The British National Party is now at an important crossroads. After the successes of the last decade, the party has been weakened by a split between supporters of the party’s leader Nick Griffin and his opponents, many of whom have been pushed out of the Party. Despite this, at the last leadership election this July, Griffin was re-elected by the narrowest of margins. While there have been calls from some to form a new nationalist party outside the control of Griffin, others believe that the way forward is to continue working within the BNP. What follows is an article by John Bean, a leading figure in nationalist politics, identifying key points and tactics in the struggle to secure the goals of British nationalism. This is an article that has relevance not only for British nationalists but for nationalists everywhere.
Colin Liddell
 |
| Hanging on as leader, Nick Griffin. |
by John Bean
For Nationalism to achieve the minimum of power required to act just as a brake upon the socio-political policies that are destroying our national identity—let alone reverse it as is required—ideally we need to win at least two Parliamentary seats and five MEPs within the next decade. Council seats and members of such bodies as the London Assembly are but stepping stones. We cannot, for example, follow the tactics of Gramsci and the Frankfurt school with the successful Marxist Long March Through the Institutions, for time is not on our side.
The long-term success by incremental steps of the Marxists and liberal-minded “useful idiots” who have made up the bulk of our teachers at schools and universities over the past 30 years has encouraged the nation to reject its cultural heritage without knowing it. This has resulted in our being colonised by a tsunami of Afro-Asian immigration. For immigration to continue, even at half of its present rate (as the Tories suggest they are aiming for) for another decade, could mean that the battle is lost. In 30 years at a “reduced” rate it would definitely be lost. Therefore the policy of ending immigration is not negotiable under a reformed BNP or a new Nationalist party. It must take priority over all other aspects of policy.
We can recover from economic downturns and even from EU and United Nations political, cultural, and economic interference. But once our ethnicity is altered it is altered for ever. Those who cannot accept this and would have us soften our opposition to immigration and make it a secondary issue to withdrawal from the EU or revitalising a Christian Britain, for example, should join either UKIP, the so-called “right-wing” of the Conservatives, or a Monastery.
Although we are all agreed that there must be no watering down of our policy on immigration, or any other policy aspects, we have to find a way of presenting these policies so that they are acceptable to voters under 40 and to women voters. For every three males who have voted BNP in recent years less than two women have done so.
The BNP has been failing to recruit, or recruiting and then losing, younger, more intelligent Britons from the pool of potential recruits. This could be because our propaganda is not well targeted in achieving this. Also when we have recruited such people they have been put off by the Party’s culture that has changed in recent years under the Griffin regime.
We need to recruit and retain “Bright Young Things”. One reason for this being a problem is that such people must forge careers and nationalist participation in the past has provided the kiss of death, especially in the world of the internet. Those who are sensitive about their career prospects can be given disguised identities with assumed names enabling them to make nationalist contributions on the internet.
To facilitate the acceptance by voters of what the Lib-Lab-Con and its kept media will describe as our hard line—or even “racist” policy—on immigration, the Party should support the following:
In the BNP’s last election manifesto, in Section 63 on “Foreign Policy,” we can fully support the view where it says, in regard to realigning this policy, that we should put our nation’s interests first and not interfere with the sovereignty of any other nation. This includes ending the use of our armed forces in conflicts that do not cause problems for Britain’s interests.
Our opposition to continued membership of the European Union is well established. The resultant public reaction to the above two major policy standpoints (which must be secondary to halting immigration) is often the view that we are rather old-fashioned, not willing to work with “Johnny Foreigner,” and that we have not appreciated that we are dependent on foreign trade for our economic survival.
We need a different stance on Europe to show the brain-washed electorate that our brand of nationalism is based on the realities of the 21st century. We are offering something new and not regurgitating old NF/BNP policies, which the public believed were steeped in the aggression that they were told went with the nationalism of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco in the 1930s and 40s.
It is an economic non-starter to suggest we can follow the example of non-EU members Norway or Switzerland, when they have populations of under 5 million apiece compared to our 60.
One of our campaigns should be for a European Confederation of national sovereign states—or at least a Forum as a stepping stone. Our voters are decidedly fed up with the interference of the EU but are reluctant to withdraw from Europe completely—partly due to becoming aware of our similarities as well as our differences resulting from mass holiday travel since the 1970s. We can say that what we offer is the economic co-prosperity sphere that was promised us under the original idea of a European Common Market. All legislation passed by the EU that a Confederation would replace becomes null and void. This point ensures that voters are not under the misapprehension that a Confederation is similar to a Federal Union such as the EU—in fact it must guarantee the rights of the individual nation states, including immigration control.
Pressure for a Confederation will, and must, come from below; from the peoples of the European nations rather than being imposed from above like the EU proto-superstate.
The Eurozone common currency will probably collapse within 12 months. We will naturally welcome this and point out that the freedom for nation states to fix their own interest rates in their own currencies will be an important stimulus to stabilising the Europe-wide depression that is likely to remain for the next two years or more. A Confederation would aid this stabilisation and long-term recovery.
As it is, our exports to the rest of Europe are 57% of our total and give us 55% of our imports. The next market of note is the USA with 15 % of our exports and 9% of imports. We do not support the UKIP view of metaphorically moving the British Isles to mid-Atlantic and seeking trade and political co-operation primarily with the United States.
Importantly, much of Afro-Asian immigration to Britain is coming via the Continent, which now has a resident non-European population—much of it Moslem—of more than 50 million. As in Britain, this has boomed as a result of a birth rate that is treble that of the indigenous Europeans. A European Confederation, particularly of similar Nationalist states, would aid the control of immigration Europe-wide considerably, if not enabling us to bring it to a halt.
1. Probably over half the electorate feel good if they think we have given some support to the “needy” of the world. At the same time, many of these good people object to our escalating foreign-aid policy, which is expected to reach over £12 billion by next year. We could suggest that a Nationalist government would replace foreign aid with a £1billion holding fund from which we would supply emergency aid to overseas nations suffering calamities, such as major droughts, floods, and earthquakes.
2. We should continue to make it clear that we support capitalism in principle. The world’s economic crisis has been brought about by globalisation with the international banking system using nation states for its own advancement, rather than serving national interests. For many of us it would seem that the international financial system’s concept of making continual growth the basis of a nation’s economy has brought about the present crisis. However, this is not the time for our party to adopt some of the alternative systems proposed, whether syndicalism, Social Credit or a barter system, or others that fall under the “Funny Money” generic title.
We need a banking system but not in the present form where banks gamble with their customers savings, and pay enormous bonuses to the employees who do the gambling.
It is important that we must deal with things as they are and not as they were. Our industry and skills base has been devastated since Thatcherism and this cannot be corrected in a matter of years but decades.
3. Because of the anti-Semitism associated with past, and some present, nationalist movements we should continue trying to avoid comment on Israel. However, where it cannot logically be avoided we should commit ourselves to support of a Palestinian state, whilst recognising Israel’s permanent existence. Of course, we have no problems with politically assimilated British Jews joining the Party.
4. Present BNP policy on Capital Punishment is that it should be returned for the murder of children and police and prison officers. As the majority of younger voters have been persuaded to oppose all Capital Punishment it might assist our "non-fascist" image by saying that we would put our view to a public referendum on gaining office.
5. There are good nationalists within our movement who believe that we should stop using nuclear power and have put up cogent articles to this effect on the website. The Party membership view undoubtedly reflects that of the public in general: it is split between ‘for’ and ‘against’. As Britain and its immediate neighbours are not straddling a North Sea/North Atlantic equivalent of the Pacific rim, like Japan, then the risk from modern design nuclear power generators is minimal as long as full safety measures are bound in by law. We should stick to the BNP’s last manifesto, which included nuclear as part of our power sources. We could add that we support a cheaper and more efficient alternative that is based on thorium rather than uranium – uranium was originally chosen because it could be used for nuclear weapons.
As the dominant view amongst membership appears to be rightfully opposed to wind turbines (less so for offshore), man-made CO2 being responsible for global warming (climate change is something different and is always with us), and genetically modified crops, the opposition tries to present us as uninformed and anti-scientific. Taking an anti-nuclear power stance gives them more ammunition for this.
I acknowledge that I may be biased because of my working life background. Although I do not have a degree in chemistry I hold its City and Guilds equivalent in Paint and Synthetic Resin Chemistry; was at one time an Associate Fellow of the Institute of Petroleum, an Associate Member of the Institute of Corrosion (I had a book published on this subject) and also the Institute of Metal Finishing. Understandably, we are great believers in supporting the application of scientific developments for British manufacturing industry, and would not be supporting a party if it really was "anti-science."
6. Christianity has played a major part in the development of European culture. We should continue to accept this, particularly as Islam would be ready to fill its place here in Britain as on the Continent. However, I consider that we should avoid trying to present the BNP as a political/militant wing of the Christian church as has been the case on occasions under Griffin’s leadership (an erstwhile “green Odinist pagan”). It has gained few active Christians and makes this stance look opportunist, or even hypocritical to nominal Protestants and Catholics – which encompasses the majority of the population. We should, of course, continue to support the right of Christians to wear the cross, or other emblems of the faith, in their workplace.
The long-term success by incremental steps of the Marxists and liberal-minded “useful idiots” who have made up the bulk of our teachers at schools and universities over the past 30 years has encouraged the nation to reject its cultural heritage without knowing it. This has resulted in our being colonised by a tsunami of Afro-Asian immigration. For immigration to continue, even at half of its present rate (as the Tories suggest they are aiming for) for another decade, could mean that the battle is lost. In 30 years at a “reduced” rate it would definitely be lost. Therefore the policy of ending immigration is not negotiable under a reformed BNP or a new Nationalist party. It must take priority over all other aspects of policy.
We can recover from economic downturns and even from EU and United Nations political, cultural, and economic interference. But once our ethnicity is altered it is altered for ever. Those who cannot accept this and would have us soften our opposition to immigration and make it a secondary issue to withdrawal from the EU or revitalising a Christian Britain, for example, should join either UKIP, the so-called “right-wing” of the Conservatives, or a Monastery.
Although we are all agreed that there must be no watering down of our policy on immigration, or any other policy aspects, we have to find a way of presenting these policies so that they are acceptable to voters under 40 and to women voters. For every three males who have voted BNP in recent years less than two women have done so.
The BNP has been failing to recruit, or recruiting and then losing, younger, more intelligent Britons from the pool of potential recruits. This could be because our propaganda is not well targeted in achieving this. Also when we have recruited such people they have been put off by the Party’s culture that has changed in recent years under the Griffin regime.
We need to recruit and retain “Bright Young Things”. One reason for this being a problem is that such people must forge careers and nationalist participation in the past has provided the kiss of death, especially in the world of the internet. Those who are sensitive about their career prospects can be given disguised identities with assumed names enabling them to make nationalist contributions on the internet.
To facilitate the acceptance by voters of what the Lib-Lab-Con and its kept media will describe as our hard line—or even “racist” policy—on immigration, the Party should support the following:
- Legislation is now well established which makes it illegal to suggest that those of non-European stock who were born in the UK are not “British” subjects, but it is legal to say that those of non-European stock are not ethnically British. We must no longer pretend that we can get round the legislation. In any case, there is a minority of Britons of non-European stock who fully accept our culture and could vote for a Nationalist party.
- We can still make it clear that our policy on multiculturalism must be to reverse it. The solution can come from an ongoing public debate. We need not produce an ideal plan which could be used to throttle us.
- In both our literature and the spoken word we must avoid anything that appears as abusive or diminishing the values of other races. This should be extended to ethnic jokes, etc., when members are relaxing at the Party’s social events.
- In order to diminish the effects of the opposition’s charges that we are racially obsessed, our general leaflets and election material should limit the description of our British ancestry—whether English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish—as being “European.” We can be a little more specific by pointing out that to describe Britain as already being a nation of immigrants is a nonsense in that Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, and Huguenots all came from a few hundred miles away in Northern Europe and were of kindred stock. For those members—and certainly branch officials—who wish to find out more on the composition of the ethnic stock whose existence we are trying to defend we should guide them into the direction of the invaluable material being put into print by Arthur Kemp and Ostara Publications, such as Arthur’s Four Flags. Here, for example, they can learn about the importance of the distribution of the R1b1 DNA type. Even on our website, articles discussing this can be off-putting to the new voters we are trying to capture in our time limit. A passing reference: Yes. It can encourage the few to find out more and we must make sure that the right material that will destroy the shibboleths of multiracialism is available.
- At present possibly a slender majority of UK voters would accept the view that although one race may not be superior to another per se, each has a different culture and that difference is what we are defending. Therefore, in party publications we should run articles from time to time on the cultures of non-European races. This presents no problems with the history of India, China, and Japan, although it might be more difficult with Africa.
- It probably goes without saying that, irrespective of what we all feel, we will attract most support by giving more attention to the economic costs of immigration and the higher criminality amongst some sections, particularly Afro-Caribbean. Several articles on the BNP Ideas website have shown that mass immigration costs the taxpayer £3 billion per annum
EUROPE
In the BNP’s last election manifesto, in Section 63 on “Foreign Policy,” we can fully support the view where it says, in regard to realigning this policy, that we should put our nation’s interests first and not interfere with the sovereignty of any other nation. This includes ending the use of our armed forces in conflicts that do not cause problems for Britain’s interests.
Our opposition to continued membership of the European Union is well established. The resultant public reaction to the above two major policy standpoints (which must be secondary to halting immigration) is often the view that we are rather old-fashioned, not willing to work with “Johnny Foreigner,” and that we have not appreciated that we are dependent on foreign trade for our economic survival.
We need a different stance on Europe to show the brain-washed electorate that our brand of nationalism is based on the realities of the 21st century. We are offering something new and not regurgitating old NF/BNP policies, which the public believed were steeped in the aggression that they were told went with the nationalism of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco in the 1930s and 40s.
It is an economic non-starter to suggest we can follow the example of non-EU members Norway or Switzerland, when they have populations of under 5 million apiece compared to our 60.
One of our campaigns should be for a European Confederation of national sovereign states—or at least a Forum as a stepping stone. Our voters are decidedly fed up with the interference of the EU but are reluctant to withdraw from Europe completely—partly due to becoming aware of our similarities as well as our differences resulting from mass holiday travel since the 1970s. We can say that what we offer is the economic co-prosperity sphere that was promised us under the original idea of a European Common Market. All legislation passed by the EU that a Confederation would replace becomes null and void. This point ensures that voters are not under the misapprehension that a Confederation is similar to a Federal Union such as the EU—in fact it must guarantee the rights of the individual nation states, including immigration control.
Pressure for a Confederation will, and must, come from below; from the peoples of the European nations rather than being imposed from above like the EU proto-superstate.
The Eurozone common currency will probably collapse within 12 months. We will naturally welcome this and point out that the freedom for nation states to fix their own interest rates in their own currencies will be an important stimulus to stabilising the Europe-wide depression that is likely to remain for the next two years or more. A Confederation would aid this stabilisation and long-term recovery.
As it is, our exports to the rest of Europe are 57% of our total and give us 55% of our imports. The next market of note is the USA with 15 % of our exports and 9% of imports. We do not support the UKIP view of metaphorically moving the British Isles to mid-Atlantic and seeking trade and political co-operation primarily with the United States.
Importantly, much of Afro-Asian immigration to Britain is coming via the Continent, which now has a resident non-European population—much of it Moslem—of more than 50 million. As in Britain, this has boomed as a result of a birth rate that is treble that of the indigenous Europeans. A European Confederation, particularly of similar Nationalist states, would aid the control of immigration Europe-wide considerably, if not enabling us to bring it to a halt.
Some Other Issues
1. Probably over half the electorate feel good if they think we have given some support to the “needy” of the world. At the same time, many of these good people object to our escalating foreign-aid policy, which is expected to reach over £12 billion by next year. We could suggest that a Nationalist government would replace foreign aid with a £1billion holding fund from which we would supply emergency aid to overseas nations suffering calamities, such as major droughts, floods, and earthquakes.
2. We should continue to make it clear that we support capitalism in principle. The world’s economic crisis has been brought about by globalisation with the international banking system using nation states for its own advancement, rather than serving national interests. For many of us it would seem that the international financial system’s concept of making continual growth the basis of a nation’s economy has brought about the present crisis. However, this is not the time for our party to adopt some of the alternative systems proposed, whether syndicalism, Social Credit or a barter system, or others that fall under the “Funny Money” generic title.
We need a banking system but not in the present form where banks gamble with their customers savings, and pay enormous bonuses to the employees who do the gambling.
It is important that we must deal with things as they are and not as they were. Our industry and skills base has been devastated since Thatcherism and this cannot be corrected in a matter of years but decades.
3. Because of the anti-Semitism associated with past, and some present, nationalist movements we should continue trying to avoid comment on Israel. However, where it cannot logically be avoided we should commit ourselves to support of a Palestinian state, whilst recognising Israel’s permanent existence. Of course, we have no problems with politically assimilated British Jews joining the Party.
4. Present BNP policy on Capital Punishment is that it should be returned for the murder of children and police and prison officers. As the majority of younger voters have been persuaded to oppose all Capital Punishment it might assist our "non-fascist" image by saying that we would put our view to a public referendum on gaining office.
5. There are good nationalists within our movement who believe that we should stop using nuclear power and have put up cogent articles to this effect on the website. The Party membership view undoubtedly reflects that of the public in general: it is split between ‘for’ and ‘against’. As Britain and its immediate neighbours are not straddling a North Sea/North Atlantic equivalent of the Pacific rim, like Japan, then the risk from modern design nuclear power generators is minimal as long as full safety measures are bound in by law. We should stick to the BNP’s last manifesto, which included nuclear as part of our power sources. We could add that we support a cheaper and more efficient alternative that is based on thorium rather than uranium – uranium was originally chosen because it could be used for nuclear weapons.
As the dominant view amongst membership appears to be rightfully opposed to wind turbines (less so for offshore), man-made CO2 being responsible for global warming (climate change is something different and is always with us), and genetically modified crops, the opposition tries to present us as uninformed and anti-scientific. Taking an anti-nuclear power stance gives them more ammunition for this.
I acknowledge that I may be biased because of my working life background. Although I do not have a degree in chemistry I hold its City and Guilds equivalent in Paint and Synthetic Resin Chemistry; was at one time an Associate Fellow of the Institute of Petroleum, an Associate Member of the Institute of Corrosion (I had a book published on this subject) and also the Institute of Metal Finishing. Understandably, we are great believers in supporting the application of scientific developments for British manufacturing industry, and would not be supporting a party if it really was "anti-science."
6. Christianity has played a major part in the development of European culture. We should continue to accept this, particularly as Islam would be ready to fill its place here in Britain as on the Continent. However, I consider that we should avoid trying to present the BNP as a political/militant wing of the Christian church as has been the case on occasions under Griffin’s leadership (an erstwhile “green Odinist pagan”). It has gained few active Christians and makes this stance look opportunist, or even hypocritical to nominal Protestants and Catholics – which encompasses the majority of the population. We should, of course, continue to support the right of Christians to wear the cross, or other emblems of the faith, in their workplace.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comment will appear after it has been checked for spam, trolling, and hate speech.