The acceptable face of nationalism

A few thoughts prompted by the recent arrest of the Corsham Crusader, alias Mark Kennedy.

The anti-free speech legislation, though entirely unjustifiable and repressive, does not make it impossible to speak out safely against the destruction of our country through the mass immigration of ethnic aliens. Nor does it make criticism, whether in speech or writing, of the abominable behaviour of many of those ethnic aliens legally impermissible. What it does, however, is to oblige critics of the Establishment's traitorous policies to be intelligent rather than emotive when voicing their opposition and to choose their words with some care. This is not difficult and is a good discipline to adopt.

Being more reasoned and analytical in one's critique of the colonization of our land by interlopers from the Third World and the state-sponsored dispossession of our people from their birthright and heritage, will tend to win over and attract to our cause, the very type of people we most need if our cause is ultimately to triumph, namely, the more intelligent, educated and articulate sections of our people, including, crucially, the Youth.

Now this is not to say that a more emotive and colourful approach (such as that of GA and his BR site) is worthless and without merit. Far from it. Nationalism needs and will have a range of approaches. Our task as nationalists should be (and this has been touched upon by CC in a recent article) successfully to co-ordinate the various different approaches in such a way that, instead of working in competition with each other, as at present, they work in co-operation with one another and so complement (and perhaps even compliment) each other.

There is, in the absence of a decent, respectable nationalist party which is generally acknowledged to be pre-eminent, such as the BNP used to be, an intensification of competition and conflict between nationalists. A large part of this centres on winning publicity and being seen to be active. One way of winning publicity is through brushes with the law. But is it the best way? Contrary to Mr Griffin's ill-considered dictum that "There's no such thing as bad publicity", we know that there is. Question Time proved that for any doubters in 2009.

It would be far better for a nationalist party, surely, patiently to build a reputation for decency and respectability with the public and the electorate. In order to do this leaders without baggage are necessary and activists and organizers who fully understand the importance of helping to build and to safeguard an acceptable public image and reputation for civilized behaviour, rather than its opposite.