Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

Friday, 27 July 2012

Time marches on

Restoring the Credibility of Nationalism 

by Ronald Rickcord

Although at present British Nationalism is in a state of turmoil, it cannot be denied that large numbers of people who agree with the political philosophy and aims of the variegated forms of Nationalism are on the increase. This is obvious from the multiplicity of small nationalist parties that have emerged in recent years. It is a great tragedy that these parties, though largely in agreement on most issues, are unable to unite to create a single party able to provide the credibility and sense of direction to win the support of the confused and politically apathetic indigenous voters. As it is, there are within Nationalism far too many factions, often led by those whose sole motive is self-aggrandisement and the wish to be big fish in small ponds. If I may mix my metaphors, there are too many prima donnas, causing confusion and resulting in too much duplication of effort.

Before I proceed further, I should make it clear that for many, the term ‘Nationalist’ has become synonymous with the derogatory epithet ‘Racist’ that is usually applied to those of us who oppose the never-ending influx of immigrants arriving here. It has to be borne in mind that ‘Nationalist’ is something of a misnomer in this context, since a nation is a purely artificial construct. If our opponents wish to refer to us as racists, so be it. It is one’s race that matters, not one’s nation. For example, to me white South Africans and Americans, Canadians, Scandinavians and Germans belong to the same racial group as I do, no matter where they may happen to live or the nationality ascribed to them. Nevertheless, we must admit that Britain, being an island, has a greater claim to nationhood than most other so-called nations.

A few years ago, the BNP, of which I was for many years a member, had a great opportunity of breaking through the credibility barrier. Unfortunately, its founder, the highly respected John Tyndall, was superseded by the Machiavellian machinations of one person totally lacking the qualities of leadership, motivated entirely by personal ambition, who in the past was involved with various questionable organizations, and who, in recent years, has exhibited the classical symptoms of advanced megalomania. Furthermore, this patently dishonest ‘leader’ cannot be entrusted with the financial control of any organization, has a criminal record, and surrounds himself with toadies of inferior ability who are only too eager to do his bidding.

Despite these problems, it is essential that the present disarray among the various nationalist parties must not be allowed to deter us from renewing our efforts to capture the hearts and minds of our racial kith and kin; this is urgent if we are to avoid racial extinction.

Because Nationalism is in the doldrums, it is not surprising that many of our compatriots, and even some Nationalists, are unaware of the peril that confronts us, and, more importantly, our posterity. It is no use arguing that getting our message across to the British public is a long-term process. We cannot afford to do things in a leisurely fashion. Time is a factor that is not on our side.

Each day that passes without our being in control of our own affairs, is another nail in the coffin of our race. Time is therefore of the essence, so we must make every effort to impress upon our racial compatriots the dire urgency for action now if we are to survive as an independent and distinctive racial entity. Never again must we allow our aims to be impeded by a power-hungry adventurer and his acolytes who brought such shame and ruination on the BNP.

In this article, I shall examine some of the methods we have traditionally used in our efforts to win public support for our policies, and I shall propose some alternative strategies that I think may enable us to make a far greater impact on public opinion than hitherto. I do not claim that the ideas I shall outline are my own or that they are necessarily the only options available to us; nor does the expression of these ideas imply any criticism of the many stalwart patriots who have laboured so valiantly on behalf of the various nationalist parties for so many years.

My sole intention is to provoke discussion among genuine Nationalists in an effort to induce others with more fertile minds than mine into thinking about the steps we should now take to improve our ability to influence public opinion. By applying our thoughts to these matters and discussing them between ourselves should help us to evolve a strategy for success, one that will guarantee the survival of the British Race.

The success of any political organisation or pressure group depends primarily on five elements: Leadership, Planning, Administration, Enthusiasm and Action. It is not my purpose to discuss the first three items here. It is undeniable that where the BNP is concerned, these attributes have been lamentably absent in recent years. There was never any shortage of enthusiasm among the countless dedicated activists and supporters of the BNP, who have now been so disgracefully betrayed. So I shall confine myself to discussing the last-named item on the list - Action.

Activities organised by any radical party have three principal aims. First, to transform society into something that accords with the ideals and views of its members; second to generate the publicity to persuade citizens that the party’s policies are best for their welfare and future of their children; and third, to bolster up and sustain the morale of its members.

There are several ways that these aims can be achieved. The methods most commonly used by Nationalists in the past were mainly in the form of demonstrations, propaganda and electioneering. However, it became increasingly apparent in recent times that these were not having the desired effect, and indeed, caused many of us much disappointment. The antics of some nationalist leaders and the behaviour of unruly elements and scruffiness of the foul-mouthed undesirables and hooligans who so often attached themselves to our events contributed to our lack of success.

In past years, our demonstrations consisted mainly of marches and outdoor public meetings. Long before marches were banned, it became obvious that they had outlived their usefulness and become counterproductive. There were a number of reasons for this, the main one being that they were almost entirely ignored by our alien-controlled media unless they could be used to concoct news in ways that portrayed Nationalists in a bad light. In this, the media were aided by the deplorable hooligan elements I mentioned above, who latched onto these events solely for the prospect of having a punch-up. Unfortunately, many people witnessing these incidents wrongly blamed Nationalists for the ensuing mayhem that occurred.

Another disadvantage of marches was that they provided our opponents with the opportunity of obtaining free publicity at our expense. Often, Nationalists who attended marches had to run the gauntlet of bricks, bottles and other fearsome missiles hurled at us by our enemies; but by clever editing, trick photography and manipulation of the facts, subsequent TV and news reports implied we were the culprits and our opponents the victims!

For these reasons, marches did little to earn any public sympathy for Nationalists; indeed, quite the reverse. In addition, the inconvenience that marches caused to the inhabitants, shoppers, traders, and motorists in areas where marches were held did nothing to endear us with the public, however much they may have agreed with our policies. Even before marches were banned, we had to face the fact that they were considered a nuisance and were generally unpopular. In an article I wrote in 1983, I suggested, to the annoyance of some colleagues, that I felt that marches were having the opposite effect to that which we desired and that we ought to consider other less aggressive ways of gaining public support.

I suggested that instead of marches, serious consideration should have been given to alternative ways of obtaining publicity. It was my opinion that by adopting the tactics previously used by the old League of Empire Loyalists would have been more fruitful. Older readers will remember how the LEL had the uncanny knack of suddenly appearing and having their say at highly publicized functions such as theatres, public meetings, conferences, etc., in full view of the public and media. In this way, they were often remarkably successful in getting their message across before being thrown out. Music lovers and TV viewers may remember how Palestinian protesters twice disrupted the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra during a Promenade Concert last year. This was achieved by positioning the protesters in different parts of the auditorium, making it difficult to silence them. This action undoubtedly upset the audience, but it certainly enabled the Palestinians to obtain widespread support for their cause.

Methods of this sort are ideal for waking people up to the reality of what is going on in our country. Several institutions are ripe for such treatment. In particular I am thinking of the churches, which, during recent years have become little more than agencies for propagating the vile creeds of multiracialism and homosexuality. A few intrepid and articulate Nationalists scattered among the congregations of cathedrals and churches in which sermons were being given by race-mixing pastors and unrepentant ‘gay’ clergy would work wonders. And imagine the publicity that could be gained if such demonstrations were staged in cinemas during the showing of salacious and anti-British films, usually imported and made by foreign directors who, in all probability, have a hidden agenda. The opportunities of these and similar activities are endless.

Stunts like those mentioned above, if well thought out and executed could have a number of advantages. First, they would not require many activists to conduct and would therefore be easy to organize and control. Second, they would stand a very good chance of being noticed and commented on by the media, and, even if ignored, the Nationalist viewpoint would at least come to the attention of members of the public attending those functions and events selected for such treatment. Third, activists would be able to organize similar demonstrations in their own areas at little cost. The Establishment would consequently find itself under frequent attack throughout the country.

As events have proved over many years, elections, and particularly general elections, have not been very successful. Elections are too infrequent and the nationalist message tends to become lost beneath the welter of verbiage on a variety of unimportant subjects dear to the hearts of the other parties, whose policies, in any case, seldom differ very much. In addition, many of the arguments revolve around frivolous and irrelevant matters. In such conditions, Nationalists are scarcely heard above the tumult.

I therefore think that for the time being Nationalists should avoid general elections and contest only local and Euro-elections, and then, only if the various Nationalist parties, having similar policies, join forces under one name, say, ‘Nationalist’. Nothing is more absurd than Nationalists fighting for the same seats under different flags. Apart from confusing voters, it fragments the Nationalist vote that may otherwise be obtained. Unanimity is essential. The above suggestions would provide several advantages. First, they would greatly reduce costs compared with fighting enormously expensive general elections. Second, combining the efforts of the many minuscule nationalist parties would inevitably lead towards greater unanimity. Third, the relative frequency of local elections and by-elections would provide a means of keeping the Nationalist Cause fresh in the voters’ minds at local level and, to a lesser extent, at national level.

It is a well-known fact that the Establishment denies Nationalists access to the mass media by every means within its power. Go into any of the larger newsagents and one will find the shelves therein bulging with leftist and Marxist publications such as Tribune, New Statesman, The New Worker, The Socialist Worker and Fabian Review, etc. For this reason, it is essential that we must create an alternative media of our own. In a very small way, we made a start in this direction many years ago by means of newspapers, magazines, journals and other publications. Nevertheless, these publications were, and where still extant, are, too small, too infrequent and, let us face it, often, except for quality journals like Heritage and Destiny and Spearhead (now, alas, defunct), of poor quality, regarding both presentation and content. To make matters worse, our opponents often make threats of violence against printers, suppliers and newsagents who would otherwise be prepared to distribute our publications. Also, we must realize that printed matter of this sort, however well produced, has only a fraction of the impact on people’s minds and perceptions as that achieved by the internet, TV and radio. We must also realize that we are not now living in an age similar to that which existed in the days of the Tractarians; few people have much inclination to read political pamphlets or dissertations these days.

Now, however, the Establishment’s monopoly of the dissemination of news and propaganda has suffered a serious diminution due to the internet revolution, which it has no effective means of controlling. As not everyone is on the internet, there will still be a need for the written word, and especially by those who wish to study such matters in greater depth. However, at present few Nationalists have sufficient training to exploit the opportunities afforded by either the internet, TV or the press to the full. I hope that we shall overcome this situation in time to come. One way we can rectify this problem is by employing young professionally trained journalists, rather than ancient amateurs (like me), as well as web masters, and computer and graphics experts. To this end nationalist sixth formers and other students should be encouraged to take up these subjects when they go to university. Those of us who have been involved in the incipient nationalist media over many years must encourage and nurture such youngsters, and be prepared to lay down our pens (or keyboards) in their favour when the time comes.

In this article I have touched upon just a few problems today confronting British Nationalism and made suggestions how, in my opinion, we could make greater impact than we now do. Doubtless, some Nationalists will disagree with my views and proposals; but what matters far more than the means we use are the objectives we have in view - and fortunately, there is no argument about what they are! So if this article helps to induce clever young people to apply their minds and abilities to finding better solutions to resolve the problems currently facing Nationalism, then I will not have written in vain.

Ronald Rickcord is a veteran Nationalist and frequent contributor to Heritage and Destiny. A sample copy of the latest issue can be obtained for £5.00 (made payable to Heritage and Destiny) from H&D, 40 Birkett Drive, Preston, PR2 6HE, UK; or by PayPal to heritageanddestiny@yahoo.com.


  1. Thank you for a very interesting article. You make a number of excellent points.

    I disagree strongly with your proposed disengagement from general elections and would prefer to boycott Euro elections.

    I agree strongly with your critique of nationalist vote-splitting, however. Regrettably we saw yet another instance of this exercise in futility, in a council by-election in Stoke-on-Trent, yesterday.

    Although nationalist policies have never been more popular than they are today, (nor the need for them greater) this fact is not so much demonstrated by the multiplicity of nationalist micro-parties which have sprung up over the last few years (and achieved very little) as by the evidence of attitude survey data.

    Your criticism of the narrow sectarian ethos of these factions is, sadly, entirely justified.

    You make a convincing case against marches and in favour of alternative forms of non-violent direct action.

  2. Thank you for the kind remarks about my article.

    It is ironic that you should take me to task for suggesting that we should not contest general elections and that you would prefer we boycott Euro-elections. How things change! At a meeting held in the Wigmore Hall, in 1978 or 1979, I seconded JT in a debate held there, in which we argued that we should not participate in the EEC elections. Our reasoning was that by taking part, the voters would think we favoured our membership of the EEC, now the EU. We were opposed by Martin Webster. I can’t remember who seconded him. It was a memorable occasion, and was the biggest indoor Nationalist meeting I ever attended. I believe that well over 1,000 people were there!

    Best Wishes


  3. I have the greatest respect for Ron and his life-long dedication to the Nationalist cause.
    Sadly, however, everyone is already far too familiar with all the reasons why Nationalism has failed in England, to bother about reading about them again and at such length.
    A few points I found contentious :
    Why are we called radical?
    What does he mean when he says marches have been banned?
    Although i agree the media distorts reports on them,the oxygen of publicity is still welcome.
    For the same reason, local and national elections have to be contested.
    Abstention from EU elections is merely evidence of the parlous state of Nationalist Parties.
    I totally agree publicity stunts vis a viz Israel's Concert, are great ( I happen to be an active supporter of the Palestinian Solidarity group involved ) but where are the activists willing to carry out similar acts of legitimate 'civil disobedience' on our behalf here?
    So, what is my own solution - as if any of the hopeless short-sighted, sclerotic Nationalists it has been my misfortune to encounter over the years,is interested in hearing?
    In order to provide a more solid platform from which Nationalism English or British ) can evolve, in the absence of their being any on the horizon, we must support current 'outside' Parties whose policies are anti-EU and anti-immigration, the twin evils which are propelling our country nto Third World ignominy and loss of identity.
    One step at a time.
    Part Two to be continued in a moment...

  4. Part Two and Conclusion :
    The best and most pragmatic Nationalists I know have already taken these steps but remain true to their beliefs and are only waiting for the moment when they can return to yhe fold.
    Regrettably, this is still a long way off.
    Andrew Brons nurtured hopes of a fresh start only to succumb to the procrastination and inertia so typical of Nationalists and we remain rudderless.
    Not exactly a charismatic, dynamic leader he would have at least brought a degree of respectability and gravitas and a following to a New Party upholding our priciples.
    He made the highly dubious claim that such a fledgling New Party would inevitably fail whilst the parent one was still operating.
    He took as his proof from the numerous offshoots arising from the strickened but still alive BNP, hardly convincing when it was as clear as a bell that their creators without exception were cast in the same mould
    as NG himself - megalomaniacs, cheats, liars, chancers, thieves.
    If he could make a fortune out of suckers, why shouldn't they?
    And how does Brons explain away the creation of the LibDems?
    We are all failures ( myself included ) and until we are prepared to admit it, nothing will change, except the contined decline of my beloved country.
    Sorry, Ron, I say this more in sorrow than anger but you and other Nationalists have been saying the same thing for the past twenty years and will be doing so for the next twenty also because you lack the vision and the reality of our situation.

  5. In reply to Anonymous' question, in Part One of his comment: what did Ron mean when he said that marches were banned; Ron may wish to speak for himself and I may be wrong, but I suspect that he meant that they were banned by the former leader of the BNP, John Tyndall.

    Contra Anonymous' fallacious assertion that abstention from EU elections is evidence of the parlous state of nationalist parties: it is actually participation in the corrupt charade of the European 'parliament' that is largely responsible for the ruination of the BNP. Absence from the European 'parliament' is a necessary condition for the health of any nationalist party. If we have learnt nothing else from the last three years we should have learnt this.

    There are no "current 'outside' parties" whose policies are anti-EU and anti-immigration. UKIP does not, in reality, wish Britain to withdraw from the European Union. The simple reason being that its dozen MEPs would immediately forfeit their life of idle luxury at the taxpayers' expense.

    What is required is a new and respectable, broad church ethno-nationalist party, possessing all that was good about the old BNP, but lacking the corruption that has destroyed it since its leadership decamped to Brussels.

  6. Ronald Rickcord4 August 2012 at 20:35

    Your anonymous correspondent in Part One of his comments on my article asks: “What does he mean when he says marches have been banned?” I admit I may be wrong about these matters that occurred so long ago - my memory is none too good these days - but if I remember rightly, under the Public Order Act 1986, the Police were given powers to ban all or a class of processions or marches in a specified area for up for three months. This may not have been a blanket ban, but it gave the police virtual carte blanche to ban any march they deemed not to be “in the public interest”. This happened on at least two occasions to my personal knowledge.

    John Tyndall did not ban marches. He recognized that in view of the Act, holding them would be a waste of members’ time and money as there was every chance that they would be banned on any pretext at the last moment. He therefore dissuaded regional and area organizers from arranging marches unless they had a guarantee from the police that they would not be stopped. This was a guarantee unlikely to be forthcoming, and JT was right to give the advice he did.


  8. To the bold Anonymous of 5 August 10.33 (who may be the same bold Anonymous of 29 July):-

    When are you going to find the courage of your convictions (if indeed you have any) and put your name to your comment? Leaving the caps lock on when you type adds no credibility to your comment either.

    You offer no reasoned argument against my thesis that UKIP, which is dominated by its overpaid claque of MEPs, does not in reality wish Britain to leave the EU, because in the event of its doing so they would lose their comfortable sinecures.

    Until its misguided supporters understand this and draw the necessary conclusions from it, they are part of the problem instead of part of the solution.