Papa Luigi's article is, contra the title of this thread, not a 'new' bag at all. At least not for him and not for those of us who have read his contributions to this forum over the last few months. He has been propagating his rather nebulous strategy of the eschewing of electoral politics, in favour of the development of a semi-clandestine network of nationalist donors, increasingly openly.
What should one make of such a proposed strategy? Well, the first thing to say is that it is fundamentally flawed. Fundraising is certainly an important element in politics, on that much most nationalists can agree. But fundraising as an activity is inseparably linked to the front end activities of any political group. When the fundraising activity of a group that has supposedly political aims becomes its top priority, becomes effectively an end in itself, displacing the formal goal of winning political power, as we saw in the case of the BNP from 2008 to 2010, then donors begin to ask themselves the question: where is all this money going and what good is it doing?
Now, for all I know there may be nationalists who are willing to re-live their experience of 2008-2010 with the BNP, minus the electioneering which was the ostensible justification for that party's fundraising efforts. If so, then one can only marvel at the triumph of hope over experience.
Where fundraising is concerned there must always be scrupulous candour and accountability, if the confidence of donors is to be won and maintained. A semi-clandestine group, with no formal constitution or membership, even if led by an honest man, by virtue of its very secrecy militates against such needed candour and accountability, just as the BNP militated against them, despite possessing a formal constitution and membership, because it was led by a dishonest man who employed other dishonest men.
Donors expect to receive something in return for their donations. In the case of a political party that return is activity in the shape of campaigning and contesting elections. If these activities produce observable progress and positive results then fundraising revenue tends to rise, whereas if the hoped for progress fails to materialize fundraising revenue tends to decline. But provided a party continues to fly the flag of nationalism in elections nationalist donors have some reason to contribute, on the grounds that even standing in an election is in itself a minor victory, in that nationalism's message of hope is still being propagated, however ineptly.
Of course, one 'advantage' of a semi-clandestine group is that when sceptics say "But what are you actually doing?" and "What are you using this money for?" it can reply "It's a secret. But become a donor and I'll tell you more". The Emperor's new clothes come to mind at this point.
The history of the BNP over the last ten years demonstrates that a nationalist party can win elections without spending vast sums of money. Most of the BNP's electoral victories, including its earliest, have been in council elections in which highly successful campaigns have been conducted on a shoe-string budget. With a more rigorous and impartial selection process for candidates and crucially, a proper scheme of ongoing training and support for both prospective candidates and elected councillors, there is every likelihood of a nationalist party succeeding in winning control of councils in the future. And the control of councils is the best springboard for the winning of seats in parliament.
Those who have focused upon the venal charade of the European 'parliament', as if play-acting in its masquerade were of any benefit to nationalism, have led nationalists up a blind alley, while those who counsel the abandonment of electoral politics entirely, in favour of some kind of cultic retreatism or anarcho-localism, are equally in error, be their motives what they may.
Am I advocating a renewed support of the BNP then, or calling for the support of any of the other extant nationalist parties? God forbid. Before Christmas a new nationalist party will be launched, one with which I am proud to be associated and which, I hope, many others will also be proud to join. A new party is needed because none of the other nationalist parties have the characteristics, or the leadership, necessary to inspire the thousands of disillusioned former members of the BNP, or even to win many decent new converts to nationalism.
My colleagues and I are under no illusion regarding the difficulty of the task we face. None of us expects overnight success. We are here for the long-haul because we love our country and our people and because no sacrifice seems too great in the sacred cause of the patriot.
Originally published on the British Democracy Forum
Saturday, 10 November 2012
Wednesday, 7 November 2012
Saturday, 3 November 2012
Wednesday, 24 October 2012
Thursday, 11 October 2012
Saturday, 29 September 2012
Too Liddle, too late
So Mr Liddle at long last acknowledges (in The Sun) that the BNP was right all along about the issue of Muslim paedophile gangs preying upon English children.
Only he cannot bring himself to use the word English. Instead, in common with the bulk of 'mainstream' journalists, he uses the generic term white. This unwillingness to name the ethnic nationality of the great majority of the thousands of child-victims is in itself a further insult both to them and to the English people as a whole. It sits uneasily with Mr Liddle's supposed role as a critic and debunker of the evil ideology of political 'correctness' that he himself should be a slave to that ideology in his use of language. The word hypocrite comes to mind, 'traitor' even. But then perhaps Mr Liddle is not English and feels no loyalty to, or solidarity with the English.
After the criminal offenders (predominantly Muslims) themselves, it is those whose duty it is to care for and protect these socially disadvantaged children, including social workers and police officers, who are seriously at fault here. Also culpable are the Establishment politicians who promoted and still maintain, the anti-English ideology of political 'correctness' and pursued the disastrous policy of encouraging the mass immigration of ethnic aliens from the Third World. Such a combination of anti-national policies was inevitably going to create a political culture in which Muslim gangs would regard themselves as above the law and be emboldened to prey upon the most vulnerable of our people, our children, secure in the knowledge that the kufrs' dhimmified police and social services, media and politicians would look the other way.
One of the main reasons these Muslim paedophiles behave in the way they do is that they know that the Establishment and officialdom (eg, social workers, police officers, journalists and politicians) are running scared of allegations of 'racism' (whatever this curious term is supposed to mean). The Muslim rapists know full well that the pusillanimous police and politicians are willing to engage in suppressio veri (suppression of the truth) in a vain attempt to maintain the fiction that the 'diversity' of races, religions and cultures within our society, which an open-door immigration policy has created, is a boon to the English.
Another important reason for their criminal behaviour is the racial and religious hatred which many Muslims feel for the English and 'infidels' in general. Such hostile attitudes are culturally mainstream in Islam. You don't see gangs of Muslims raping the children of other Muslims. Why not? Because they have strong feelings of solidarity with their co-religionists and fellow-tribesmen, but antipathy towards others; exactly the kind of natural feelings which, in the English, are condemned by the Establishment as 'racism'. Talk about double standards!
The hypocrisy of the Establishment is even more reprehensible in view of the fact that there is a social class dimension to it. A Cabinet consisting largely of wealthy individuals from privileged backgrounds presides over a system that permits the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society, children from deprived backgrounds, to be brutally abused and exploited, as a direct consequence of their administration's politically 'correct' (ie, anti-English) policies.
Those members of the Cabinet who are ethnic aliens themselves might perhaps not be expected necessarily to have the best interests of the English at heart. But what of those members of the Cabinet who are English? What excuse can they offer for their betrayal of their countrymen?
Only he cannot bring himself to use the word English. Instead, in common with the bulk of 'mainstream' journalists, he uses the generic term white. This unwillingness to name the ethnic nationality of the great majority of the thousands of child-victims is in itself a further insult both to them and to the English people as a whole. It sits uneasily with Mr Liddle's supposed role as a critic and debunker of the evil ideology of political 'correctness' that he himself should be a slave to that ideology in his use of language. The word hypocrite comes to mind, 'traitor' even. But then perhaps Mr Liddle is not English and feels no loyalty to, or solidarity with the English.
After the criminal offenders (predominantly Muslims) themselves, it is those whose duty it is to care for and protect these socially disadvantaged children, including social workers and police officers, who are seriously at fault here. Also culpable are the Establishment politicians who promoted and still maintain, the anti-English ideology of political 'correctness' and pursued the disastrous policy of encouraging the mass immigration of ethnic aliens from the Third World. Such a combination of anti-national policies was inevitably going to create a political culture in which Muslim gangs would regard themselves as above the law and be emboldened to prey upon the most vulnerable of our people, our children, secure in the knowledge that the kufrs' dhimmified police and social services, media and politicians would look the other way.
One of the main reasons these Muslim paedophiles behave in the way they do is that they know that the Establishment and officialdom (eg, social workers, police officers, journalists and politicians) are running scared of allegations of 'racism' (whatever this curious term is supposed to mean). The Muslim rapists know full well that the pusillanimous police and politicians are willing to engage in suppressio veri (suppression of the truth) in a vain attempt to maintain the fiction that the 'diversity' of races, religions and cultures within our society, which an open-door immigration policy has created, is a boon to the English.
Another important reason for their criminal behaviour is the racial and religious hatred which many Muslims feel for the English and 'infidels' in general. Such hostile attitudes are culturally mainstream in Islam. You don't see gangs of Muslims raping the children of other Muslims. Why not? Because they have strong feelings of solidarity with their co-religionists and fellow-tribesmen, but antipathy towards others; exactly the kind of natural feelings which, in the English, are condemned by the Establishment as 'racism'. Talk about double standards!
The hypocrisy of the Establishment is even more reprehensible in view of the fact that there is a social class dimension to it. A Cabinet consisting largely of wealthy individuals from privileged backgrounds presides over a system that permits the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society, children from deprived backgrounds, to be brutally abused and exploited, as a direct consequence of their administration's politically 'correct' (ie, anti-English) policies.
Those members of the Cabinet who are ethnic aliens themselves might perhaps not be expected necessarily to have the best interests of the English at heart. But what of those members of the Cabinet who are English? What excuse can they offer for their betrayal of their countrymen?
Thursday, 20 September 2012
Put out more flags (that'll show 'em)!
Mr Griffin and the Province of Northern Ireland have a love-hate relationship. He loves it, for all the wrong reasons (for its residual sectarianism and thuggery) while it hates him (or rather what he represents) partly for the same reason all decent patriots do. Another reason being, that it has experienced and largely overcome its own home-grown, faith-based versions of the race-based political sectarianism which he has unsuccessfully peddled there in the past.
The classic sectarian pitch is to claim to offer protection to one community against the perceived encroachments of another, alien community. In order for this to succeed, however, so the sectarians argue, organization and discipline is necessary. And who better to provide it than, you guessed it, the sectarians themselves!
Soon, however, these self-proclaimed saviours of their own people show their true colours. And they're not the red, white and blue of the Union Jack, but the black and white of the Jolly Roger. For what else can one call preying on one's own people, operating a thinly veiled protection racket, under the pretence of defending them from the aggression of an alien community, than piracy?
The freedom-loving English will never submit to the tyranny of tin-pot wannabe dictators like Mr Griffin and his mercenary imitators, no matter how serious the threat from ethnically alien intromission and no matter how unpleasant may be the consequences of the latter.
A political party that goes to our people with the offer to cleanse the Augean stables of the corrupt Establishment must have clean hands itself, if it hopes to be taken seriously by them. Mr Griffin's BNP does not and neither does any of its rivals so far on the scene.
Like the sectarians of Ulster, in its smaller way, the BNP's leadership leeched off (ie, abused and exploited) its own members. What kind of advertisement for nationalism was (and is) this? Little wonder that nine-tenths of the party's activists and members have left it. And less wonder that the electorate does not trust its few remaining candidates with public office. If the BNP is no better than the rotten parties of the Establishment, then 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't', reason the electorate. And who can blame them?
'Out of the frying pan, into the fire', is an unappealing slogan. The legal, electoral road to nationalism is the highway to national salvation, but it must be followed in a suitable vehicle, namely, a new and respectable, broad church ethno-nationalist party. A party, moreover, which does more than merely pay lip-service to the principles of democracy and free speech, but has these core values at its heart.
Decency and democracy will be the twin watchwords of the new party. This will attract the support of decent nationalists as well as the wider electorate. The electorate will recognize the real thing when they see it and will not be turned off, as they were in the case of the BNP, by a leader with embarrassing baggage and an inability convincingly to make the case for nationalism, because he no longer believes in it himself.
The classic sectarian pitch is to claim to offer protection to one community against the perceived encroachments of another, alien community. In order for this to succeed, however, so the sectarians argue, organization and discipline is necessary. And who better to provide it than, you guessed it, the sectarians themselves!
Soon, however, these self-proclaimed saviours of their own people show their true colours. And they're not the red, white and blue of the Union Jack, but the black and white of the Jolly Roger. For what else can one call preying on one's own people, operating a thinly veiled protection racket, under the pretence of defending them from the aggression of an alien community, than piracy?
The freedom-loving English will never submit to the tyranny of tin-pot wannabe dictators like Mr Griffin and his mercenary imitators, no matter how serious the threat from ethnically alien intromission and no matter how unpleasant may be the consequences of the latter.
A political party that goes to our people with the offer to cleanse the Augean stables of the corrupt Establishment must have clean hands itself, if it hopes to be taken seriously by them. Mr Griffin's BNP does not and neither does any of its rivals so far on the scene.
Like the sectarians of Ulster, in its smaller way, the BNP's leadership leeched off (ie, abused and exploited) its own members. What kind of advertisement for nationalism was (and is) this? Little wonder that nine-tenths of the party's activists and members have left it. And less wonder that the electorate does not trust its few remaining candidates with public office. If the BNP is no better than the rotten parties of the Establishment, then 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't', reason the electorate. And who can blame them?
'Out of the frying pan, into the fire', is an unappealing slogan. The legal, electoral road to nationalism is the highway to national salvation, but it must be followed in a suitable vehicle, namely, a new and respectable, broad church ethno-nationalist party. A party, moreover, which does more than merely pay lip-service to the principles of democracy and free speech, but has these core values at its heart.
Decency and democracy will be the twin watchwords of the new party. This will attract the support of decent nationalists as well as the wider electorate. The electorate will recognize the real thing when they see it and will not be turned off, as they were in the case of the BNP, by a leader with embarrassing baggage and an inability convincingly to make the case for nationalism, because he no longer believes in it himself.
Thursday, 13 September 2012
Undefeated
Invictus
OUT of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
William Ernest Henley 1849–1903
OUT of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
William Ernest Henley 1849–1903
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
