|
|
|
Who needs the BNP? by Alexander Baron Earlier this month, the British National Party voted to accept non-white members. This was done, ostensibly, under pressure from the grandly styled Equality And Human Rights Commission, a body that has in the past sought and obtained prosecutions for the publication of racist cartoons and poked its proboscis into every aspect of traditional British life attempting to mould it to the race-mixers’ agenda. The far right has of course been the target of the liberal self-styled ruling élite for decades, and in spite of the left’s vacuous and increasingly tiresome charges of the establishment’s racism, there has been a de facto conspiracy to suppress all (white) racial-nationalist movements and parties in both the media and other circles. The contrived prosecutions and convictions of John Tyndall, Nick Griffin, the gullible but sorely misguided Lady Birdwood, and many others, is proof positive of that. Now though that one albeit fringe party has enjoyed a modicum of success, a new tactic has been devised. Suddenly, it has been discovered that the BNP’s constitution is illegal because it discriminates against non-whites, and the BNP has thrown in the towel without so much as a whimper. But does it matter? There have been racial-nationalist movements in Britain for a century or more; an organisation called the British National Party was formed by a wholesale fish merchant named Edward Godfrey of Hayes, Middlesex (where I grew up incidentally) during the Second World War, but the BNP as it exists today is a child of the National Front. The Front was founded in 1967 by that greatest of British patriots A.K. Chesterton, who had previously founded the League Of Empire Loyalists. Three years later, he was forced out, the Party soon falling under the control of John Tyndall and Martin Webster. In 1980, Tyndall made a bold decision, resigning from the organisation and forming the New National Front. The basis for this was – he claimed – a homosexual network that was operating inside the organisation. In fact, this “network” consisted principally if not entirely of Martin Webster, whose homosexuality could not have been unknown to Tyndall but had been tolerated by him and other senior members because of his undoubted abilities. The real reason for the split was that the authoritarian Tyndall wanted more or less total control over what had always been a thoroughly democratic organisation – notwithstanding the oft’ repeated and tiresome “Nazi” epithet. Tyndall’s new party was the most successful of the various NF splinter groups, and shortly changed its name to the British National Party, which it remains today under the leadership of Nick Griffin. I have to say that although I am still in occasional contact with one BNP member – who attended my trial when I was fitted by the Metropolitan Police in 1996/7 - I have had precious little contact with others over the past few years, and no contact at all with Griffin since January 2003. The three reasons I severed all contact with him have been public knowledge since August 2004 when I published my letter to him of January 3, 2003 on my main website. This severance was not a decision I took lightly, as it is no exaggeration to say that Griffin had been my biggest fan up until then, and had done everything in his power to plug my publications – not just the anti-Searchlight ones. He stuck his neck out in June 1995 when he wrote a glowing if thinly disguised review of my book The Churchill Papers for The Rune called ... Just Another Crazy Conspiracy Theory. True, I had forwarded him the two letters that were stolen from David Irving’s flat (not by me, I hasten to add) that went some way to backing up my seemingly extraordinary claims. (As far as I know, Griffin still has them). And I had been involved with the far right since 1980, and prior to The Churchill Papers I had published both an extremely critical (dare I say devastating?) biography of Ray Hill, but I was still a bit of an unknown quantity. At one point, when Griffin declared himself bankrupt, I leant him a relatively small sum of money – about £250 if I recall – and he paid me back with no hassle. Though we were never friends as such, I told him I regarded him as a kindred spirit, so as I said, severing all contact with him and his party – which looked like it might at last be going somewhere – was not a decision I made lightly, but though integrity in my personal life has never been my long suit, I felt that continuing to associate with Griffin would betray not only my recently deceased friend Morris Riley, and my (albeit limited) Islamic contacts, as well as a slap in the face for (the now also deceased) John Tyndall – who had also been good to me in his own limited way – but it would also tar the integrity of my researches and publications, writing as I do, always, with one eye on history. Long before the atrocities of September 11, Griffin had made up his mind following his ousting of John Tyndall that the BNP under his leadership would target Islam as the new enemy within. In one of our last telephone conversations he told me he had read the Koran from cover to cover, and that it was a horrible book – I believe those were his exact words.
... which conveniently omit the context of such apparently genocidal pronouncements. Of course, the biggest fallacy about the new, so-called Islamic threat is the same one that continues to be peddled about the Jewish menace. Like Zionism, and more generally Organised Jewry, Islamism is a movement that has little or nothing to do with religion. Mainstream Islam is opposed to usury, collectivism and homosexuality, and is no friend of Zionism either, so leaving aside any racial aspects, the far right and Islam are natural allies, something Griffin himself acknowledged in the 1980s when he visited Libya. Now the new BNP has admitted its first non-white member, an elderly Sikh with a fanatical hatred of Islam. Good luck with that one. All that though is by the by, now I would like to pose that question again: who needs the BNP? The ludicrous posings of Trevor Philips (the man who once wrote that the only good Nazi is a dead one) and his bunch of self-styled “anti-racist” so-called human rights campaigners aside. As I said, there have been racial-nationalist parties before, and none of them has got anywhere. The unspoken conspiracy to mongrelise or otherwise phase the White Race out of existence – the aptly titled bloodless genocide - continues unabated in Britain and throughout what is left of the white world, and the dumb, brainwashed goyim either don’t care or think this is a good idea. The big questions are how and why, and what can we do to reverse this trend? The late Chris Tame, Britain’s leading Libertarian until his premature death in 2006, rejected the formation of a specifically Libertarian party. The main reason for this was that he considered the best way to promote the philosophy was by the dissemination of ideas. There are though many other reasons for rejecting the formation of such a party; most of the same reasons are applicable for any racial-nationalist party, and most of these should be obvious by the repeated failure of far right parties over the past five decades and more. One is the inevitable in-fighting and squabbling that goes on within all political parties. The leadership gets a taste of power and wants to hold onto it; others aspire to power themselves. Then there is infiltration by enemies of the ideology – in the case of the far right this includes the likes of Searchlight who on the one hand recruit spies to disrupt the parties’ smooth running, and on the other, agents provocateurs to promote the media stereotypes of all white nationalists as “Nazi baby-eaters” – to borrow a phrase from Larry O’Hara. Odious though this clique of Aryan-hating crypto-Jews and goy fellow travellers may be, the biggest threat to any “extremist” political party – far right or far left - comes from the state. Although it is common knowledge in the more enlightened of far right circles that the far left have been the unwitting tools of the real power brokers since Wall Street insiders bankrolled the Bolshevik Revolution, there are other agendas at work here, and the word conspiracy cannot possibly even begin to do them justice. To take just one example, anyone who has been targeted by Britain’s political police – or run of the mill bent coppers – as I have, will realise the incestuous nature of these institutions, how their rogue agents do more or less as they want, and how it is all but impossible to obtain any redress for their wilful wrongdoing. The police can literally get away with murder, and have been doing so since long before the Stockwell shooting. The current and very real terrorist threat has made the situation infinitely worse. State surveillance – and harassment – of anyone involved in genuinely radical politics has increased considerably, and white nationalists have been targeted as much as the self-style Islamists. No, forming or throwing all our efforts into a political party is a total waste of time, especially now that we have the Internet. The enemies of freedom positively hate the Internet, but they know that any and all attempts at censorship are doomed to failure. Such has been its success that even some elements of the loony left are beginning to wake up. Conspiracy “theories” that were once peddled solely by the far right, about the Federal Reserve, manipulation of money markets, and covert power groups such as the Bilderbergers and the Trilateral Commission, are now subjected to left wing scrutiny. Some leftists – and not a few Moslems – have even ventured into Holocaust Revisionism, and the old epithets and stupid smears like dragging in the Protocols Of Zion at every opportunity don’t work any more. None of this has been brought about by the BNP or by other far right parties; the slow awakening of the wider public worldwide has been largely due to the work of small groups of people, often solitary webmasters and bloggers, who have dug out embarrassing documents, asked awkward questions, and at times produced superbly crafted videos which cannot all be dismissed as bigotry, hate, or the machinations of diseased brains. The one area where the BNP has been successful has been in focusing the attention of the mainstream parties on the reality of the menace posed by uncontrolled immigration. Although the bloodless genocide is still taboo and will doubtless remain so for some considerable time, the stupid epithet “racist” doesn’t automatically kill the debate any more. Not when every asylum seeker or bogus refugee is viewed by the general public as a potential suicide bomber. The BNP will no doubt continue to make small inroads into the mainstream, and will too continue to provide a comfortable living for the parasites who batten off it, like Searchlight, but those white Britons who are genuinely concerned for the future of this once great nation should not be sidetracked either by their Little Englander mentality nor by Griffin’s ludicrous hate campaign against the mythical Islamic menace. Comments:2
Posted by BGD on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:43 | #
Is this part one of the argument or is it the whole argument? Are you saying that we can prevent the overwhelming of our nation by immigration and the generations already here by getting our points of view generally accepted in the mainstream and thereafter adopted by existing political parties? If so good luck with that. With libertarianism perhaps that is a strategy that might gain some appeal but this isn’t libertarianism. 3
Posted by Lurker (Mk II) on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:05 | # http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmithInterviewsBaron.html 4
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:06 | # The answer to the question should be obvious. We do. The BNP performs an indispensable function in consciousness-raising even as its political impact remains marginal. The notion that that function could be performed by Internet commentators alone is risible in the extreme. 5
Posted by Alexander Baron on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:54 | # This is a reply to two messages; the guy who calls me trash I have no message for. I must write something about Bradford-Smith at some point, the guy is a total retard. I happened to mention the Kennedy Assassination and the fact that all these so-called conspiracy theories about it are bunk, and suddenly I was an un-person, or even a crypto-Jew working for the great consspiracy. Check out some of the excellent videos on Youtube starting with the ABC TV documentary and then tell me you think Oswald was a patsy. Check out too http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/does-britain-need.html How many immigrants has the BNP or any other far right party stopped entering the country? You’d be better off forming a pressure group or joining one. 6
Posted by BGD on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:34 | #
Touchy. You could have made pressure groups (like Migration Watch, Libertarian Alliance etc) part of your original case. Disagree but..
Mainstream political parties react like scalded cats to any encroachment on their territory by far-right parties. Margaret Thatcher’s “swamping” speech being one of the better known examples. Margaret Hodge’s recent pronouncements as she goes up against Griffin another. More here that I linked to the other day that argues that mainstream parties adopt right wing policies when the break cover and get public attention. If true then the answer is right wing miniscule parties are effectively pressure groups. By-the-by lived in Sydenham until recently – Lawrie Park. Thought a couple of times of suggesting a cup of tea or a pint. That was before my daughter grew to almost school age and we had to run to where English is a first language and the schools are white.. 7
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:29 | #
It’s not quite clear why one can’t do both: support the BNP and also appropriate pressure groups at the same time, even if the former and the latter are not overtly connected. I support (financially) both Migrationwatch UK and the Optimum Population Trust, as well as the BNP. Not having the time nor the inclination to create one of my own, your recommendations for other pressure groups to support would be welcome. I was quite attracted to Derek Turner’s Right Now! faction at one time, but that seems to have dribbled away. There is of course a third element in the mix which should not be underestimated: activist street theatre. At present only the EDL occupies that slot, somewhat ineptly. 8
Posted by The Neathergate Trust on Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:44 | # Alexander Baron, 9
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 08:14 | # The BNP is a necessary step. This does not negate the fact they are not effectual. We need to demand more from them, that which if they cannot provide, they must find and groom those who can. 10
Posted by DRS on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:50 | #
Said the do-nothing armchair nationalist. 11
Posted by FB on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:41 | # The secret plot to destroy Britain’s identity Posted By Melanie Phillips On February 24, 2010 @ 8:53 am In Daily Mail | Comments Disabled Of all the issues of concern to the public, immigration is possibly the most explosive — and the one about which the most lies are continuing to be told. During the period that Labour has been in office, mass immigration has simply changed the face of Britain. The total number of immigrants since 1997 is pushing three million. Ministers claim that immigration policy has been driven principally to help the economy. They have always denied that they actually set out deliberately to change the ethnic composition of the country. Well, now we know for a certainty that this is not true. The Government embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society — and they kept this momentous aim secret from the people whose votes they sought. Worse still, they did this knowing that it ran directly counter to the wishes of those voters, whose concerns about immigration they dismissed as racist; and they further concealed official warnings that large-scale immigration would bring about significant increases in crime. The ‘driving political purpose’ of this policy, wrote Neather, was ‘to make the UK truly multicultural’ — and one subsidiary motivation was ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’. Misters, however, went to great lengths to keep their real intentions secret from the public — with, said Neather, a ‘paranoia’ that these would reach the media — since they knew their core white working-class voters would react very badly. Accordingly, a report about immigration by a government advisory unit, which formed the core of a landmark speech in 2000 announcing the loosening of border controls, went through several drafts before it was finally published — and the Government’s true intentions about changing Britain into a multicultural society were removed from the final version. Nevertheless, Jack Straw, who was Home Secretary at the time the immigration policy was changed, said he had read press reports of Neather’s remarks with incredulity since they were ‘the reverse of the truth’. Now we know, however, that they were indeed the truth. We know this only because details of the advisory unit’s report which were excised from the final published version — just as Neather said — have been emerging into the public domain through Freedom of Information requests. The pressure group MigrationWatch obtained an early draft which revealed that the Government’s intention was to encourage mass immigration for ’social objectives’ — in other words, to produce a more ethnically diverse society — but that on no fewer than six occasions this phrase was excised from the final version, published some three months later. It was done in the full knowledge that the people actually wanted immigration reduced. And we also discover that those who expressed such concerns were dismissed with utter contempt as racists — and it was further suggested that ministers should manipulate public opinion in an attempt to change people’s attitudes. Thus the eminent and decent Labour MP Frank Field found himself smeared as a racist for daring to suggest that the rate of immigration should be reduced. What bullying arrogance. The real prejudice is surely to believe that opposition to mass migration can never be based on any reasonable objection. The implications of this covert policy are quite staggering. Ministers deliberately set out to change the cultural and ethnic identity of this country in secret. They did this mainly because they hated what Britain was, a largely homogeneous society rooted in 1,000 years of history. They therefore set out to replace it by a totally new kind of multicultural society — and one in which the vast majority of newcomers could be expected to vote Labour. They set out to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions. They set out to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another ‘multicultural’ identity in its place. And they then had the gall to declare that to have love for or pride in that authentic British identity, and to want to protect and uphold it, was racist. So the very deepest feelings of people for their country were damned as bigotry, for which crime they were to have their noses rubbed in mass immigration until they changed their attitudes. What an appalling abuse of power. Yet even now they are denying that this is what they did. Yesterday, the Immigration Minister Phil Woolas blustered that the advisory unit report had not been accepted by ministers at the time. Surreally, Mr Woolas further claims that the Government has brought immigration down. But the reductions he is talking about have taken place on the separate issue of asylum. The impact of the Government’s new points scheme upon the record rate of immigration growth has been negligible. The truth is that these early drafts of the advisory unit’s report have blown open one of the greatest political scandals of the Labour years. At no stage did Labour’s election manifestos make any reference to a policy of mass immigration nor the party’s aim of creating a multicultural society. What we have been subjected to is a deliberate deception of the voters and a gross abuse of democracy. There could scarcely be a more profound abuse of the democratic process than to set out to destroy a nation’s demographic and cultural identity through a conscious deception of the people of that nation. It is an act of collective national treachery. Now we face imminently another General Election. And now we know that in their hearts, Labour politicians hold the great mass of the public, many of them their own voters, in total contempt as racist bigots — all for wanting to live in a country whose identity they share. There could hardly be a more worthy issue for the Conservative Party to leap upon. Yet their response is muted through their own visceral terror of appearing racist. The resulting despair over the refusal of the mainstream parties to address this issue threatens to drive many into the arms of the truly racist British National Party. If that happens, the fault will lie not just with Labour’s ideological malice and mendacity, but with the spinelessness of an entire political class. Article printed from Melanie Phillips’s Articles: http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new 12
Posted by Black pawa on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:45 | # What do you guys have to say about this?
13
Posted by FB on Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:55 | # A few interloping invaders from Africa over millennia hardly a multicultural shithole makes. 14
Posted by Gudmund on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:55 | #
4th century, you say? That’s around the time negritized Levantines were migrating all across the formerly Roman (that is, ethnically Roman) Empire. It doesn’t surprise me at all that a few Negroid slaves could have ended up there. One finding amongst ancient samples means nothing to how the population is now. What’s more a simple look at the phenotype and genes of modern English will tell you they are very far from Negroids.
What a load of tosh. Go back to whichever Afrocentrist website you crawled from. 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:11 | # The Times reports North African, Gudmund. Not a negro. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/living/article7042984.ece The only two comments currently on the thread are constitute an adeuate response to Black pawa:
16
Posted by FB on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:34 | # Dan Dare wanted names and dates. He has them. Now what? Where’s Scrooby to tell us everything is the Jews’ fault? Labour’s plan to flood the U.K. with vibrant migrants was hatched by a standing committee of the Learned Elders of Zion, no doubt.
In today’s decadent U.K., the media propagandists masquerading as objective journalists must always give a multiculti spin to all news. Britons are subjected to propaganda 24/7, it’s a miracle they can even think for themselves. 17
Posted by Captainchaos on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:35 | #
And of course the Jews have nothing to do with that. Nothing at all! Britain is now paying the price of stabbing their own blood in the back during WWII. They aligned themselves with Stalin, Roosevelt and International Jewry. Shitheads. 18
Posted by BGD on Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:45 | # Well if Eckardt’s glittering academic career ever stalls she’s always retain her liquor license. 19
Posted by BGD on Sun, 28 Feb 2010 02:10 | # Oops, Zywiec in and grammar out. “We’re looking at a population mix which is much closer to contemporary Britain than previous historians had suspected.” Question 1 for the good Doctor: what percentage of late Roman Britain does she believe was non European in origin (as compared with 2010)? Question 2: what historian has ever suggested the Roman EMPIRE was mono-racial? Question 3: Does she really believe anyone should ever take anything she says seriously? 20
Posted by icr on Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:04 | # Piling on: Once Rome had pulled its troops out of Britain in the early 5th century, there was no longer an inflow of people to offset the demographic deficit. The local population fell into decline, and the decline accelerated in the 6th century when plagues killed three out of every ten people. The Romano-British needed no help from the Anglo-Saxons to die out. They did it largely on their own. 21
Posted by Calvin on Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:03 | # Alexander Baron is well known in nationalist circles. I wouldn’t touch him with a barge pole. Post a comment:
Next entry: Echelon
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Lurker (Mark II) on Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:53 | #
http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/cesspit/Baron040998.html