Dear Friends
At present there is a leadership struggle going on within the British National Party. The contestants are Nick Griffin (current Chairman and MEP for the North-West) and Andrew Brons (MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber). At the time of their election to the European Parliament, Adrian Davies, the prominent Nationalist Barrister, quipped ''The BNP have got two candidates elected to the European Parliament. One is a man of integrity and decency, the other is Nick Griffin." Some would say his words have been proved to have been rather prophetic.
Now regardless of whether you support the BNP or not, the outcome of this contest is important for British Nationalism and for the future of Britain. And therefore the issue is important to a broad church of Nationalist thought.
The problem is that while everyone has seen, heard and read Nick Griffin, many Nationalists have never heard a speech by Andrew Brons or read an article by him, despite the fact that he has such a prominent place in the party (see Andrew Brons's website: bnpideas). Cynics might say that this is because Nick Griffin wants all the limelight for himself. Be that as it may, the following review might go some way towards rectifying the situation.
Brons is 62 years old and is a retired College Lecturer. He has long been a stalwart of the Nationalist cause. He has 'an Ezra Pound like reputation' for encouraging new talent and indeed his record seems to confirm this, as young talent has always flourished under his tenure/chairmanship of other/previous Nationalist organisations.
UNOFFICIAL REVIEW AND MUSINGS on a SPEECH BY ANDREW BRONS - Thursday 30th June, Ashfield, near Mansfield
(All errors, additions, omissions etc, are purely my own, as this was done from memory. Hopefully the speech will soon appear on the BNP Ideas website.)
The subject of the speech was 'Why Public Policy in Britain today is a Disaster'.
Andrew began by saying that he always told the Truth. Why did he do this? Well, firstly because it was the right thing to do and secondly because it was a lot easier! In the words of Jerome K Jerome "It is always the best policy to speak the truth - unless of course, you are an exceptionally good liar." This is because when you start to tell lies you have to remember what lies you have told and make them all consistent with each other and with reality. In a sense you are creating a fictional parallel universe of lies. You have to remember in effect two worlds - the real one and the false one you have built up. This is very difficult to do as the mind prefers only to cope with one world. So it is very easy for the mind to take the easy option and just concentrate on one of the worlds. The danger is that you end up believing your own false world rather than the real world.
Which brings us on to Government Public Policy. Now the basic assumption of everyone, EVERYONE, in the media, the newspapers, on TV, in Government, in the Think Tanks, the chattering classes etc, etc, is that human nature is malleable. That who we are, how we turn out, how successful we are, how law abiding etc, is down to Nurture, ie, it is all down to our upbringing and our environment, whether our parents gave us enough love, and believe it or not, whether we were potty trained properly! In other words, we are all the same. We are all blank sheets. There is no innate difference, none at all, between different races, different ethnic groups and between individuals. What this means is that Government Policy, all Government Policy, operates on this assumption. Whether your village, town, city is inhabited by Somalis or Somersetshire folk is all the same to 'the Powers that be'. In their view the UK is merely a geographical area and it doesn't matter who lives within it. Culture, tradition, custom, race, religion - none of these matter. All that matters is that UK Ltd keeps on making money for the few who effectively run the company.
In a humorous aside here, Mr Brons said that he had to be very careful about what he said at this point. Let us say, he said, that fishermen from the Orkneys have a predisposition to carry out muggings in our urban areas, or that East Anglian farmers were heavily represented in the urban knife crime statistics. This being so, the basic assumption of all levels of Government and the media is not that such Orcadians or East Anglians have a greater predisposition to carry out crime than any other group, but that they have had a lack of good opportunities, a bad environment, or wore the wrong type of nappies when babies and so on ad infinitum. All those who appear on our TV screens and in our newspapers implicitly agree with this assumption. No one ever replies when given a loaded question by an interviewer on some such issue, ''I disagree with your basic assumption." This is just not done. Mr Brons recalled the time he was watching TV and an interviewer asked an MP ''There is a lot of concern among the public about immigration....err....coloured immigration," he quickly added while blushing. Mr Brons said this was an indication of the self-censoring that most people carry out on their own actions, thoughts and words. In Orwell's 1984 everyone has a miniature electronic device fitted in the back of their neck [sic]. Its object is to stop what Orwell calls ''ungoodthinkfulthoughts". This device is called "Crimestop". And this is really what we have today. Occasionally, a fact will surface such as that a teenager who carried out a murder, is revealed as having a great grandfather who was also hanged for murder. When this happens "crimestop" comes into play and the story is hushed up.
Now there is a term used in computer programming known as 'GIGO'. If you feed garbage (ie, incorrect formulas and data) into a computer programme you'll get nothing but garbage out. Garbage in, garbage out. Because Public Policy in this country and in the West generally is based on false assumptions about human nature, about race, about gender and a whole host of politically incorrect issues, what comes out the other end is complete chaos and disaster. Public Policy does not do what it's meant to do. It is ineffective and inefficient. Resources are wasted and squandered and the only answer Westminster and the liberal pundits have is to spend more and more money. More and more of YOUR money. Public Policy makers do not learn from their mistakes, they can't, because if they did they would have to admit that they had got the whole foundation of their outlook on life wrong and the implications of admitting that would be immense. So when more and more sex education for younger and younger children produces more and more unwanted pregnancies, their answer is yet more sex education for even younger children. It's illogical, it's madness, it's Public Policy.
So, do we live in a state of self-delusion? Well, in actual fact we don't. This is where it gets REALLY interesting. This is really the crunch. Those SAME politicans and journalists, while PUBLICLY agreeing with all the liberal-marxist, politically correct claptrap and treating it as gospel-truth, in their PRIVATE lives acknowledge that it is a load of old codswallop! They acknowledge that cousin Gerald is the spitting image of great-uncle Stanley and also behaves in the same way. They acknowledge that all the money that Central and Local Government has thrown at the local constituency sink comprehensive, has done nothing to improve standards and they quietly send their children to prestigious independent schools. They forbid their children from going into rough areas of town and forbid them to mix with children from ethnic minorities. If they have to have a constituency home in an inner city multi-racial mess of a neighbourhood, they make damned sure that they have a second home in a nice, white, rural area. Journalists who praise multicultural Hackney, for its vibrancy and cheap Turkish household cleaners, soon move out to Cornwall. Pop singers who grew up in London soon move out to Devon when they make it big. So our society is not merely self-delusional it is actually self-delusionally schizophrenic! To illustrate just how crazy our society has become, let's look at recent changes in the Law of the Land.
Now, there was a hullabaloo recently when certain comedians such as Rowan Atkinson were concerned that Parliament was going to pass strict new laws that outlawed criticism or lampooning of religion. In the Parliamentary Committee Hearing into the matter these comedians were assured that these new laws would not (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) apply to them, so there was no need to worry. Who then were the laws going to apply to? I think we all know the answer to that - it will apply to people like us. All used to be treated alike before the law. No longer.
Two other major principles of law that have fallen by the wayside, in the effort to keep the lid on all the chaos that these public policies have created, is the doing away with the need to prove 'intent' and the concept of 'truth'. If someone BELIEVES that you are breaking a law by what you say, then you are breaking the law. And that's that. No appeal. There is no need to prove intent any more. To argue what you were saying is the truth is not good enough. As "the truth is no defence".
If we add to this the doing away of the double jeopardy rule and the refusal of the automatic right to a trial by jury, we have a frightening prospect. This now means that you can say something which is true, but if the governement wants to imprison you then you can be tried an indefinite number of times, until the Courts get the judgement they want. If the juries obstinately keep giving the wrong verdict, ie, "not guilty", then the government can merely do away with the jury altogether and try you without one.
So to sum up, it could be said that once Public Policy begins basing its policies on lies, its policies produce disaster and we slide down a slippery slope into more and more lies. We end up living in a schizophrenic, self-delusional world where people are imprisoned for telling the truth. We now have two worlds - the real world of our private lives and the Orwellian world of public policy. Nothing good can come out of lying and the worst lie is the lie we tell ourselves.
If I had to sum up this speech by Andrew Brons I would say that it was a well crafted, well thought-out speech, delivered in a modest way. He did not waffle, nor did he talk down to, or patronize, his audience. The intellectual rigour was impressive and reminded me of Enoch Powell. He struck me as honest and as 'a safe pair of hands'. In short, Andrew Brons did not come across as a politician. This may be seen as a shortcoming, but I think not. The public is tired, dog-tired, of politicians and spivs and wants something new, something cleaner, something fresher and something honest. What is politics anyway? A wag once defined it thus: " 'Poly' means many and 'ticks' means blood-sucking parasites." The parasites have had their day and the BNP has to offer that something different which the public craves so much. To paraphrase Noel Coward, '' In politics today it is discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.'' We need something different. Andrew Brons may not be a politician but he could well be a statesman. And it is a statesman that the BNP and indeed the country, need at this present dangerous time.
CONCLUSION
We've seen here that whoever tells lies, (even if they be small ones, exaggerations, or half-truths) and whether 'the whoever' be an individual, a group of people, or the ruling elite of a country, can easily end up believing their own lies - even if no one else does - and end up creating a fantasy world of their own creation, (in the case of governments through public policy). Members of the general public who are too poor to insulate themselves from the effects of this madness suffer terribly and anyone who tries to expose this fantasy world for what it is - a fantasy world - is ignored and if he can't be ignored, ends up being persecuted and becoming a persona non grata. However, the liars, in their own and their own families' private lives, live very much in the real world and prosper financially and socially.
Andrew did not make the comparison, but the analogy between the ruling elite in Britain and the state of Britain and the current leadership of the BNP and the state of the BNP couldn't be more apt.
Jez Turner
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment