Category: British Politics

Pre-revolutionary intellectualism, and the eternal beginning of nationalism

It’s really one question that hangs over political nationalism, though it has many forms.  How do we make politics amid all this hostility?  How do we get this movement moving?  How do we make our people wake up?  How do we get them to turn away from near concerns and act at last in their own ethnic interest?  Is it better to be accommodationist, civicist, expedient and dishonest?  Or principled?  Isn’t “principle” the problem?

And so forth.

For weeks the BNPIdeas website, which is centred on Andrew Brons, has been filled with inventive ways to ask this question.  Inevitable I suppose, given last October’s failure to launch a new party and the non-appearance of the “parallel party structure” that was promised in its stead.  It is apparent now that action of any profitable kind is beyond the power of nationalism in Britain.  Fear of moving forward, disdain at staying put, the impossibility of going back, spill out all over the page, and over it all hangs the big red sign declaring triumphantly, “You lost!”

Which is all too possible as things stand.  No surprise then, to see yet another agonised article, this time penned by a William Shakespeare (of no evident poetic leaning), deploring the division in nationalist ranks, and proposing “the way forward” thus:

I also appeal TO YOU – YOU who are reading this article – because, like any proposal, it requires a display of support and the posting here of as many messages of general support and agreement as possible.

The plan I put to you is this. In order to advance the prospect of Nationalist Unity, without which nothing on a national political front can ever be accomplished, I propose that a simple petition, or plebiscite to use an old term, of ALL Nationalists and supporters of Nationalism is undertaken.

Every individual would submit their name and some address detail to distinguish them (if not a home address, an email perhaps) and – this is the really important bit – each person would include a brief summary of what THEY consider to be the most vital pieces of policy and constitutional requirements that a single, united, nationwide major Nationalist Party ought to have.

That is the ineluctable product of an absence of leadership and clear principle.  But, then, nationalism in Britain has ever been a cut flower ideologically, and no leader could compensate for that, as I tried to explain in a comment to the bard’s article:

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, January 31, 2012 at 08:24 PM in British Politics
Comments (33) | Tell-a-Friend

Betrayal, Lawrence, and the English working-class

Earlier today I came across this video at BDF posted by Chuffer, a good, reliable nationalist and ex-BNP member, and a regular participant in the BDF bear-pit.  The theme of injustice and betrayal is not new to us, of course, though it is certainly a pleasure to see it so well structured.  But the street interview section is important, and especially refreshing to see.  There are the authentic voices of the English working-class who have been been subjected to eighteen years of relentless Lawrence propaganda.  And they know it.

Still, one wonders why they exhibit such a resigned attitude, and not more fight.  Then one remembers how deserted these people are.  Not the politicians, not the press, not the Church, not the schools, not the law ... no part of civil society spares them a word of acknowledgement.  It truly is the most complete betrayal imaginable.  And yet, as this video shows, the Lawrence propaganda almost certainly now exercises more influence over the minds of the traitors than it does the betrayed.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, January 23, 2012 at 07:36 PM in Activism,  Anti-racism and white genocide,  British Politics
Comments (40) | Tell-a-Friend

Tony Lecomber on the future of nationalism in Britain

Below the fold I am reproducing Tony Lecomber’s interesting and exhaustive overview of British nationalism’s past and clouded future, with a rather confused recommendation for a new party at the end.  It makes a number of good points.  English, not British, nationalism, Tony says, is the wave of the future.  That’s true, and certain, of course, if Alex Salmond wins his referendum on Scottish independence in three years time.  Tony then speculates that as such a victory would deprive the Labour Party of seventy Scottish MPs at Westminster and deliver power to the Tories in perpetuity in the remains of the UK, indiscipline on the right must, in time, set in.  Such indiscipline he sees as a precondition for the rise of nationalism in England.  Perhaps, but nationalism has to make its own future, and can’t rely on charity from its political foes.

Overall, Tony’s message is bleak.  The sense of embattlement on every front is very palpable, culminating in the despairing admission that “the multiracial state is here to stay”.  Well, if that is the case, what’s the point of nationalism?  To slow down our genetic dissolution and demographic replacement to a speed white people won’t find quite so unsettling?  To delay our minoritisation by one generation?  In such an admission is the false assumption that:

(a) the English people think it moral and right for Africans and Asians to continue living in England and to continue displacing, replacing and deracinating them, and will vote for that if ever the issue is forced to the front of electoral debate,

(b) anything and everything must be thrown overboard by nationalists to escape being labelled as “racist”.

This mindset is surely the product of a lifetime of political failure allied to a paucity of creative thinking - not least on the wider political issues, particularly economics, but also on the great, undergirding question of the war of discourse.

Obviously, Tony is right that, short of the state jailing Nick Griffin (and why would it do that), political nationalism must find itself a new vehicle.  He is right about the risks.  I don’t think he is right to be so focussed on the party question.  No nationalist party can effect the vast change in the English public’s values and attitudes necessary for the embrace of such a revolutionary politics.  But perhaps that is work for other kinds of political animal.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, December 26, 2011 at 07:45 AM in British Politics
Comments (226) | Tell-a-Friend

Time “not appropriate” for new party, says Brons

“Parallel Party Structure” to Be Formed,” said the headline on BNP Ideas website.  It wasn’t what most of us were expecting.  The pre-meeting articles at BNP Ideas talked about setting up not only a new party but a think-tank.  Party policy was written about.  Given the entrenched position of Griffin in the BNP and the huge financial and legal problems his party faces, there seemed no likelihood that tonight we would be looking at the status quo.  But here we are.

Or nearly.  BNP Ideas has this to say:

A parallel party structure, tasked with building up supporters, a database, a leadership core and making overtures to other nationalists and parties along with creating all the essential elements required to run a party, is to be formed in terms of a majority decision taken at today’s BNP Ideas conference in Leicestershire.

... Mr Brons said he felt the time was not appropriate for the creation of a new party, and that it was better to rather create a parallel structure which could step in to pick up the pieces should the BNP’s current infrastructure collapse, or, if a certain minimum of signed up supporters (Mr Brons said 1,500 would be a suitable figure) was obtained, in which case a new party might become viable.

Less than that, Mr Brons said, and a new party would “nose dive” which would give the Griffin-controlled BNP an undeserved victory.

... Finally, the meeting was asked to vote on three specific proposals: to stay in the BNP and seek to replace Nick Griffin by legal internal means; to create a new party; and to create a parallel structure.

A handful of people voted for a new party, but the vast majority of those present voted to create the parallel structure. The organisation will take into consideration all of the proposals made by delegates, and further announcements will be made on this website in due course.

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, October 22, 2011 at 06:51 PM in British Politics
Comments (40) | Tell-a-Friend

The revenge of the Decembrists

From England First, a lucid explanation of the death, possibly imminent, of the British National Party:

In December 2007 a group of senior party officials rebelled against Griffin and his then right-hand man Mark Collett (who ironically was to be purged himself in a later schism at the end of March 2010). Leading dissidents were then dismissed from their positions in the party, including former webmaster Steve Blake, former head of admin Kenny Smith, and his wife Nicholla Smith who then ran the BNP merchandising arm Excalibur.

Griffinite security goons raided the rebels’ homes, and the party leadership, in the persons of Griffin and his deputy Simon Darby, began a complicated legal action against their former comrades in March 2008. After the first hearing of this action in Manchester, Simon Darby issued a statement which will no doubt feature in future histories of political hubris:

“We have got everything we asked for….  I believe such moves will be seen as having been crucial for the continuing growth, discipline and structure of our movement.”

Almost three years later the case ended in catastrophic defeat for Darby and his master.  At the end of 2010 they dropped their action, but typically sought to wriggle out of paying the costs.  On 21st December 2010 they lost this argument as well: Griffin and Darby were ordered to pay all of their opponents’ costs.  An initial £45,000 was ordered to be paid by 18th January 2011.

There then began a long drawn out appeal process.  Not that Nick Griffin expected to win any appeal, merely that he hoped to drag out the process long enough for something to turn up, such as a legacy from some deluded millionaire supporter, or a devastating terrorist attack.

By now the courts were beginning to realise that Nick Griffin MEP was a man of straw, so Darby was required to make a deposit of £20,000 with his solicitors so that (if/when the appeal process was exhausted) the courts could be confident that at least some of the bill would be paid.

In August one of England’s most senior judges, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, ruled that Griffin and Darby had no reasonable grounds to pursue a further appeal.  By now the stay of execution delaying demand for payment of the £45,000 had expired, so on the morning of 2nd September 2011 High Court Enforcement Officers turned up at Griffin’s home to seize any possessions of value, including his Skoda car, which they planned to sell at auction.

The desperate Welshpool cabal sought yet another stay of execution to delay their inevitable doom.  Yet again it was granted, this time by Lord Justice Rix, but this time on the strict condition that (a) Darby’s £20,000 was handed over within three days, and (b) the remaining £25,000 was produced within a fortnight.

Needless to say, even this £45,000 was only the first instalment of this particular legal bill, set to total more than £150,000, and the party’s total debts add up to well over £500,000.

But even this first hurdle proved too high for the crippled BNP.  Simon Darby and his solicitors failed to hand over the £20,000 and on the expiry of this deadline, on Wednesday afternoon, 14th September, the BNP lost any right to further appeals in this case.  Having realised that the trigger was about to be pulled, Griffin and Darby rustled up £20,000 and paid it into the Court account two days late.

The stay of execution will still be lifted if they fail to meet the 28th September deadline for payment of a further £25,000, in which case the party’s creditors will begin the process of putting the BNP into administration.

Future control of the party would pass into the hands of the Administrator appointed by the court, so Nick Griffin’s much touted election victory and his new constitution, giving him unchallenged dictatorial power for the next four years, would become worthless.  The final step will be to determine whether Nick Griffin should face not merely bankruptcy (in his case for the second time) but a more serious bankruptcy restrictions order, which would result in his removal from the European Parliament.

In that case his replacement would be decided by the Administrator in charge of the wreck of the BNP.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, September 16, 2011 at 07:50 PM in British Politics
Comments (22) | Tell-a-Friend

After the looting

01.35 Liverpool Echo reports 150 people are causing trouble in Toxteth. Around 100 arrests in Birmingham city centre.
01.20 Police urge all Londoners to remain indoors tonight. 1700 officers are on the streets. Residents in Clapham on Twitter are calling for locals to meet at 8am tomorrow to clear up their neighbourhood.
01.18 Witness David Francis reports rioting in Camberwell Green, South London. He says he was punched in the face by “what felt like very reals pearls wrapped around a masked rioters’ fist.”
00.45 Cars torched in Grove St, Toxteth, Liverpool, ITV news reporter Ben Schofield says. An unmanned police station in Holyhead Road, Handsworth, Birmingham has been torched. Looting reported in Crystal Palace, London. Police have told all London football clubs to cancel matches
00.41 Residents in Croydon have been evacuated due to the spreading fire, reports Guardian’s Matthew Taylor. An officer tells him: “We can’t cope. We have passed breaking point.”
00.29 Carphone Warehouse on fire in Clapham Junction. Fires reported in Camden.
00.28 BBC: Residents in Clapham Junction have been told to evacuate their homes by police.
00.27 Reports of gangs of youths smashing shop windows in Romford Market, Essex.
00.24 Telegraph sources: Riot units from police forces as far away from London as Cleveland are heading south. Clearly the Met is calling in all the support it can get.
00.20 Twitter reports: A Wetherspoons in Lee has been targetted in a “mass mugging.” Police were rung but did not pick up.
00.16 Birmingham - police have made 35 arrests. The city centre has been over-run by gangs ranging from the age of 10, up to 50-strong. The Armani store has been looted. A man has been shot and wounded in Croydon, Sky reports. Shops along the Camberwell Road from Elephant and Castle have been smashed.
00.09 Wimbledon Guardian reports looters in Colliers Wood had to be rescued by firecrews after becoming trapped under the grill of a sportswear shop. In Chalk Farm, North London, the Guardian’s Paul Lewis reports motorists are being attacked with bricks, with shouts of “Who’s next, man?” There are youths in balaclavas carrying scaffolding poles. One shouted: “Let’s go rob Hampstead.” Countless shops have been looted.
00.01 Police have called in air support from Sussex and Surrey. Shops are burning in Clapham and Notting Hill. Cars have been torched in Fulham Broadway. The Ledbury Michelin-star restaurant in Notting Hill was raided and the diners mugged. There are reports on Twitter of people carrying machetes in Notting Hill and Balham.

Negro male dominance behaviour.

White women as well.  It is anti-white race hatred.

So the news comes in, and it is news of a revolt by, for all intents and purposes, London’s young blacks, increasingly copied elsewhere.  But a revolt against what?

Certainly elements of the left are trying to make capital out of “government cuts”.  “Disaffection” and the misery of unemployment are also being dusted off and lovingly presented as cause just.  But it is already clear that the anti-white ramp that was constructed out of the black riots of a generation ago, and which resulted in the invention of “institutional racism”, will not be entertained this time round.  These riots are too plainly organised.  The motive of the rioters is too obviously to loot and burn.  No one is going to experience the exquisite agonies of liberal guilt on behalf of a mistreated looter or disaffected arsonist.  “Sorry, young man, there is such a thing as responsibility, and it isn’t as though government hasn’t made huge efforts over the last two and half-decades to help you succeed!”

So what, overall, can we expect when the Met’s report is in, the Home Office committee has investigated, the media vented, the mayor of London bloviated, the cabinet sat, and the Home Secretary stood up in the House to present “the answer”?  Here are my predictions.

1. The young black male is not going to be excused this time.  He has delivered himself of a direct and violent challenge to the social order - an insult which is authentically black and belongs to him, and has no provenance outside of the narrow and low space between his ears.  He has made a world of violence and chaos for himself, in which his male dominance strategies can be liberally exercised.  That is the sum total of his civilisational worth, and it is not going to be easy for any thoughtful government minister to continue to delude himself that but for a bit more educational expenditure, better role models, more mentoring, sport facilities and youth clubs, and fathers at home, there walks a white boy.  There doesn’t.

The truth of black sociobiology is knocking loudly on the door.  It might not be opened this time round.  But opening it is the only option in the longer run.

2. The race industry’s funding will be cut, its leadership changed, its role redefined.  It will die by neglect, being officially done away with, probably, by the end of the next parliament.

As it happens, today Civitas released a press release on its review of smooth Trevor Philips’ Equality and Human Rights Commission.  The review is titled Small Corroding Words, but the events in London and up and down the country will likely prove much more corrosive for Philips (and John Wadham, the legal persecutor of the BNP).  That said, the review is extremely timely, seemingly damning, and certain to be well read in Conservative Party circles.

3. The educational Establishment and the Marxian left generally will cop the official blame for its shameless failure to confront gang culture, and for having turned the police into social workers horrified by the possibility of being called racists.  How much this will translate into real change, I’m not certain.  But it marks the end of Marx in educational thinking.  Furthermore ...

4. That way the black “community” will be spared the most searching questions, at least today.  It will, however, be required to question its commitment to the social order in much the same way that Moslems have been required post-7/7 to “reject extremism” and become that mythical thing, a “moderate Moslem”.  Black politicians - all four of them - will learn the required new, reassuring words, and the media will afford them much opportunity to repeat them.  Nothing, of course, will change as a result.

5. The Labour Party will be forced to recognise the horribly non-Marxist drift in respect to the old blame culture, and shift itself towards the new centre.  This is probably the major, long-term political effect of what we are seeing.  Again, I don’t know how far it will go.  But it is very positive - if it happens.

6. Griffin’s BNP will continue to offer the white working-class what it has offered them in the past, entirely missing the sea-change in attitude to the black population that now obtains, as a result of these latest events.  Eventually, nationalism will find a way to rid itself of its dog in the manger, and then we might see what a political crow-bar wedged into the new fissure can achieve.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, August 8, 2011 at 07:22 PM in British Politics
Comments (162) | Tell-a-Friend

Nine votes ... nine!

Now that all the votes have been counted, we can announce that Nick Griffin MEP has been duly re-elected to lead the British National Party for a fixed term of four years. The winner, Nick Griffin, received 1157 votes, whilst Andrew Brons, the loser, received 1148 votes. Eleven ballots were spoiled.

So says the BNP website, following a very slow re-count at the close of leadership election.  Nick Griffin seems unabashed by the narrowness of his win, saying:

“The time for division and disruption is over; now is the time to heal. Now is the time to move on. Now is the time to get back to work. We have a Party to build and a Nation to save. Let us go forward together!”

But this follows a long period of internecene warfare in the party, during which the bulk of the activist base left in disgust or was suspended or expelled, and election results and the membership roll crashed.  Griffin’s surprisingly thin majority was delivered by means of the expulsions, and his victory is hollow.  The question which hangs over proceedings now is whether the reform group will accept the result.  That seems improbable.  The reformers have fought too long and too hard for the party, and for the people in whose interests it makes politics, to stand back and watch it die now.  Grounds for a legal challenge will surely be examined, and if they are there a petition to annul the result and order a re-election will surely be made.

The alternative is for the establishment of a new nationalist party.  Andrew Brons took the precaution of registering the name British Democratic Party with the electoral commission, in the event that the BNP is pursued by its debtors into liquidation.  A baggage-free party has some appeal, clearly.  But it would still take the dissolution of the BNP for any new party to enjoy a free run at the loyal English electorate.

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, July 25, 2011 at 03:45 PM in British Politics
Comments (66) | Tell-a-Friend

The Chairman, a keen sense of self-preservation, and a block vote

From a comment by the redoubtable Papa Luigi on the BNP section of British Democracy Forums.  The subject: yesterday’s General Members Meeting (also a Founding Members Meeting) of the British National Party held in Liverpool.

The meeting was a confrontation of “the big beasts” of the BNP and proceeded as follows:

Arthur Kemp fired the opening salvos as the meeting started, asserting that there had been no consultation process with the members regarding the constitutional reforms agreed at the last party conference and that the premise for the GMM was therefore invalid and unconstitutional. He asserted further that the motions put forward were substantially different to those agreed at the party conference and that Nick Griffin had broken his promise to the members.

Geoff Dickens then informed the meeting that under the current BNP constitution, Nick Griffin has the power to make unilateral changes without reference to anyone else and that therefore, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of Arthur’s assertions, the meeting was constitutional and would proceed as planned.

In the voting that followed, the members present at the meeting, who represented the hard core of the party’s activists from across the country, were split roughly 60:40, with the majority in opposition to the motions proposed by Nick Griffin. The 200 activists present were however, dismayed to find that the proxy voting system introduced by Nick Griffin as a new and novel feature to BNP meetings gave Nick Griffin a block vote of 500+ votes that he proceeded to use to negate the majority against him at the meeting.

Despite this, the reformers continued to argue their case, with significant contributions to the debates by Arthur Kemp and the other ‘big beasts’ of the BNP; Andrew Brons; Richard Edmonds; John Walker; and Kevin Scott, all of whom voiced opposition to the constitutional validity of the meeting and the motions proposed. Speaking in favour of the motions were Clive Jefferson, Adam Walker and some other of the ‘novice’ Regional Organisers, appointed recently by Nick Griffin after high profile sackings during the recent ructions within the party.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, June 27, 2011 at 06:48 PM in British Politics
Comments (21) | Tell-a-Friend

Scotland till judgement

Less than three years after the bail out of Scotland’s banks was supposed to have killed talk of withdrawal from the Union, Alex Salmond was able to inform the British public yesterday that during the next Holyrood parliament a referendum on independence will be put before Scots voters.  The future of the Union, of all the Westminster parties, and of political nationalism in England now all rest with a few million Scottish votes.

Salmond, as the big winner of Thursday’s varied election cycle, now has sixty-eight of his colleagues sitting at Holyrood - a feat which was supposed to have been impossible under the complex voting procedure established for the Scottish parliament.  It has also been thought impossible for the SNP to convince Scots to vote for independence - the polls show a consistent two thirds against.  But the media are treating a shift towards independence of under twenty points over the next four years as being distinctly possible, given that Salmond is now a veritable colossus in a country of political pygmies.

How the fortunes of civic nationalism in Scotland contrast with those of ethno-nationalism in the rest of the country.  The Griffin Party has won two council seats and lost all its others where elections were held.  The repeated plaint on the nationalist internet is that the movement is back to where it was before Griffin’s successful leadership bid in 1999.  But with reported debts of over £500,000, mass departure of the (relatively) able, and a nose-diving membership, it’s a lot worse than that.  It ought to be the end of Griffin and his clique.  But it appears that the party must completely wither and die before that happens.

Meanwhile, the English, obviously, voted Labour and Tory as stubbornly as ever - the latter in somewhat surprisingly firm numbers.  UKIP had a bad election night, not even managing to benefit much from disaffected BNP voters, never mind Tories.  Polarity is returning to the English voting pattern if not to the politics.  Taken with the 69% “No” vote in the AV referendum it amounts to a powerful rejection of centrism.  It is inevitable that Tory and Labour strategists will identify this factor and endeavour to spin their way towards it.  But real diversification is impossible in an age when the right must support neo-Marxist social policies and the left neoliberal economic ones.

Only nationalism opposes both, of course.  But its electoral flame was extinguished on Thursday, and though there are efforts to keep it alive via the civicist English Democrats, the culturalist British Freedom Party, the tiny and extremely nascent, ethno-nationalist English People’s Party, and the white nationalist National Front, I for one do not believe they can succeed.  I see the only hope in a sudden and saving, last-minute purification of the BNP brand.  I just don’t know what more can be done to force Griffin out of the party before it finally hits the wall.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, May 6, 2011 at 08:44 PM in British Politics
Comments (33) | Tell-a-Friend

British nationalism on St George’s Day

As nationalism is rising across continental Europe it is in meltdown in Britain thanks to a long litany of disastrous management errors and political and legal misjudgements by Nick Griffin.  Below the fold is a news piece that appeared on the Guardian site this morning. It is written by Matthew Taylor, who has form, and quotes the usual hostile sources.  But it has no need of mischaracterisation.  It can and does fairly and accurately describe the crisis in political nationalism in Britain.  There is no doubt about where our only viable political brand is heading.

And there is no silver lining to this political tragedy.  The Reform 2011 initiative is in limbo.  Eddy Butler, among others, is now a civic nationalist at the English Democrats. Lee’s British Freedom Party appears not to have made it to the start line.

Only the National Front has stuck to the racial nationalist faith, even while that faith has been declared illegal as a result of Griffin’s defiance of the EHRC last year.  In fact, so keen on racial nationalism is the present generation of NF folk, they call themselves a White Nationalist party.

The gainer in all this has been UKIP, a party which takes anti-nationalism to the extreme of anti-racism. It is very likely to score a significant victory in next month’s local authority elections, and may now have the kind of momentum and financial backing that will facilitate a serious General Election campaign two years from now.

Where the BNP will be in two years’ time doesn’t bear thinking about.  Griffin said at one point that he will stand down in 2013.  He may not get the chance if the current legal actions against the party and its officers for recovery of commercial debt succeed.

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Saturday, April 23, 2011 at 03:18 AM in British Politics
Comments (143) | Tell-a-Friend

This Honourable and Noble Cause, Part 1 (State Interference in Lawful Political Parties)

by David Hamilton

A totalitarian method used by the British state is infiltrating state agents into legitimate and rival political parties to discredit and destabilise them and keep the Global elites in power.

The Express newspaper of 18th February 1999 revealed that the Security Services were going to infiltrate:

Scotland Yard and MI5 are planning a huge covert operation to break up violent racist organizations. The Express has learned that intelligence officers will infiltrate far Right groups such as the British National Party.

Since Griffin became leader in 1999 the BNP has been contained when it was riding a wave and now is being destabilised. The tide turned for the BNP in 2001, due to media promotion and hard work of organisers in Oldham and Burnley. Two areas Griffin has destroyed.

Griffin and others contained that growth by quickly undermining branches in areas that growth had taken place in by sacking organisers where it did. East London was the first, followed by Oldham and Burnley later Bradford and Birmingham. The BNP’s peak was contained and undermined by state ops working within.

Around that time previous BNP leader John Tyndall was suspicious of Griffin:

Many of us noticed that shortly before or shortly after the leadership change that took place in the BNP in 1999 a number of new figures emerged in the party, little or nothing of whom had been known previously; and many of these graduated quickly to senior positions. Where were they coming from? What was their motivation? Were they with us to help or hinder?

Absolutely certain answers to these questions cannot be supplied, but it was noticeable that virtually all of these people aligned themselves decisively with the so-called ‘modernising’ faction in the party which had gained the ascendancy through the leadership change.(1)

THE Scottish National Party was spied on by British secret service agents, previously classified Government files seen by Scotland on Sunday have finally proved:

The dossiers contain first-hand accounts from numerous unnamed agents of party meetings, and also include names of SNP members and sympathisers. They also provided transcripts of speeches and give particular attention to members they believed were on the more radical and militant wing of the party.

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, March 14, 2011 at 09:22 PM in British Politics
Comments (61) | Tell-a-Friend

The BNP after the judgement

So John Wadham’s attempt to have Nick Griffin, Simon Darby and Tanya Lumby found in contempt of court for failing to comply with the county court judgement against the BNP has failed.  Well over a year of legal battle - in the event, entirely unnecessary legal battle - is over.  The BNP under Griffin emerges as a cultural nationalist party with a mountainous debt and ravaged activist base, the better part of which quit to join the now rudderless Reform Group and Lee Barnes’ probably still-born British Freedom Party (Lee?).  The blood-letting in the movement won’t be ended by this judgement.  On the contrary, the reformers won’t expect Griffin to accept them back in the fold - how many would go?  They won’t give up, so they must now play the long game.

It’s all quite astonishing only eighteen months after the heady days of the European Parliament Elections in early June 2009.  May’s general election and the humilation in Barking has been followed by some miserable local election results.  And that’s where candidates could be found to stand.  Amid the ruins Griffin speaks of rebuilding.  But there has to be a strong likelihood that party prospects will not improve until he finally steps aside, supposedly in 2013, though nobody really believes that.

Looking ahead, now that racial or ethno-nationalism has been placed outside the law, the party seems likely to move further in the direction of culturism.  Politicians, even those whose hearts are with their people, want to be relevant.  They will look at the success of Geert Wilders today.  Well, what’s the point of loyalty to racial nationalism, they will say, if the voter won’t buy it?

The radical thinker will respond that metapolitics, not accomodationism, makes possible revolutionary parties and political careers.  The lack of a metapolitical reservoir is the most fundamental of all the reasons the BNP cannot progress.  Yes, Wilders makes electoral progress.  But he draws from liberalism.  He has no interest in real systemic change.  What, then, is the historical purpose of the BNP?  Where is its soul?  In winning elections.  In operating within the law.  In culturism, will increasingly be the reply.  History will look after itself.

The cultural answer will leave the movement having to create other, non-political vehicles for espousal of racial nationalist values and ideas.  The argument for English survival will fall to new players.  It won’t take long, believe me.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, December 17, 2010 at 07:39 PM in British Politics
Comments (82) | Tell-a-Friend

Debt, FRB and the moral high ground

I thought I might draw your attention to a BBC News 24 interview in which the interviewer Ben Brown did an exceptional job of accusing a man with cerebral palsy of bringing upon himself the violence he suffered from riot police at last weekend’s anarcho-student rumpus in London.

These are the choice cuts:

Brown: There’s a suggestion that you were rolling towards the police in your wheelchair. Is that true?

McIntyre: I think justifying a police officer pulling a disabled person out of a wheelchair and dragging them across a concrete road is quite ridiculous and I’m surprised that you just tried to do so.

Brown: So that’s not true - you were not wheeling yourself towards the police?

McIntire: Well, I can’t physically use my wheelchair myself.  My brother was pushing me.

Brown: Were you throwing anything at the police at all during that day?

McIntire: I was not throwing anything at the police that day.

Brown: Shout anything provocative, or throw anything that would have induced the police to do that to you?

McIntire: Do you really think a person with cerebral palsy in a wheelchair can pose a threat to a police officer who is armed with weapons?

As an encapsulation of the moral superiority of the victim, this small event takes some beating.  Not that the Metropolitan Police are shy about beating anything once they savour the Big-Me moment in the helmet, the riot shield and the stab-proof, fire-proof, thought-proof uniform.  Nonetheless, it is the little man in the wheelchair who is going to be the nation’s hero.  The government, the Establishment really, has already lost this battle ... not for the chance to confiscate a greater and greater share of our dwindling cash and throw it at the banks and the bond market, but for the consent of the people.

Nationalists need to sit up and pay attention right now.  The moment to develop a critique of debt and fractional reserve banking - something missing from political nationalism in Britain for many years - is here.  The electoral reward for getting it right will be vast.  But as yet there is no sign of Griffin realising this screamingly obvious fact.

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, December 14, 2010 at 07:39 PM in British Politics
Comments (43) | Tell-a-Friend

Jane Turner finds out “White trash” is officially racist

Teacher who said child was ‘white trash’ convicted of race crime

Mrs Turner was working at Moseley School, a specialist language college in Birmingham, when the incident took place almost 20 miles away.
She was convicted at Halesowen Magistrates Court of an offence of using racially threatening words or behaviour likely to cause harassment or distress.
She was made subject of a community order for one year with a requirement to carry out 80 hours of unpaid work and was ordered to pay compensation of £50.

Assuming that her unpaid work is worth around £15 per hour (and as she barely earns more than that at her day job, that’s being generous), she’s been fined around £1,270. That is much less than a white anti-black hate criminal would get. She’s only a little bit racist because of the target of her vitriol, even though she apparently travels the country looking for white kids to abuse. Yes, travels the country:

The GTC committee reported: “Mrs Turner witnessed a dispute between a group of young people near school premises, more than 20 miles from the school in which Mrs Turner taught.
“Mrs Turner intervened in the dispute and in the heat of the moment was observed by a parent of one of the other children saying: “Go and play with your own little white friends, you’re nothing but white trash.”
“Mrs Turner accepts that making a comment like this amounts to unprofessional conduct.

Yes, going to a school 20 miles away from where you teach and racially abusing a bunch of kids who have nothing whatsoever to do with you is, on the whole, not quite the height of professional conduct. By the way, what sort of adult gets into the ‘heat of the moment’ while arguing with school-kids? Surely not one qualified to be a teacher, anyway.

There are other mitigating circumstances apparently:

The GTC committee said that it took into account that she was of previous good character and that, while she was not at first willing to accept what she had done, she was now “genuinely sorry”.
It added that she told the police that, at the time of the incident, she was worried about the health of a relation.
The committee also noted that her head teacher at the time had not found it necessary to take any further action within the school.
The findings say that in other circumstances a much more severe sanction would have been appropriate, but that having regard to all the mitigating circumstances of the case, the committee considers that the appropriate and proportionate response was a reprimand, which will remain on Mrs Turner’s professional registration for two years.

In other words: she said sorry (eventually), and her headmaster believed her. Oh, and she had an ill relative. Given that it is statistically probable that she has at least one relative not in the best of health most of the time, I can only feel sorry for the kids she teaches in her day job.

What this demonstrates is that even when the designated minorities are prosecuted for hate crimes, the same rule applies. Everything is an acceptable excuse for an anti-white hater, nothing is an acceptable excuse for a white hater. Even the fact that a non-white committed a hate crime is kept somewhat covert. This is the google page for “jane turner teacher picture”. The Daily Mail feels the need to include a picture of her school (the one where she teaches, not the one she visits to verbally abuse kids), but not of her.*

The bottom line is: an anti-black hater loses his career. An anti-white hater is docked less than 10% of her yearly salary, and told not to do it again.

*For the record, I have no information about Jane Turner’s ethnicity. The fact that her pictures are notable by their absence is what inspires this suspicion.

Posted by Alex Zeka on Wednesday, December 8, 2010 at 02:13 PM in British Politics
Comments (23) | Tell-a-Friend

The country can have as much opposition as it is willing to pay for

Woodcraft Folk (“a Left-wing version of the Scouts and Guides” in the print Telegraph’s unimprovably surreal formulation) is organizing students to riot against the Con-Dem cuts.:

The Woodcraft Folk will join forces with protests from students and lecturers on Thursday as Parliament holds a crucial vote on the Con-Dems’ tuition fees rise.

The group is a national co-operative educational charity which offers a left-wing equivalent to the Scouts and Guides.

Along with other more standard youth group activities, it encourages members to make their voices heard by joining in demonstrations up and down the country over issues that affect young people.

Still, it could be worse for the “left-wing Scouts and Guides” (does that mean they take kids into the woods and read them passages from Das Kapital? From Trevor Phillips’ latest speech?). The C-D coalition might have decided to cut their funding.

That is something the “left-wing Scouts and Guides” share with much social opposition in the West - it is government funded. It is inane enough here, where the government funds a youth organization whose main activity is to complain that not enough money is being spent on the youth. It is much the same trick as the one endlessly pulled by the Racial Equality Commission and by the Equality Commission and all their predecessors and successors. The government funding complaints about there not being enough government funding is nothing new. Perhaps only in Cornwall or Wales, where government money is supporting an otherwise entirely inviable project to maintain local languages, does this rise in perniciousness above the usual alliance of pc and bureaucratic empire building and rent seeking.

The rule is simple and almost always holds, at least in the West: protests from the left are government-funded. Protests from the right, such as the EDL, are not. And that is because the left is a creature of the state.

In this case, however, the rioters have relatively little sympathy in the country at large. The pc crime-stop filter in people’s heads just does little to protect students or fire hydrant wielding left-wing Scouts and Guides.

Pc pays because the government funds and supports it. It funds and supports it because politicians, even those that see an electoral advantage to go against it, are scared of offending against it. Risible throwbacks that call themselves “left-wing Guides and Scouts” will serve to make this relationship clearer because more entertaining, and so expedite its end.

A “left-wing Guide and Scout” reacting to being told that he’d now have to read the other half of Das Kapital.

Posted by Alex Zeka on Monday, December 6, 2010 at 06:51 PM in British Politics
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend

History, freedom and the British

This article is cross-posted from the British Democracy Forum, and is my response to the setting up of a new nationalist political party, the British Freedom Party, to challenge the BNP.  It’s my usual plaint - politics follows philosophical thinking, and the failure to recognise this, while understandable given our dire situation, is part of the small circle in which political nationalism travels in Europe.

I thought I would craft a quick response to the emergence of the British Freedom Party, which I will cross post to my own blog.

Strategically, I think the new development is premature. The next European Parliament election will be in June 2014, and quite probably the Westminster poll will be held on the same day. An electoral horizon of four years bar a few months would allow for a couple of years over which the racial-preservationist struggle could be redefined and programmatised as a national movement - we have an example before us in the EDL trying to do something similar (and doing it rather badly) - and then a bare minimum of two years could be devoted to developing the politics.

I do not say such a two-tier approach would be easy to execute. But it would be advisable to try, and the reason is obvious - the BNP is a monopoly business and it will certainly defend that monopoly by placing an electoral block on the new party, standing against it wherever it retains the human capital to do so.

But the BNP has a great weakness. It is ghettoised morally and politically because it is defined not by itself but by its opponents. The objective of a non-BNP nationalist caucus should have been to define itself, not to chase after a negatively-defined political inheritance. The first two years of its existence should have been devoted to that necessary goal.

By way of the sort of thinking that might lead to a self-defined broad movement of restoration I direct your attention to this:

Are minor parties a waste of time?

… which is BGD’s suggestion for a pressure group. I think we should incorporate that but also aim higher, and I did, in fact, suggest on another BDF thread a self-descriptive name that circumvents legal difficulties without sacrificing exclusivity: “Our Land”.

But it doesn’t matter now because the decision has been taken to launch the BFP, and all the concentration remains on stealing away the BNP’s brand and trying to detoxify it.

I want to close with a few words about the real size and nature of this task, and about the limitations that attend all political developments which are essentially nearsighted, reactive and utilitarian.

Freedom is a fine goal, even the particular freedom which is meant in the terms of the BFP. But it is not the goal. Our objective is to save our people from the immediate danger of race-replacement, and to restore to them in perpetuity all the rights that attend sovereign peoples in their own lands.

Now, this is a substantial endeavour - just how substantial bears some consideration. For example, it’s not like saying Man will return to the moon. That’s easy. It’s been done already, and with the appropriate resources could be planned in a few months and executed in a very few years. It’s not even like saying Man will journey to Mars … or the stars. It is harder than these things. It stretches beyond what the ordinary political eye can see. It is about changing history for an entire people and, to be realistic, an entire race of men. It involves the replacement of three hundred years of liberal and, latterly, neo-Marxist thinking with new and fundamental nationalist thinking - and I am not talking about utilitarian panaceas, to quote Arthur Harris, like Lee’s culturism. It involves reversing everything that has been done to us these last sixty years. It involves changing economics, changing the global zeitgeist, changing how people live, what they think, what they value, what they love. It involves our people becoming truer to themselves and living life accordingly, so that their politics will be as organic as every other aspect of their lives. There is genuine freedom in that.

No petty political movement can generate this. But this can generate a very great political movement.

In an email a few days ago a co-blogger wrote to me:

The idea that our entire civilization has failed is a terrifying thought to most every sane man, it may be the most terrifying thought I’ve ever had. People deal with this through denial and scapegoating, they don’t want to recognize just how serious and tragic the problem is nor do they want to put their own lives under the microscope. Fit the problem into a neat little box and then get to work, if only it were that easy.

It isn’t that easy. That is the lesson that awaits all political nationalists in modern Europe. I don’t say that piecemeal thinking, partial solutions, accomodationism can achieve nothing. But they can’t achieve everything, and it’s everything that we need.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, October 15, 2010 at 06:35 PM in British Politics
Comments (42) | Tell-a-Friend

The last of the bandwagons plays on

Smooth-moving Trevor Phillips, that beacon of tolerance and decency and all round racial lerve who (mis)manages the £70 million, 400-strong mega-quango, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has shocked the nation ... yes, shocked it, I tell you ... with his latest report, How fair is Britain.

Now, you might think it a bit odd that Trevor, although a Guyanan and not one of those purpley-black, ultra-other central African tribal types, is concerned for the declining incidence of fair skin in cool, cloudy Britain.  And you would be right.  He isn’t.  Not in the slightest.  Indeed, the “fairness” for which egalitarian Trev yearns is precisely more of this decline - accompanied, as always, by official attention to his own victim group.  So it is absolutely no surprise that the EHRC’s three-yearly report on “fairness” in my benighted land finds that:

On average, five times more Black people than White people are imprisoned in England and Wales, where 1 in 4 people in prison is from an ethnic minority background.

... There is now greater disproportionality in the number of Black people in prisons in Britain than in the USA.

Over the next few days a small but clamorous industry will be spawned in “evil white racism” advocacy.  Official reponses will be drafted for ministers by people whose career prospects do not allow them to mention the word “biology”.  Committees will be formed deep down in the dry gulch that is the Home Office, where the Prison Service meets the Crown Prosecution Service meets the Met.  Third sector tit-suckers will whip out their favoured causes and brandish them at Whitehall policy-makers like ageing tarts whose New Labour clients have suddenly deceased.  Lefty journalists will spin the facts, confident that nobody will require them to research any further than Das Kapital.  Here is how the Guardian newsdesk has already been spinning:

Continued...

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, October 11, 2010 at 10:19 AM in British Politics
Comments (11) | Tell-a-Friend

Vince Cable on capitalism – old wine in new bottles

by Alexander Baron

There was much controversy last week over comments at the Liberal Democrat Conference in Liverpool by UK Business Secretary Vince Cable.  They included an attack on City spivs and gamblers, on the wealthy, and on capitalism and its strangling of competition:

In uncompromising mood, he told the delegates:

“Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition when it can.

The right-wing press reacted predictably. But, as is often the case in politics, the controversy is unwarranted. Cable earned a PhD in Economics, so it is to be hoped he is not entirely ignorant of his subject matter, but reading a little (unorthodox) history might help to shed light on what he really means.

In his magnum opus “Tragedy And Hope”, which was first published in 1968, Professor Carroll Quigley makes essentially the same observations; page 452:

Business hates competition. Such competition might appear in various forms ... [making] planning difficult, and [jeopardising] profits. Businessmen prefer to get together with competitors so that they can cooperate to exploit consumers to the benefit of profits instead of competing with each other to the injury of profits.

But it is not only business that hates competition, earlier, on pages 380-1, the good Professor points out that:

... the picture which Marx had drawn of more and more numerous workers reduced to lower and lower standards of living by fewer and fewer exploitative capitalists proved to be completely erroneous in the more advanced industrial countries in the twentieth century. Instead, what occurred could be pictured as a cooperative effort by unionized workers and monopolized industry to exploit unorganized consumers by raising prices higher and higher to provide both higher wages and higher profits

Continued...

Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, September 28, 2010 at 03:36 PM in British Politics
Comments (3) | Tell-a-Friend

A short prescription for a nationalism in Britain

The BNP Reform Group held a conference today.  No doubt video will be released in due course.  The conference was announced on the Reform Group’s blog just yesterday.  The second comment in the thread to the announcement bewailed the undoubted fact that:

Time is running out [and] we nationalists are in desperate need of an inspirational leader and vision for our country.

This evening I posted a direct reply which may or may not find its way onto the thread.  Independent thinking is not necessarily encouraged.  The Reform Group appears to have been won over by Lee Barnes’ culturist notions, and at least one traditionalist contributor there who is well known to us, and who disagrees with Lee, has been frozen out.  Surely not an inspiring decision.

This was my reply, and sets out where I think nationalism in Britain must start from.

First, if you want an inspirational leader to materialise you, the political foot-soldiers, must accept certain (very large) premises.  One of those - very important - is that there is currently no one in the movement who displays the intellectual grasp or the personal qualities needed for nationalism to keep its appointment with history.  To draw such extraordinary talent to the cause you must give it an inspirational form.  This is not the same thing as “political realism” or “accepting that change is irreversible”.  Culturism (or civicism) in any form will fail the test.  Inspiration does not attach itself to defeatism, and no defeatist can call a threatened people to his standard.

To give the cause an inspirational form you must adhere to the following:

1. The Nationalist cause is, at heart, existentialist.  It is about the genetic continuity of the true British people - most particularly today, the English people.  It is not about the survival of culture or civilisation or any form of accommodationism.  There can be no accommodation with a severe and certain threat to our existence.

2. It is the Money Power that is truly waging an existential war against our people, and it is the Money Power that must be destroyed.  That means taking to ourselves the power to issue our own currency, and abolishing usuary by abolishing existing debt at every level.

3. Even when the hard things have been done and the future for our people appears to be secure, yet the greatest task lies ahead.  This is to replace liberalism as the general system of philosophical belief by which our thoughts and values reach us.  It will be doubly hard because there is no extant philosophy of a European life that is ready to hand.  It must be created, and it will be.

The demand for survival ... the abolition of debt ... a philosophy of life befitting the European character ... if nationalism is made intellectually expansive in this way it will attract to itself the men and women it needs to address the modern political age.  The petty policies, the rough and tumble, the whole exordia of political life in Britain will follow.  But that is not where we need to begin.

Last point.  It’s probably best to decide when to cut adrift emotionally from the BNP, and leave it to Griffin and Dowson.  An inspiring new movement with an inspiring new name (ideally, a name for a mass movement, not merely another - yet another - petty party of the nationalist right) is going to have to happen eventually, I believe, and will surely be our last chance to do what we must to remain who we are.

Posted by Guessedworker on Sunday, September 12, 2010 at 06:13 PM in British Politics
Comments (106) | Tell-a-Friend

The BNP Reform Group

The website:

http://bnpreform.com/

The video :

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, August 20, 2010 at 07:51 PM in British Politics
Comments (27) | Tell-a-Friend

Richard Barnbrook resigns party whip in the Greater London Authority

Richard Barnbrook has announced on his blog that he has resigned the BNP whip in the GLA because of the persistent allegations of financial impropriety at the top of the party:

... The serious nature of these allegations are such that they must be the subject of an internal independent and transparent BNP investigation to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations.

I have decided therefore that until these allegations are investigated fully by an independent panel of British National Party officers and members and are revealed as either true or false, that I cannot continue to represent the BNP in the Greater London Assembly.

I am therefore resigning the BNP whip with immediate effect and will now sit as an independent member of the London Assembly.

I am not resigning my British National Party membership.

I remain a loyal British National Party member and continue to serve the party and its members that I hold so dear to my heart.

Once this internal and independent British National Party investigation reports back its findings, and I can go back to my constituents and fellow party members and report that the allegations are not true, then I will immediately recommence representing the British National Party on the GLA.

Barnbrook’s gesture followed hard on the heels of another elected BNP councillor, Graham Partner, resigning the whip to sit as an independent on Leicestershire County Council and for North West Leicestershire District Council.  It appears that there is a continuing impetus for reform inside and outside the party.  This has to be allowed to run its course.  If it does not produce change ... if Griffin and his aids retain their grip on the party, then minds will turn to the necessity of establishing an alternative party.

The next few months are going to be critical for nationalism in this country.

Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, August 13, 2010 at 08:16 PM in British Politics
Comments (10) | Tell-a-Friend

“Can’t have a law on the presumption that one particular ethnic group is more violent than another”

That is the opinion of Ken Livingstone commenting on the police check forms issued to concert givers.

And why can’t we have a law based on such a presumption? Perhaps because the presumption is wrong or it’s inadequately supported?

Nope, its because “it’s just wrong”.

If Red Ken gets back, you can look forward to police wasting time monitoring the Proms for crowd violence, and letting the “youths” at rap concerts

commit crimes against person and property

express themselves. ‘Cos we can’t make law based on evil, racist presumptions, whether these are accurate or not. Some facts are just EVIL.

Posted by Alex Zeka on Thursday, August 12, 2010 at 10:12 AM in British Politics
Comments (7) | Tell-a-Friend

Lee John Barnes pulls the ripcord

t’internet is abuzz with the latest sensation. Lee John Barnes has resigned his position as Legal Advisor to the BNP as well as, it seems, turning in his party card. Some say he was expelled – the official story is that Lee was sacked because of his call for nationalists to get behind the English Defence League in advance of their Big Push over the top into enemy territory later in the month – while Lee himself insists that he jumped and was not pushed, and that the primary motivation for his departure is his (somewhat belated and until hitherto well-concealed) displeasure at the direction the party has been travelling under the ‘Griffin-Dowson’ axis.

It doesn’t seem all that long ago that I was taken to task by Lee for having the temerity to suggest that, in light of its most recent electoral outings, the BNP might be said to be underperforming, and that its current leadership had failed to take proper advantage of its unique franchise as the only credible voice for the indigenous British folk. For my troubles, Lee felt compelled to tar me as a coward, a pseudo-nationalist, gutless slime and as much the enemy as the enemy, on account of my ‘cowardice, cant and hypocrisy.’

And yet, Lee himself appears to be making many of the same points and, indeed, pointed criticisms of the party leadership that I (and others) have been making for quite some time, even as we, like him, refrained from unhelpful commentary during the run-up to the recent elections.

But that is all of historical interest only, and what I feel certain many nationalists will be anxious to discuss is: where do we go from here? Does the BNP as such have a future, or is the time nigh for a new grouping to emerge, under a new leader with perhaps less baggage and more charisma?

I’m sure that Lee John Barnes’s thoughts on the matter would be welcomed here; perhaps GW could initiate a contact.

Posted by Dan Dare on Wednesday, August 11, 2010 at 02:07 AM in British Politics
Comments (61) | Tell-a-Friend

Taliban sex fanaticism - in Afghanistan and in Birmingham alike

The complete worthlessness of the nation-building program in Afghanistan was recently again made clear by this:

The Afghan woman publicly executed by Taliban militants for alleged adultery was pregnant, it emerged today.

The victim, 48-year-old Bibi Sanubar, was flogged up to 200 times before being shot on Sunday - in the head and chest - in the remote Qades district. Her alleged lover managed to escape.

Abdul Jabbar Khan, security chief in the Taliban-controlled area, said the killing was ordered after the woman allegedly killed her newborn child to conceal illicit sex

However much you might think that Brits dying to make life safe for some sort of Afghani Rainbow Coalition of feminists, gays, etc, etc. is a good idea, it should be completely clear by now that it’s impossible. The problem is not that Afghani people have their own desires frustrated by a dictatorial Taliban. The problem is that the Afghani people ARE the Taliban. They don’t like gays, they don’t like feminists, they don’t like religious apostates - and they are very willing to eradicate these objects of hate. They like rulers who share these dislikes, such as their former and current Taliban warlords.

These same patterns can be observed in Iraq, in Pakistan, in fact wherever the desires of mass Muslims have been liberated from strongman rulers and made into law.

These same patterns also hold when the co-ethnics of these liberated peoples move to the West. Britain is at the moment observing the fallout from a Pakistani arranged marriage gone wrong. How many such ticking time-bombs are ticking away? 3,000? What percentage of these end in a drive-by shooting makes for an acceptable total for violence on British soil?

The extraordinary liberal delusion is that at some point it will be possible to assimilate MEs and subcons to Western norms. Sure, it hasn’t happened yet, but they can always keep trying. The race realist answer is that genotype => phenotype. It has predictive power, and centrist apolitical Brits, as honour killings become more and more prevalent not just halfway across the world, but in towns and on roads much like the ones on which they live, will move towards it. Cant is for the good times, predictive power is for when it matters.

Posted by Alex Zeka on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 at 12:57 PM in British Politics,  Islam & Islamification
Comments (9) | Tell-a-Friend

The UK Film Council and its paper tigerhood

The UK Film Council is a mostly worthless entity, that exists mainly to shovel taxpayer money (without any real oversight by elected politicians) towards “transgressive”, “edgy” endlessly PC pap that is way too PC and too much pap to make a profit from actual audiences. The Cameron government has scrapped it, on the basis that in the Age of Austerity transgressives can transgress on their own account. This has led to some prize gush from the Guardian, a paper reliant on the cultural compliance bureaucracy for its survival.

Does this matter to the government? Does it hell! The Guardian is lining up “transgressive” luvie after luvie to defend why taxpayer money simply must be channeled to sustaining their tastes? I can see the kitchen conversation:

Mrs. Average: Honey, did you hear they’re getting rid of the Film Council?

Mr. Average: That’s horrible! I have the paper here with the President of the Council and its biggest beneficiaries saying how ordinary people have no taste, and need government to subsidize movies they don’t like.

Mrs. Average: Oh yes, I completely agree, we have no taste whatsoever. If McSod says he needs our money to make his latest moving biopic about how straight white people made his life hell when he was growing up, then that settles it.

What this illustrates is that the PC media actually has relatively little power when faced with a government that just doesn’t care. It can’t defend the attitude-shaping bureaucracy simply because it means proving to people that they themselves have the wrong attitudes. Not an easy sell.

What if the Age of Austerity was to also take its axe to the race attitude-shaping bureaucracy? I would suggest that the votaries of these would not be able to defend their positions to the public. You can only practice attitude-shaping on a people with their consent if they aren’t particularly aware that this is happening. It is impossible to convince people that their current values, tastes and beliefs are so defective that they need to be professionally reshaped.

So, leaving outside speculation about their committed PC-ness, why doesn’t the Cameron government do this? In essence, any right-wing party has two choices:

1. Do popular but un-pc things (e.g. cutting the attitude-shaping bureaucracy, allowing un-pc speech, reducing immigration). This gives the party votes, but leads to the Guardian and other institutions and people professionally reliant on PC excommunicating the right-wing party from the human race. Result: Government power, but no Islington dinner parties.

2. Don’t do these things. You give people no real reason to vote for you, but McSod is happy. Result: Only occasional government power, but plenty of Islington dinner parties.

I would suggest that many Tories prefer 2. to 1. They aren’t, ironically, power-hungry enough. Such an analysis suggests that a differently-manned Tory party could do these un-pc things. This wouldn’t have to be a WN Tory party, only one dominated by people with social connections primarily outside the arts world and the attitude-shaping bureaucracy (which meld over into each other). Then McSod and his cheerleaders in the Guardian could take a hike.

Posted by Alex Zeka on Wednesday, July 28, 2010 at 12:09 PM in British Politics
Comments (4) | Tell-a-Friend