunity to tell it as it is, I do not mean spell it out to the sixth decimal place as that would be absurd, a no brainer, no, what I’m saying is draw a few simple diagrams in bite sized chunks so that the people can start and get their collective heads around this asteroid that is heading on a collision course for their cosy world.

My hopes were for naught, it ain’t gonna happen.

Some people here think we have years to draw up a solution, GW mentions 20 years, Lee Barnes’s local building blocks sounds fine but there is simply not sufficient time left for such a strategy.

Soon our populaion will be increasing at the rate of half a million a year what with new entrants and those already here breeding like flies.

After the tipping point all bets are off.

Posted by Gorboduc on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:39 | #

Does a political group have to be a “Party”?
What are the advantages to it in adopting a party constitution?

If you call yourself a “League” or a “Fellowship” or a “Guild” or a “Confederacy”  - well, Roget can supply other terms - can the state edit your constitution?

Similar rulings have affected other peoples’ concerns: the implications of (and reactions to) this one need examining:  http://www.jfs.brent.sch.uk/admissions.aspx 

I’m not proposing that MR supports the BNP - far from it!  - but I DO think LJB’s “17 points” contain a good basis for an agreement HERE - after, of course, some discussion.

“Musings” they may be, but they’re more realistic than LJB’s Olaf-Stapledon inspired “genetically engineered cyborgs of the future distant galaxy” stuff of a few weeks ago: what can have happened?

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/an_oblique_attack_on_libertarianism

Selous, if it stays on the streets all the impugned need do is stay in and call the cops.

AB and Griffo are right to doubt them: EDL, think ADL, JDL. As I said before about “Gates of Vienna” et al, there’s the blue’n'white star in there somewhere ...

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:17 | #

A political group has to be registered as a party with the Electoral Commission if it wants to participate in elections, otherwise it doesn’t. Operations like the UAF and the Hope not Hate subsidiary of the Searchlight conglomerate also operate in the political domain, but since they don’t stand for election they are considered as ‘registered third parties’ and not political parties as such.

Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:23 | #

Has anyone here commented on this?
Fred?

http://curmudgeonjoy.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:29 | #

In UK one does not need to be a citizen to join a political party or, indeed, to vote. Racial aliens with ‘permanent residence’, ‘leave to remain in UK’ or, (through marriage to a British passport holder - often non-White) ‘right of abode’ can now join the BNP and any challenge to their prospective membership would surely fail, if tested in court.

Perhaps the ‘B’ in BNP will be next to go.

Posted by Armor on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:39 | #

7) The deportation of all colonists who have been allowed to settle in this country but who have refused to assimilate into British culture. They will be given a five year period to learn English, abandon their ethnic ancestral identity and assimilate or they will leave.

8) The removal of multi-culturalism and the imposition of British culture

—
And of course the repeal of the race relations acts, the banning of all affirmative action and positive action plans and schemes, ...

The logic seems to be: if we cannot have white-only clubs, let’s not tolerate any bending of the rules in favor of non-whites. It sounds counterintuitive to me. As a European, I’d rather third-world immigrants went on speaking their own languages, had no interaction with me, and did not pretend to have anything to do with me.

Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:56 | #

Point 7), as quoted by Armor, is of no interest to the many WNs who do not wish an alien, “assimilated” presence in UK . If assimilation is such a fine and worthy exemplar, can miscegenation be far behind?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:01 | #

Yes, Armor.  We do not want any degree of assimilation.  On the contrary we want, as JWH used to say here, to balkanise, balkanise, balkanise.

In addressing foreign populations through the prism of assimilation the BNP is working against the EGI of its stated client group ... us!  The unanswerable question, in this day and age, is whether the party really means what it says about leaving millions of foreigners in our ancestral land just because they can drink warm beer and read The Sun without breaking their covenant with Allah.

I hope not.  But I fear it might.

Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:12 | #

I didn’t think the 14 words was only to be repeated when accompanied by an historical explanation.

The whole LBJ thing is very far from perfect and is most naive in places:  I agree with Armor,  and don’t see how the ethnies can abandon their ethnic ancestral identity, even if they get hair-straighteners and skin-lighteners and wax noses like the late unlamented Michael Jackson: and how you can “impose” British culture (whatever that is) on them?
“Put on your bowler hats: we are going to do some Morris dancing, and then we are all going to Evensong - yes, please come, Ali and Mustafa, because afterwards we will be going to taste some beer. Have you learnt those jokes I gave you yesterday, and who can remember what going ‘up the apples’ means? Oh dear, I think Ahmed had better stay for a detention and polish up his knowledge of stately homes.”

Also, Barnes could be asked what HE has done for Nationalism. Still, it’s a start: something could be made of it.

Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:23 | #

As Al notes, the extension of voting rights to non-citizens in the UK is one of the more bizarre legacies of Empire.

Commonwealth citizens who are ‘resident’ are entitled to vote in all UK elections, from municipal to general. The term resident includes all those given ‘leave to enter’ even if only as a visitor or on a short-term work-permit, not just those with ‘leave to remain’. Of course nobody will ever come round to physically verify that you are indeed resident at the address given on your registration form. You don’t actually even have to have left Pakistan.

Not many people know either that both Mozambique and Cameroon are members of the Commonwealth even though neither were ever British colonies (a little sliver of the latter might be considered to have been, following WWI). Zimbaweans too have full voting rights in the UK, even though Zimbabwe left the Commonwealth. Other countries, including Rwanda, Sudan and Madagascar have since applied to join.

Needless to say, this post-colonial generosity remains almost entirely unreciprocated; only Ireland and a few Caribbean islands permit resident British citizens to vote in their national elections.

All this would be merely comic if the implications for national politics were not so serious. Estimates of the numbers of Commonwealth residents eligible to vote range from 1 to 1,5 million, both comfortably in excess of the 800,000 which separated Labour and Conservatives in the last general election.

Just another thing for the Great British Public to get excited about if anyone were to bring it to their attention.

Posted by Gorboduc on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:28 | #

Yes, on more reflection No.7 is an utter total nonsense. Perhaps it could apply to those over 75.

This site: http://www.nonnativespecies.org/

opens thus:

Non-native Species
Invasive non-native plant and animal species are the second greatest threat to biodiversity worldwide (after habitat destruction). They can negatively impact on native species, cause damage to the environment, the economy, our health and the way we live.

It is supported by DEFRA and all sorts of high-falutin’ outfits: and why are plants more important than people?

It’s paraphrased in Scotland, but the message is the same: diversity is bad for diversity!

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Wildlife-Habitats/InvasiveSpecies

Invasive non-native species are one of the greatest threats to global biodiversity. Once transported out of their natural range they can negatively impact on native species and habitats as well as having serious economic consequences.

The Scottish Government is working with a range of partners to minimise the risk posed and the negative impacts caused by invasive non-native species in Scotland.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:06 | #

Fred,

After years of pretending that “liberalism” is monolithic, unchanging across time, held in common by all “liberals”, and with only superficial differences between “left liberals” and “right liberals”, Auster recently admitted that he realizes there’s more.

In Black racial preferences at Annapolis; and a conversation with Paul Gottfried about white guilt,, Jews, and Protestants he wrote:

What distinguishes Jewish liberalism from Protestant liberalism is the following: Jewish liberals see white Christians as guilty. The Jews feel OK about themselves, they think the white gentile majority is the problem.

By contrast, white Protestant liberals feel guilty about themselves. This leaves them without a confident group selfhood. They believe only in equality, only in their own guilt for somehow standing in the way of equality. It is this lack of collective and even individual selfhood, this inner nothingness, this willingness to be destroyed, that makes the white Protestants the true liberals.

The Jews, whose collective and individual psyche is not guilty under liberalism (since in the liberal world view Jews are victims and the champions of victims), have psychological power and self-confidence and thus are not true liberals.

Then he went back to pretending “liberalism” is monolithic.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:54 | #

Tanstaafl, that Auster quote you posted gets right at the kernel of the fundamental difference between Jewish “liberalism” and Eurogoy “liberalism.”  Jewish liberalism is a species of nationalism (JN, Jewish nationalism) while Eurogoy “liberalism” is the polar opposite of nationalism (the polar opposite of anything that could be called Eurogoy nationalism).  As Auster says there, in being “liberal” the Jews (with a few exceptions) aren’t self-flagellating; the Eurogoys are.  The Jews, on the contrary, in being “liberal,” are in the process of self-bolstering.  One is tearing himself down, the other is building himself stronger.  One is misguidedly trying to be “fair” and “just” by self-criticism and self-punishment, the other is doing nothing of the sort, but is solely attacking a tribal enemy and encouraging him in his misguided self-destruction.  What’s going on is there’s a war on, a tribal war and in addition, as Desmond points out, an intra-Euro class war (where certain Euro élites ally with the Jews and non-whites against whites as a whole in order to gain “class advantage” over lower classes including lower-class whites).  Euros including many Euro “intellectuals” don’t realize there’s this tribal war on.  All Jews realize it, because they’re sort of born into it the way all Greeks are born into a tribal war against Turks, all Irish Catholics are born into a tribal war against Protestant Orangemen and Englishmen, and all Serbs (except Silver) are born into a tribal war against Moslem Albanians, Bosnians, and Kosovars.  It’s exactly the same thing.  When the Jews first came here the implicit understanding was they were expected to drop that.  The first generation of them did, for the most part, so for example the Hollywood movies of that generation of Jews (up to somewhere in the 1960s) were usually OK.  But then the Jews as a group absimilated (for definition of “absimilation” see this Steve Sailer review of the Derb’s new book:  http://www.vdare.com/sailer/091115_derbyshire.htm ) with the result that the second and third generations of Jews reverted back to tribal war, big-time.  Absimilation is why I think Jews and Euros must never live together in the same country:  no matter how sincerely any given generation of Jews promises not to genocide the Euros of the host country, that generation’s second and third generation descendants will absimilate, reverting back to tribal war and attempts at genociding the host Euro population.  It will always happen and is inevitable in my view, so Jews and we should live always apart to prevent 1) Jewish attempts to genocide us, and 2) our rough treatment of the Jews once we survive, get out from under their genocide, and reassert ourselves.  There’s always going to be that cycle, so let’s just live in separate countries. 

If a guy’s liberalism consists in saying “Yeah I did all these things and I should be punished” and another guy’s liberalism, a guy who secretly really dislikes the first guy, secretly can’t stand him and would love to see the last of him, consists of saying to that first guy, “Yeah, you did all these things and you should be punished, here let me hold your coat while you hit yourself repeatedly in the head with a hammer,” these two types of “liberalism” are fundamentally differrent.  That’s exactly what you’re seeing with Jewish and Eurogoy “liberalism” except that with Jewish and Eurogoy “liberalism” the first guy in the above illustration, the Eurogoys, didn’t think up their guilt in the first place, the second guy in the illustration did, the Jews, and browbeat the Eurogoys with the accusations for decades from every conceivable angle non-stop 24/7/365 till the Eurogoys’ resistance finally caved and they started internalizing the Jewish accusations and hitting themselves on the head repeatedly with a hammer to try to kill themselves (i.e., Eurogoy “liberalism”) while the Jews stood by encouraging them in their self-flagellation and holding their coats so they could self-flagellate all the more (Jewish “liberalism”). 

People who don’t know Jews may think when Jewish “liberals” (95% of them at any rate) berate and condemn “whites” or “dead white males” they mentally include Jews in “whites” or “dead white males.”  They don’t.  They see whites as Eurogoys in those cases and see themselves as distinct from them, not involved in their “crimes,” not guilty.  They are NOT attacking Jews, in other words, only the tribal enemy of the Jews, namely us.  If you want to call that “liberalism” instead of what it is, tribal warfare to topple a rival or enemy tribe, go ahead but at least acknowledge the fundamental distinction between the two “liberalisms,” Jew and Eurogoy.

Starting in the last century, during wartime each belligerent country tries to demoralize the other, especially its battlefield soldiers but also its home population.  It may even send agents to work on accomplishing that.  Jewish “liberalism” is none other than that:  an attempt, as part of a tribal war the Jews are waging, to demoralize us, whom they see from birth as their tribal enemy.  Now, when during WW II for example, or WW I, one side attempted to demoralize the other, especially its frontline soldiers, was that properly called “liberalism”?  No of course not.  So why do we call it “liberalism” when the Jews are engaged in exactly the same thing?

There’s a war on, <strike>goys</strike> guys, a tribal war.  Get with the <strike>pogrom</strike> program!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:10 | #

By the way, isn’t it amazing that these two oft-quoted military theoreticians of “Fourth Generation Warfare” and “Asymmetrical Warfare,” Lind and van Creveld, haven’t seen (or have seen but have chosen not to comment on) the tribal warfare currently raging and actually threatening to race-replace European-race populations worldwide?  There’s a war on right now, a genocidal war, it’s called tribal war, it’s one of the biggest events of the past ten thousand years, and it’s time these theoreticians had an honest look at it. 

Incidentally, I posted a van Creveld interview in the MR.com Forum, here,

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/227/ ,

in case anyone’s curious as to his ideas.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:17 | #

There is no Jewish liberalism. There is only a desire to paint liberalism as pathological.

Following World War II, leaders of Canadian Jewry explained antisemitism as an aspect of racial prejudice in general, a problem attributable to pathological individuals who engaged in discrimination and whose behaviour influenced the attitudes and prejudices of the public. This interpretation suggested an appropriate strategy: interrupt the syndrome of prejudice through the force of law, thus prohibiting discriminatory practices and, at the same time, setting a standard of non-discrimination for the law-abiding population. A universalist philosophy led to tactical alliances with other minority and liberal [sic] organizations, designed to confront discrimination against any Canadian group and to generate a constituency for legal reform. The situation of African Canadians in Dresden. Ontario, became a focal issue for the campaign, demonstrating the damaging effects of discrimination and the utility of legal restraint.

The rudiment of liberalism is discrimination, the freedom to believe or act voluntarily. A voluntary action is fundamentally discriminatory. In essence the Jewish plan was to make freedom a sickness. Those Canadians, who before WWII, engaged in free association, excluding others, including Jews, from their neighborhoods and places of work, simply because they were free to do so, were, according to organized Jewry and other minorities, some of European origin, sicko freaks.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb039/is_1_34/ai_n28957938/

Until the 1940s, Canada had been a poor country, with much of the meanness poverty tends to produce. Pre-war Canadians often knew little beyond their own distractions and neighbourhoods, which were small, largely homogeneous, and exclusive. There was usually no room in them for Japanese or Chinese Canadians, and scant tolerance for Jews or blacks or those with ‘different’ attitudes or beliefs.

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/47/03lamber.html

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:38 | #

Just to correct Desmond’s typo above:

There is no Jewish liberalism.  There is only a desire to paint freedom of association for Euros/discrimination by Euros/normal racial-national feeling on the part of Euros as pathological.

Agreed.  That’s exactly what’s going on, with minor exceptions.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:17 | #

By the way, I would highly recommend to everyone that recent article that Gorbo linked above:

http://curmudgeonjoy.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html .

It’s long reading for someone who already sees the points being made — you’ll find yourself wishing, as you read, the guy would go faster with his train of ideas — but it’s worth getting through the whole thing.  It’s very good in that he explores many central ideas and semi-hidden phenomena in fine detail.  It’s long reading but it will leave a lasting impression on you.  That writer knows exactly what he is talking about.

Posted by Matra on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:22 | #

Fred,

Your term ‘race replacement’ is starting to catch on:

Mangan: What is Diversity?

I’ve also seen it a couple of times at Grauniad threads - someone from MR perhaps? - and in the comments at mainstream conservative blogs.

Posted by Antisocialist on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:55 | #

If only we could get this gentleman, Michael James, to take over the BNP. It’d be game, set and match within weeks.

“There is one race of people who always call a spade a spade. They are generally tolerant to the Culture Destroyers, even though the Ashkenazim are legally forbidden to live in their land. They, thanks to generations of treacherous ‘change agent’ prime ministers, are often derided as the most dumbed-down, loutish, ignorant, surveilled, discombobulated, drunken, fist-fighting and foolish of all the peoples of Europe. But I’m proud of them. They have the innate ability to rise above themselves when the occasion beckons.

When they fight, they fight to win; and they never, ever quit fighting.

They are my people. They were born in freedom and they shall never die as slaves”.

Posted by a Finn on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:55 | #

The British people need separate structures from the Bnp to preserve themselves. The sell out of the Bnp will continue when these new liberal positions are hardened by repetitive enunciations; new pressures from political oppositions; new generations of activist, who lose connections to and understanding of the past pro-ethnic policies; political opportunism of power hungry individuals; etc. The whore-like language of John Lee Barnes is a good indication of things to come. Of course there is no such pro-ethnic structures for the British people. If there would be and if this political change would be arranged more rationally, then there might be sufficient justification for it. Now it is just another nail to the coffin of the British.

Posted by Armor on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:18 | #

If a guy’s liberalism consists in saying “Yeah I did all these things and I should be punished” and another guy’s liberalism, a guy who secretly really dislikes the first guy, secretly can’t stand him and would love to see the last of him, consists of saying to that first guy, “Yeah, you did all these things and you should be punished, here let me hold your coat while you hit yourself repeatedly in the head with a hammer,” these two types of “liberalism” are fundamentally different. (—F.Scrooby)

If you denounce White pride and Jewish pride, you are a liberal.
If you denounce white pride and antisemitism, you are a Jew.

Posted by Armor on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:20 | #

“antisemitism” (I forgot the double quotes).

Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:33 | #

The British people need separate structures from the Bnp to preserve themselves. The sell out of the Bnp will continue when these new liberal positions are hardened by repetitive enunciations; new pressures from political oppositions; new generations of activist, who lose connections to and understanding of the past pro-ethnic policies; political opportunism of power hungry individuals; etc. The whore-like language of John Lee Barnes is a good indication of things to come. Of course there is no such pro-ethnic structures for the British people. If there would be and if this political change would be arranged more rationally, then there might be sufficient justification for it. Now it is just another nail to the coffin of the British.

###

So then Mr. Finn,

Who are you, what are you doing for Finnish Nationalism, how many times have you stood for election for Finnish nationalist parties ?

Yeah, thought so.

Fuck all.

Another keyboard warrior gobshite.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:53 | #

Lee,

You have not responded to my criticism of your use of the word “nationalist” when you mean “nativist”.  Perhaps you think I am splitting hairs.  After all, everybody in and around British “nationalism” uses the word all the time, and a party purporting to advance the ethnic interests of a national grouping could hardly exclude itself from doing so.  I appreciate that.  But the fact that use of the word is promiscuous does not make it accurate, and I wondered whether you appreciate the distinction between the prospective outcomes of revolutionary nationalism and nativist street politics.

You see, Lee, if you don’t know the difference that’s fine.  You can’t really be blamed for saying things like “Who are you, what are you doing for Finnish Nationalism, how many times have you stood for election for Finnish nationalist parties?” to an academic such as Finn.  But one is bound to ask why you insist on making statements as if you are some kind of authority on revolutionary nationalism when all here can see that you are not.

One of the bitter pills that the men - often very good men - who have carried the torch of anti-liberal politics ever since 1945 have to swallow is that other men with better minds and a better understanding of history, of the human condition, and of metapolitics are arriving on the scene, and are taking the intellectual game - because that’s what they are interested in - away from them.  They are redefining the terms of the National Question in the postmodern age, and it is their conclusions that will hold sway in and for the future.

Finn is one such person.  I know he spoke out of turn about you and had no cause to do so - he’s said things about me and about this site that I hope he might occasionally regret.  That’s just Finn.  Nethertheless, he is a thinker of worth whom you, Lee, would do well not to demean by comparisons with street activists in Bolton and Barking.

All of us “gobshites of the keyboard”, however uncertain, however unimportant we seem, are engaged in the slow, sequential building up of a new understanding that politicians and activists of the European future will, if they wish, be able to call upon.  If we fail, and leave you only with the instincts and rubric of nativism to energise your work, then you are right - we probably would have been better off spending our leisure hours leafletting the white suburbs.  But if we succeed, the change to the life of our people will be very much greater and more foundational, more stable than anything you can engineer otherwise.

Give us the space to work.  Contribute if and where you feel able.  But don’t malign our effort.

Posted by Gorboduc on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:36 | #

An absolutely brilliant response to LJB, GW.

However, LJB is owed a bit of credit for being the catalyst that got this particular thread fizzing and a few matters sharpened up.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:47 | #

Gorb: LJB is owed a bit of credit for being the catalyst that got this particular thread fizzin

Yes, he certainly has that effect.  I am pleased that Lee troubles to visit us, and I enjoy crossing swords with him from time to time.  Whatever one’s opinion of the man and of some of his wilder wanderings, he is not another blokist BNPer - and he did a hell of a job on the Moral Maze:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/for_a_conversation_with_homo_deracinatus/

Posted by Angry Beard on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:41 | #

Admittedly the Question Time performance was cringingly bad - more Peter Griffin than Nick Griffin, but it was untypical - Griffo is a superb speaker at the stump and senior BNP honcho Arthur Kemp is without doubt the best orator I’ve ever heard in my life.
It’s easy to sit back in an armchair and throw rocks at the BNP, but consider this the BNP HAS changed the nature of the game in the past few years.Witness the Neathergate allegations, the shock of the two winning MEPs, the lefties screaming and shouting and doing their utter bollocks, the build-up to QT, all that publicity - the BNP IS now firmly part of the political landscape and is influencing the debate - a situation unthinkable 10 or 12 years ago when the BNP was destined to wither on the vine.
It was THE conduit for public discontent that gave the lefties the willies, and lead to protestations of backtracking from ZanuLabour (in time for the next election, of course).
The Cowdenbeast himself made restrictionist noises the other day.

Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:08 | #

In fairness to Lee John Barnes, Finn did set the tone by his injudicious denunciation of the BNP’s ‘sell-out’ and Lee’s ‘whore-like language’. Just as it is incumbent upon Lee to acknowledge that ‘keyboard warriors’ can help in contributing the intellectual horsepower that the BNP so clearly lacks, we should also show proper respect of the practical efforts that Lee and other commited activists make, often at great personal cost to themselves.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:57 | #

One of the bitter pills that the men - often very good men - who have carried the torch of anti-liberal politics ever since 1945 have to swallow is that other men with better minds and a better understanding of history, of the human condition, and of metapolitics are arriving on the scene, and are taking the intellectual game - because that’s what they are interested in - away from them.  They are redefining the terms of the National Question in the postmodern age, and it is their conclusions that will hold sway in and for the future.

The problem is that these men, though allegedly superior, are not any less subject to the so-called maladies of self-interest. Yes nativism, tends to fail, (Madison Grant, KKK Protestantism etc.) however, which of the grand metaphysical/teleological schemes have not succumb to the same pressures; political opportunism, apathy and self-interest, especially in the phenotypically individualistic European Northwest? Do Judaism and Islam succeed as an earthly world view because of the two Cs, evolved collectivism and coercion? Does Christianity in Africa grow because they are willing to burn witches?

Enlighten us o’ wise ones.

Posted by Frank on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:58 | #

Nativism in the US could have been more successful. Had we simply not divided of slavery, we might have united as nativists. And there were other opportunities that simply happened to fail. The KKK was once quite powerful.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:21 | #

Fred, have you ever laid out somewhere what you see as the difference between “race replacement” and “genocide”, or why you prefer the former term over the latter?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:23 | #

“Fred, have you ever laid out somewhere what you see as the difference between ‘race replacement’ and ‘genocide’”  (—Tanstaafl)

Race-replacement is genocide; not all genocide is race-replacement, making race-replacement, in the language of your high-school math class, a “proper subset” of genocide — no? 

When the French National Convention ordered the Army to exterminate of the rebellious Vendéan population 1793-96 and the Army went ahead (demanding first that Paris furnish explicit written orders, the generals saying if the orders were to shoot/bayonet not just combatants but all priests, all women, all children, all nursing infants, all old people, more explicit orders in writing were required) that wasn’t race-replacement, just killing (around 400,000 men, women, children, infants at their mother’s breast, old folks, everyone, the orders were all Vendéans they could catch:  they were indiscriminately put to the sword, trampled down with horses’ hooves, shot with muskets, gathered in groups that were then shot using cannon grapeshot at close range, deliberately drowned en masse by herding large groups into rivers, taking all surrendering groups of combatants without exception and bayonetting or shooting them so there was not one single prisoner taken, zero, etc. — half the population of some 800,000 Vendéans genocided).  When the killing was over after two or three years the Directoire in Paris didn’t import 400,000 Negroes to repopulate the Vendée, so there was no race-replacement, and the Vendée was still the Vendée, and although considerably depopulated it could regenerate itself and come out the same. 

When the Jews in Moscow 1931-33 ordered the genocide of the Christian Ukrainians on a tribal payback basis they didn’t race-replace them, just killed them.  Once they’d polished off three to fifteen million (the accepted range among scholars, the exact figure uncertain) their bloodlust was sated and they didn’t bring in Sub-Saharan Africans to repopulate the place — didn’t plow the ground with salt, so to speak (what the Romans did to the farmland around Carthage so no city could rise there again, after they had destroyed the population and all the buildings and structures, “leaving not one stone upon another,” and burned to the ground everything that could ignite).  The Moscow Jews wanted tribal payback in the Ukraine and got it, quenching their thousand-year thirst for vengeance through the mass killing of millions of Christians, such that once slaked, that thirst did not push them to go further and “sow the ground with salt” by importing Sub-Saharans to repopulate the Ukraine though the Jew Trotsky, had he not been sent into exile years earlier, would very possibly have opted for exactly this “final solution to the Ukraine’s Eurochristian problem” — see this important article:  http://www.vdare.com/misc/091116_raehn.htm , which gives the story behind the story of a lot of this Jewish/communist crap that goes on.

The Ukraine, when the Jews were through, was left still the Ukraine although suddenly short some fifteen million in its population.  It could still regenerate; salt hadn’t been plowed into the earth.

When the Donmeh Jews, on the other hand, genocided the Armenians in 1915 ( http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=95 ) they did of course repopulate the depopulated areas with other groups.

When you get rid of virtually an entire population, that’s genocide; when in addition you racially “plow salt into the ground,” so that whatever shellshocked remnant of stragglers still stumbling around after your genocide machine has passed through can never again regenerate the extirpated population, that’s race-replacement. 

”why you prefer the former term over the latter?”  (—Tanstaafl)

I don’t think I “prefer” it; if I use it more it may be because I’m just being specific as to the particular method of genocide we’re now, as we speak, being subjected to.

Posted by Armor on Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:45 | #

I like the race-replacement expression better than the word genocide. No one knows exactly what is genocide and how other people understand the word. Even dictionaries don’t know the precise meaning. According to Raphael Lemkin, who created the word, I think the word genocide meant killing a nation, an ethnic group. It could be done, for example, by destroying the cohesion of the group, and enforcing its cultural assimilation. I think the United Nations definition is something similar. But most dictionaries wrongly say that genocide is the systematic killing of the members of a specific nation or race. Genocide is often used as a synonym for mass-murder.

Race-replacement is a self-explanatory expression. Using it helps people realize that immigration, which is an addition of third-world people, leads to a deduction of white people. The more Blacks around us, the fewer Whites in our lives. For every new million of third-world people our governments let in, we should expect there will be one million fewer white babies in the close future (or maybe the result will only be half-a-million fewer, or maybe as many as 5 million fewer, depending on the birth-rate of immigrants, but there will definitely be fewer white babies). Miscegenation will also bring our numbers down. On average, every single non-white immigrant increases the demographic pressure on white society, leading to a lower white birth rate. Even in the USA, which is less overcrowded than Britain, immigration means fewer Whites. For example, big American cities used to be white cities. Immigration enthusiasts will say that immigration is a plus: it means more people. But is also means fewer Whites. It is clearly a change, a replacement, something that is less easy to advocate than an addition.

Posted by Q on Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:10 | #

Extremely important post by Fred Scrooby. His post in conjunction with the must read links he provided summarizes 90% of the nature and cause of our demographic devastation.

Armor,

The following essay by Michael Rienzi elaborates on the theme of your post:

http://amren.com/ar/2003/02/index.html

Posted by Bill on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:45 | #

Dispossession has an appropriate ring to it.

Posted by Tanstaafl on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:44 | #

Thanks for the clarification Fred, and you also Armor.