As I write this evening, David Cameron has become the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and we await confirmation that the proposed coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats has been approved by the parliamentary membership of the latter party. This arrangement may hold, but then again, it could quite readily fail. We shall have to see. There thus exists the possibility that the country will have to return to the polls before the natural term of a parliament has elapsed, and the BNP needs to be prepared for this eventuality. The BNP needs to learn some lessons from its performance last Thursday so that it can up its game and make a substantial advance.
Yes, it is true that Nick Griffin managed to win an historic high in terms of the overall number of votes won in Barking last week, netting a total of 6,620, but alas, this was accompanied by the fact that overall turnout in the constituency increased and the BNP’s share of the vote fell. Granted, there may well have been some irregularities with postal votes which acted to the detriment of the BNP’s performance, but there were also deeper factors at play. Some of these it will be possible to address, others unfortunately, such as the changing demographic composition of areas like Barking arising from the outmigration of indigenous residents and large-scale immigration coupled with higher birth-rates amongst immigrant descendents, will remain beyond the party’s influence.
Some BNP members and supporters have highlighted that if the Liberal Democrats were to realise their long-cherished dream of introducing proportional representation for Westminster elections, this could work in the party’s favour. Had a ‘pure’ version of this system been in place last week, the BNP could have secured 12 or possibly 13 MPs with its national share of the vote. However, the Conservatives have been discussing the possibility of a referendum on the single transferable vote and have not mentioned proportional representation as a potential option. If the single transferable vote system were to be adopted, this would in all likelihood make it harder for the BNP to win seats than under the present first-past-the-post system. Irrespective of whether proportional representation is introduced or not, if the BNP is to realise its potential as a political force, it needs to finally get to grips with some internal issues that in the eyes of most electors have accorded it pariah status.
Yes, it is true that the BNP is opposed by a truly mind-boggling united opposition: all of the mainstream political parties, the entirety of the mainstream media, the trade union movement, fringe leftist parties such as the SWP and Respect, and third-party organisations and campaigns such as Searchlight, Hope Not Hate, Love Music Hate Racism, the UAF and Nothing British as well as the anti-British quango the EHRC (Equalities and Human Rights Commission). All of these are united in a visceral hatred of the BNP, and their combined might brings to bear immense propaganda resources that the party itself cannot hope to effectively counter. However, there is one quite straightforward thing that the BNP can do to draw the venom from this attack and render it largely impotent: rid itself of the shadow of the Tyndall years and accusations of neo-Nazism and ‘Holocaust denial’. The party could achieve so much if it honestly and openly distanced itself from the continuous stream of 'Nazi' allegations and concentrated on driving home the message that the BNP is a 'moderate nationalist party'. Without doing so, it'll never be able to achieve a breakthrough, even if our country were to be in such a dire position as to be on the brink of civil war.
Of course, the relentless barrage of negative propaganda about the party from the aforementioned organisations may not have had an impact upon the allegiances and views of staunch party members and supporters, but we would be foolish to think that the general public's perception of the BNP has not been very negatively affected by this attack. Besides the propaganda, a number of genuine internal issues in recent months haven’t helped either. The peculiar affair surrounding Mark Collett; the violent physical ejection of a Times journalist from a party meeting; the loss of a number of prominent figures such as Alby Walker who then went on to attack the BNP and Simon Bennett taking out the party website two days ahead of the election were all priceless gifts to the party’s opponents which fed genuine public mistrust and suspicion. If the BNP wishes to be taken seriously as a party fit for government, party members need to behave impeccably. Mark Collett and others of his ilk must thus never be readmitted.
There needs to be a debate about how to neutralise this opposition and alter public perceptions (i.e. alert them to what the BNP actually stands for, rather than what it is said to be) beginning now. There is no time to be lost owing to the rapid and increasing pace of demographic and cultural change and displacement within our country. Whenever the next election comes, the men and women who speak on behalf of the BNP must be able to confidently, politely and robustly rebut opposition smears relating to neo-Nazism and sundry related matters.
There are many ways of presenting the nationalist message, and how this is communicated requires serious re-examination if the party wishes to be viewed as credible by an educated middle-class audience. The general tone of rhetoric employed hitherto might well go down well in the convivial atmosphere of a pub, but it sounds out of place in the general public arena. I in no way advocate that the party should ditch any of its core policies and principles or seek to abandon any one class in favour of another, for as nationalists we by definition wish to afford the best opportunities for all to realise their potential, and we should not neglect the welfare of our less fortunate compatriots who languish in poverty, unemployment and squalor. Nonetheless, our message needs to be communicated in a way that resonates with a middle-class audience and readership, as well as with those whom our political elite have readily confined to the margins of society and who have to date been subject to the worst effects of mass immigration, Islamisation and multiculturalism.
In terms of policy, I agree with a good 90% of the BNP manifesto, but some elements, I have to say, appear just plain outlandish and alienate voters. Honestly ask yourself: how much appeal do policies such as liberalising gun ownership laws and opening a penal colony in South Georgia possess? Why insert these into a manifesto brimming with good ideas? It just turns people off and leaves the party open to ridicule. Who wants to be thought of as a neo-Nazi gun-obsessed wacko who’s turned on by the idea of opening a sub-Antarctic labour camp? I’m not saying that that is what the typical BNP member is, but this is the sort of impression that most non-supporters possess. How many people out there want more liberal gun laws? How often have you heard someone say that this is a serious issue of concern? This is not a vote-winning issue and vote-winning issues are what the party needs to concentrate on if it wishes to grow and gain elected representatives. There are plenty of vote-winning policies in the BNP’s manifesto, but liberalising gun laws is definitely not one of them: it is a definite vote loser. If some members of the party have a particular penchant for firearms, this sort of measure can be discussed at a later date after the BNP has won MPs, but certainly not before such a time.
A number of presentational gaffes need to be avoided in future. I realise that having someone appear in costume on St George’s Day and inserting the Marmite image in the initial version of the party political broadcast were light-hearted affairs, but unfortunately the mainstream media picked up on these to portray the party as being just plain daft and amateurish. Moreover, the Marmite fiasco has resulted in an unnecessary court case which will drain the party of much-needed funds. As for the content of the final election broadcast, I realise that the BNP is a small party with very modest resources which relies upon the enthusiasm and dedication of its members to make these stretch a long way, but please re-shoot scenes which do not work. If the BNP wishes to screen broadcasts which ostensibly feature interviews with party members and supporters telling the voters about why they support the party, never have them reading in stilted robotic fashion from cue cards. If they are to be scripted, at least get them to rehearse ahead of shooting and ensure that they can deliver their lines naturalistically. Furthermore, make sure that they speak to camera, so it looks as if they are addressing the viewer instead of some random location in the street out of shot.
There is also time to avoid a PR disaster in the making which relates to a comment recently made by Nick Griffin in which he stated that after the election all BNP literature would feature a Christian cross to emphasise the party’s ties to our country’s Christian heritage. Why? This is not the USA. British (and I mean indigenous here) people are not overly bothered about religion (except Islam, which all true Britons rightly despise if they become acquainted with its reality), and to overtly associate the BNP with Christianity will only serve to make it seem totally out of touch and irrelevant. If it wants to succeed in Ulster or the US Bible Belt then fine, but if it purports to be a nationalist party in England and the other constituent nations of the British mainland, then it had better realise that we are no longer living in the seventeenth century. If anyone needs objective proof of this fact, just look at the abysmal performance of the Christian Party in this election.
This is a particularly odd tack for Nick Griffin to take given that he himself is not a Christian. As British nationalists we should be secular, but publicly celebrate our national festivals that arise from a combination of Christian and pagan traditions. Many of us are atheists and agnostics, so kindly leave religion out of the equation unless you are attacking Islam which is absolutely essential, for it sees no divide between the temporal and the ‘spiritual’, which is why it is completely incompatible with our culture and others. Otherwise, people’s religious beliefs and affiliations or lack of them are a matter for personal conscience.
Another recent policy tack which will possess only a limited degree of electoral traction, and runs the risk of backfiring badly, pertains to ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’. Calling all of the science a ‘hoax’ or a ‘scam’ might well be music to the ears of oil company executives, but once again, it jars with most people and certainly with the overwhelming majority of scientists. Just because ‘climate change’ is being used by our mainstream parties to justify ramping up foreign aid, domestic deindustrialisation and introducing ‘green’ taxes doesn’t mean that the science is necessarily being invented to justify policy. All it means is that our government, as well as the governments of many other countries, sees this as a useful pretext for implementing other agendas that they already possess, such as creating transnational institutions of political and economic governance. The BNP should therefore not adopt a strong position either way on the scientific basis of ‘climate change’, but should constantly and unfailingly highlight the political abuse of the ‘climate change’ rationale for implementing undesirable policies that work directly against the national interest.
As our domestic oil reserves are declining and international supplies are growing less secure and more expensive, developing new technologies not dependent upon oil are good in and of themselves, for they reduce national vulnerability to external geopolitical factors and will be cleaner. If other countries are convinced of the necessity of introducing such technologies, why shouldn’t we profit from this by selling such new technological expertise and products? Furthermore, moving away from an oil dependent economy will help to undermine the source of vast wealth underpinning Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia which ultimately funds global jihad and Islamic proselytisation, including in the UK.
There is a genuine environmental crisis and the BNP should highlight this. It however, is not ‘climate change’, for if anthropogenic climate change is indeed a reality, it is simply a by-product of global overpopulation. This must be constantly reiterated along with the corresponding fact that the UK has no further ‘carrying capacity'. Thus to take further immigrants is both irresponsible and, in the long term, dangerous.
The BNP needs to concentrate on a few core positive messages which will enable it to broaden its base of support and appeal. These must be communicated using temperate language to emphasise its moderate nationalist agenda. Always refer to the BNP as a “moderate nationalist party”. The words ‘moderate’ and ‘nationalist’ must appear together as frequently as possible, so that listeners become accustomed to pairing the two, instead of ‘far-right’ which is currently the undesirable descriptor habitually associated with the noble terms ‘nationalist’ and ‘nationalism’. Who could possibly object to a moderate party with a moderate agenda?
The term ‘anti-globalist’ must be used as frequently as possible. The Conservatives, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and Greens must all be referred to as ‘globalists’. ‘Globalists’ and ‘globalism’ must be transformed into pejorative terms by highlighting the very real and negative aspects of this ideology and its attendant processes. Nationalists and nationalism on the other hand, stand for freedom, self-determination and democracy. Our ideology is positive, which is why globalists and the globally owned media hate us and our values: we are the little people standing up against the lies and vested interests of corporate power. We, as nationalists, are the real anti-globalists, not the Greens. Only nationalism and national stewardship can guarantee respect for national natural resources and ecosystems. A respect for our natural environment, on land and at sea, should be an integral part of our nationalism. The landscapes, flora and fauna of our isles and surrounding seas are ours in trust to be tended and passed on to future generations in good condition.
We need to stress the following key messages: the BNP is a party of peace and wants an end to unnecessary wars; the BNP is a party of neutrality that seeks to maintain good relations with neighbouring countries; the BNP seeks to preserve the best of British heritage and culture, whilst developing a dynamic hi-tech science focused manufacturing economy; the BNP believes in upholding individual liberties and the right to free speech; the BNP believes that the British people, like all peoples, are sovereign and possess the right to self-determination; the BNP seeks to enhance the quality of life of the British people through focusing upon per capita rather than aggregate economic measures; the BNP recognises that sustainable development requires a sustainable demographic policy.
The above are just a few suggestions, but as you can see, you don’t need to lapse into the language of ‘race’ or even overtly mention ‘immigration’ to adequately defend our way of life, sovereignty and demographic integrity, for the solution to these issues is implicit in the arguments themselves and the language used to express them. Nonetheless, it will be important not to neglect directly referring to the unsustainable nature of immigration and its very real negative impacts upon our economy, housing, environment and culture. Also ensure that a clear differentiation is made between those immigrants who have been assimilable, and those who have not (i.e. Muslims in particular).
Multiculturalism, Islamisation and the colonisation of our country can all be effectively blocked and reversed adhering to the aforementioned principles and can be communicated as genuinely ‘progressive’ for our people and our voters. Islamisation can be countered by vigorously adhering to secularist arguments but, importantly, Islam must be singled out as different from all other religions because of its refusal to sever the temporal from the spiritual. Islam must never be referred to in a false (i.e. favourable) light. Furthermore, never miss the opportunity to stress the fact that Islam is incompatible with British and wider Western civilisational norms as well as being deeply misogynist.
The New Left has successfully undermined longstanding cultural norms and nullified rational thought through its perversion of language. We can defeat it through using language to gradually move public perceptions towards our position. However, we have an advantage, for our position does not rest upon a fabric of lies. Our language must rest upon truth and rational argument, and if our voice is allowed to be heard, eventually a large section of the public will come around to our way of thinking. When debating with opponents, either verbally or in writing, we should concentrate upon the facts and not make ad hominem attacks. When they use ad hominem attacks against us we must calmly highlight what they are doing, and ask them to address the ‘facts’ of the issue under discussion.
There is plenty of corroborating evidence from politically neutral organisations such as Migration Watch, the Optimum Population Trust and Civitas that we can use to back up our policies on immigration, the environment, economics and education. We must always seek to make good use of non-partisan sources of information.
Alas, the nationalist vote remained split last week. Although the BNP beat UKIP in the majority of cases where the two parties fielded a candidate apiece in the same constituency, UKIP still gathered a greater national vote share than the BNP owing to its larger number of candidates: 917,832 votes (3.1% +0.9% compared to 2005) versus 563,743 (1.9% + 1.2% compared to 2005). Furthermore, although a very small party, the English Democrats also tucked into a 0.2% share of the national vote winning 64,826.
If the next General Election were to happen in the next year or two, it is unlikely that the BNP would have sufficient resources to field candidates in every seat with the requisite funding and feet on the ground to make this a worthwhile effort. If such an eventuality were to occur, it would make good sense to come to a temporary nationalist pact with UKIP, whereby the BNP could concentrate its resources on those constituencies (typically urban) likely to provide the largest return for effort invested, and for UKIP likewise to devote its resources to large rural seats where the BNP’s appeal is comparatively weak. Such a pact has been mooted previously, but unfortunately was rejected by UKIP. However, such an agreement should be explored afresh if resources are limited.
If the BNP can rid itself of the media ‘Nazi’ tag this will be an achievement which should help to destigmatise the party and open up the opportunity for more members to join. Unfortunately, as one anonymous visitor to this site has commented, the mass media and all politically correct organisations will never be able to accept the respectability of an ethno-nationalist party, so the inappropriate term ‘far-right’ is just something we’ll have to put up with. After all, this is also a label that our hostile ignorant media (the BBC, Guardian, etc) also apply to Geert Wilders and the PVV as a smear intended to place him and his party beyond the pale of respectability. UKIP itself is stigmatised as ‘extreme’ even though in reality it is a moderate, conservative civic nationalist party.
The above are just some observations on how the BNP might attempt to extend its appeal through communicating key nationalist messages in a palatable fashion to the British public. These are offered in a spirit of friendly criticism, and are not meant to detract from the very real progress that has been made by the party in recent years and the central role that Nick Griffin has played in this process. Nonetheless, the BNP now needs to shift up a gear and to avoid the pitfalls of the past.