Tag: bnp

Some thoughts on the State of British Nationalism

Will Wright gives his thoughts on the current state of British Nationalism. This is, of necessity, a brief review, but perhaps it will stimulate thought and discussion via the Comments section below.

It is very clear that none of the three main parties will pursue policies to advance our survival as a nation, let alone our success. The British people need a political party dedicated to promoting their interests. Such a party needs to be racial-nationalist in character, democratic and with a proper legal constitution. At the moment I cannot see anything that fits the bill. But let us take a look at some of the groups and dead ends out there.

United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) – has aimed for a level of professionalism on a par with the Establishment parties. It appears to have a constitution and a rule book and a ruling executive. It appears that Nigel Farage would have liked to have abolished the executive and have an even more personal leadership based on his own personality and power. UKIP did well to win most of the British seats in the EU Parliament. It also won about four million votes, which pressured Prime Minister, David Cameron into holding an In/Out referendum on EU membership.

But UKIP is far too worried about respectability and not being seen as a ‘far-right’ or racialist party. I believe that this timidity has limited its potential and more or less consigned it to being just another Establishment party. It has gone into decline after the EU referendum. It may have been used as a vehicle to draw support away from the BNP.

British National Party (BNP) – born of John Tyndall’s desire to have absolute control over any party that he led, it doesn’t have a proper democratic and legal constitution. It was stagnant for many years before Nick Griffin mounted a coup. It therefore did not even meet Tyndall’s needs. It started to grow and win local elections under Griffin. The political climate favoured its growth and the BNP worked hard to recruit people.

But Griffin squandered the opportunity to educate patriotic recruits and turn them into lifelong, ideological racial nationalists. Too many party people did not really know what they were fighting for, other than a vague notion that they were against political correctness. Griffin seemed to be too concerned about being seen to be respectable. He wanted a break with the past and that’s what the BNP got. For me, he broke the ideological link to previous nationalists going back to just after the Second World War. Many BNP members thought that their only enemy was Islamism.

Under Tyndall, the Party’s fault was a dictatorial leadership. Under Griffin this fault remained and he added a dilution of nationalist ideology to the problems.

English Defence League (EDL) – has many faults. If nationalists are going to win in Britain, then it needs to be done by a political party winning seats consistently and then winning power. But the EDL isn’t nationalist, or racialist, or even a political party. It was founded in Luton as a kind of crusade against Islamism. It sees its identity as ‘English’ rather than ‘British’ at a time when the continuance of the United Kingdom is under threat. On the surface, the EDL isn’t concerned about respectability. It attracts politically illiterate football supporters. They know something is wrong with the country and they want some kind of action. In the hands of a racial nationalist party they could be educated and turned into dedicated activists. Instead they hold disorderly street demonstrations and shout football terrace type chants. Oddly, the unrespectable leaders seem at pains to state that they are pro- Israel.

National Action – has been declared to be a terrorist group, by Home Secretary, Amber Rudd. This was because they applauded the assassination of the Searchlight/Hope Not Hate-supporting Labour MP, Jo Cox by a mentally unwell man. Masked men giving stiff right arm salutes is not the right path for nationalists. The Establishment is looking for any excuse to ban nationalist groups. Islamic terrorist supporters are crying out for ‘even-handedness’ – they want nationalist groups banned. It is idiocy to give the Government that excuse. In any case, terrorism cannot succeed. Only a mass movement and a political party can effect the necessary change to our country. NA is a dangerous dead end and authentic nationalists should avoid it like the plague.

Britain First – seems to have punched above its weight. This small group has a pair of very brave, very active leaders, Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen. Their skilled use of the internet to promote their activities has seen them get international attention. Provided they can recruit and educate nationalists, then they might have the beginning of a good nationalist party. They need to turn their publicity into election success. It may be that they are, like the BNP and the EDL, too focused on Islamism.

National Front – this is a well-meant attempt to resurrect the original party of the same name. This is a tiny party and some of its members are not old enough to remember the golden years of the nineteen seventies. At the time of writing, it is not making its presence felt on a big enough scale nationally. Has some good people, but not enough of them.

British Movement – this is supposed to be a revival of the original party of that name. In my opinion it is a complete waste of time and energy – a real dead end. It doesn’t fight elections or hold demonstrations. It is an inward-looking group of Hitler enthusiasts. Some of its people don’t even know much about Hitler. If you are an authentic British racial nationalist, then don’t waste your time with this group.

London Forum – is useful for getting nationalists together to hear speeches on various themes. The speeches can then be re-produced on You Tube for dissemination to a wider audience. Its success may be due to its being not party-aligned. If one party emerged as highly dominant on the nationalist scene, then that non-alignment ought to change. Everyone serious about success should then join that party – like what happened in 1967 with the National Front.

*****

Serious nationalists should consider how they are going to succeed. Here are some suggested guidelines.

1.       Know your ideology. Know national and international history. Read books by nationalists and, sometimes, our ideological enemies. Know what constitutes nationalist thinking – and what does not. But don’t be too keen to exclude people. Know what you are fighting for.

2.       Loyalty – be loyal to the Idea, the Cause. But be loyal to the movement, and importantly, be loyal to each other.

3.       Be brave. Physically and also psychologically. Nationalists will be assailed from all sides.

4.       Be self-disciplined.

5.       Don’t be overly bothered about respectability. But don’t go in the opposite direction and try to be politically extreme or sensationalist for its own sake.

6.       Recognise that our ability to persuade our fellow countrymen is the key to our success. Develop your skills as a persuader and a political propagandist. Read up on influence and persuasion techniques. Know your enemies’ arguments and hone your debating skills.

7.       Understand that winning a general election is the only way that a nationalist party can succeed in the UK. Shun any talk of infiltrating the Establishment parties or of armed revolts or terrorist activity.

8.       Unity. One big nationalist party may succeed – a myriad of tiny nationalist groups never will. Many of the groups mentioned have members that might make good members of a new reformed nationalist movement.

9.       Leadership. While we should reject dictatorship and personality cults, leadership is important to success. It comes in different forms and operates on different levels. There are organisers, speakers, writers, website-designers, administrators, fund-raisers and distributers of books and magazines.

 

Courting the Jews on the European “Far Right”

Martin Webster*

This article was first published in Professor Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer on November 21st, 2010. A link to that site is under ‘Friendly Sites’ to the right of this page.

The Guardian’s definition of “far right”, and mine, differ considerably, which is the reason why I have not rushed to its website to read a two-page article published a few of days ago about “the threat of the far right in Europe” which, I am told, made no mention of the BNP or the state of race relations in Britain.

The Financial Times simultaneously published a similar one-page survey, but this included a brief post-script item about the failure of the BNP to mobilise the full potential of anti-immigration sentiment persisting amongst the British electorate. It begins as follows:

“In a pub garden in Birkenhead, a blighted post-industrial suburb in England’s north-west, Nick Griffin told the Financial Times that his party had a “once in a lifetime” chance to escape its white supremacist roots and emerge as an alternative for millions scorned by the London elite.

“Less than 18 months later – following this year’s disastrous national election campaign, a savage internal power struggle and a court battle with the country’s equality watchdog that threatens to bankrupt the party – his dream is over.”

The impression I have gained in recent years is that the only “far right” parties in Europe who have been able (allowed) to flutter near to the flame of power are those that have been able to convince the Establishment, the media and Jewry that they are most definitely not anti-Jewish, not “racist”, not against all coloured immigration (but only against the immigration of Muslims!) and not against the multi-racial society (just so long as it doesn’t include Muslims!) The Jobbik Party in Hungary may be the only notable exception to this.

This “far right” anti-Muslim/anti-Islam rhetoric is designed, of course, to make these “kosher fascists” more appealing to Jewry and, hence, the mass media. Whether that line of ingratiation really impresses Jewry’s learned elders — as distinct from their lesser brethren — is a matter I will touch on in due course.

The first of these post-WW2 “kosher fascists” was Gianfranco Fini, who started out his political career in Italy as an arm-in-the-air, Mussolini-admiring, Giovinezza-singing, MSI Blackshirt in the late 1970s, but within a decade or so was groveling at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem begging forgiveness. Since then his career zoomed upwards.

Until recently, Fini occupied the post of Speaker of parliament in Bercusconi’s (“right wing”) government, but now that Bercusconi’s administration is on the skids (due to the old roué’s extracurricular activities) Fini has resigned and is now positioning himself to become Prime Minister after the next general election.

It is no doubt a mere happenstance that the period of Fini’s conversion and rise to high office and the period when Italy became the No. 1 target for endless boatloads of illegal immigrants from Africa coincided.

Following Fini into the Wilderness of “Success”

The Dutch “far right” politician Geert Wilders is currently building a political career by means of a strenuous anti-Muslim/anti-Islam agitation which he promotes in tandem with a strident pro-Jewish/pro-Israel campaign. The one is part-and-parcel of the other.

On Sunday 14th December 2008, just as Israel was preparing to drop White phosphorous bombs on the crammed civilian areas in the Gaza concentration camp, Wilders was at the Begin Memorial Hall, Jerusalem, sharing the platform with some of the most rabid Arab-hating Jewish racists in the Zionist fold, including Arieh Eldad, a “far right” member of Israel’s parliament. You can find Eldad’s post-conference press statement here. [You may need to use a browser other than Google Chrome to view this. If you still can’t get access and you would like a copy, let me know.]

Wilders knew well that the Begin Memorial Hall was built in honour of Menachem Begin who in the late 1940s was the leader of the Irgun Zvai Leumi terrorist gang. Among many other atrocities, Begin instigated and personally participated in the massacre of Palestinian villagers at Dir Yassein, the bombing of the King David Hotel and the kidnapping and slow-hanging with piano wire of British Army Sergeants Mervyn Paice and Clifford Martin. In the foreword to his autobiography The Revolt he insists: “Yes….I would do at all again”. The Israeli public were so grateful to Begin that they elected him prime minister in 1977.

Wilders is clearly hell-bent on out-grovelling Fini. But are his ‘brown nose’ snufflings doing him any good with the people who really count?

At the recent general election in Holland his party obtained, so it was reported, sufficient votes to influence which of the major parties formed the government. He has been given the additional advantage of being prosecuted under Holland’s version of the UK’s “Incitement to Racial Hatred” laws.

But is Wilders getting the backing of Zionist-Jewry’s Establishment — or just the support of chancers, mavericks and opportunists like himself?

Prof. Kevin MacDonald (Professor of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach) wrote a commentary on Wilders (and, by implication, other Populist grovellers) which you can read here. The main point is the failure of Jewish leaders to support Wilders despite his philo-Semitic statements and fervent support for Israel.

MacDonald’s final two paragraphs read:

“The reality is that this is what the entire Jewish political spectrum wants, from the far left to the neoconservative right. Again we see that despite the well-oiled myth that Jews are beset by fundamental disagreements about policy, Jewish power is pushing in one direction throughout the West: Multiculturalism and the end of racially and culturally homogeneous White societies.

“And it should be obvious that White advocates who attempt to recruit Jewish support in opposition to multiculturalism are engaging in a futile undertaking. The fact that the organized Jewish community favors Muslim immigration throughout the West even when so many Muslims are hostile to Israel and to Jews (to the point that Jews have been forced to vacate Muslim areas in many places, including Sweden) shows how committed they are to their campaign against the people and the culture of the West.”

This explanation is probably broadly correct, but I venture to suggest that there may be exceptions, if temporary, to this global Jewish drive to destroy White ethnic homogeneity: most notably here in Britain.

The size of the Muslim population in many British towns and cities — especially in the north of England and the east of London — both in terms of overall numbers and as a proportion of the population, puts anything to be seen in Sweden in the shade.

From the point of view of Jewry in the UK, the issue is not the number of indigenous White non-Jews resorting to ‘White Flight’ from the home towns of their youth, but the increasing number of parliamentary constituencies which are electing Muslims to Parliament; constituencies which will never welcome Jewish candidates of any political party — even those which, two or three decades ago, were represented by frequently re-elected Jewish (usually Labour Party) MPs.

On top of this demographically charged political change there is the rise of Muslim business empires in Britain. These are increasingly able to bestow financial patronage to the major Establishment political parties, and do so.

These developments indicate that a power base is evolving which could have the potential to challenge the Jewish money-and-media dominance over the British body politic and this is making UK Jewry jittery, no matter what may be world Jewry’s overall strategy of encouraging White European nations to dissolve themselves into a multi-racial stew.

Hence, in the Jewish-owned sections of the UK media, there is a flood of anti-Muslim, anti-Islam stories. This barrage is so relentless that for the average Briton the words “Muslim” and “Islam” have become hardwired to the word “terrorist”. In the long run this campaign and the associated activities of the Jewish-backed English Defence League might be intensified to the point that Muslims return to their homelands — no bad thing, providing other varieties of immigrant followed in their footsteps!

At the moment, however, the campaign seems designed simply to put all but the most fanatical Islamists among the Muslim population on the back foot and, in particular, to scare Muslim religious, political and business leaders away from any thought of challenging the current status quo for fear of being depicted by media character assassins as “extremists” and “promoters of terrorism” — allegations which terminate careers, destroy businesses and ruin lives.

No similar such mainstream media campaign has ever been mounted in the UK against Afro-Caribbeans, who perpetrate more homicides and maimings per year in our country than have ever been inflicted by Islamic terrorists. Were any such campaign to be launched the “hatemongers” responsible would soon find themselves facing “Incitement to Racial Hatred” charges. The difference is that the Afro-Caribbeans do not represent a threat to Jewry’s scruff-of-the-neck grip on Britain’s Establishment.

Prof. MacDonald’s description of Jewry’s global strategy of promoting alien immigration to White European lands could well be a large part of the explanation why British National Party chairman Nick Griffin failed so signally with his decade-long charm offensive with Jewry.

Part of the explanation must surely also include:

  • Griffin’s long earlier career as an anti-Semite — including in the mid-1990s his claimed authorship of a factual magazine exposing Jewish media ownership and influence (in fact written by Dr. Mark Deavin) — before he adopted what the more perceptive among the Jews recognised was a cynical, careerist-opportunist volte face. In this regard, he is quite different from Wilders whose philo-Semitic attitudes were apparent even in his youth. Why should the Jews take a chance with Griffin? There are plenty genuinely philo-Semitic non-Jews on the “far right” to pick from, as the media-backed progress of the so-called English Defence League (with its Jewish Division, its rabbinical advisers and its pro-Israel demonstrations outside the Israeli Embassy) makes all too clear.
  • Griffin’s record as an ‘unreliable’ manager of funds subscribed to the cause. His approach has led him to engage in ‘trading’, ‘accountancy’ and personnel arrangements which have evoked disquiet and dismay. Senior party employees who have drawn his attention to arrangements which they felt to be improper have found themselves sacked upon the instant. The party has had five National Treasurers during the past 18 months. It is continually late in presenting its audited annual accounts to the Electoral Commission — a statutory obligation — incurring ever-increasing fines. The party’s auditor advised the Electoral Commission that it was unable to sign-off the last set of accounts. Various civil actions (and not just that brought by the EC) are grinding on. Why would the Jews wish to patronise the engine-driver of what appears to be an impending train wreck?

The long and the short of it is that it was the Jews who let Griffin down! …. If only they had grasped the hand of friendship that he extended for so long …. if only they had rewarded his conversion to philo-Semitism …. If only they had got the media a bit more on his side …. then by now they would have had a firm and obedient ally not only in the European Parliament but in the House of Commons and all his/the BNP’s financial problems would now be a forgotten nightmare!

*Martin Webster (email him) has been a racial-nationalist activist in Britain since he was an 18 year old in 1961. From 1969 until 1983 he was National Activities Organiser of the National Front and a member of its National Directorate. In 1973 he was the first nationalist in Britain (pre- or post-WW2) to “save a deposit” (then set at 12.5%, currently set at 5%) in a parliamentary election when he won 16.02% of the poll at West Bromwich in 1973. Since 1983 he has not associated with any political organisation. He issues occasional e-bulletins to a world-wide circle of friends (and some enemies).