Where now for Nationalist Politics?

In sending two MEPs to Brussels, the BNP has made a significant political breakthrough in the teeth of a ferocious campaign co-ordinated by its political opponents and their allies in the trade union movement and the mass media. On last night's election special, the BBC commentators David Dimbleby and Nick Robinson were visibly discomfited by the victory, an upwelling of visceral loathing detectable in their voices. This morning, John Humphreys launched into a predictable attack on Nick Griffin, focusing on 'racism' and holocaust denial that was in equal parts disdainful, dismissive and uncomprehending.

The intensity of the hate emanating from these pampered media pundits is quite alarming, as was the attitude of the baying mob of anti-BNP protesters surrounding Manchester Town Hall last night. The BNP is routinely stigmatised as being a party of "thugs", "boot boys" and "ill-educated, irrational knuckle-draggers". Well, it does strike me as a touch ironic that those levelling such epithets appear all too ready to don the apparel of thuggishness whenever their anti-fascist amour propre is 'affronted' by the presence of a BNP member or two. These soi-disant 'anti-fascists' need reminding that in a democracy it is the voter who decides who will or will not take office; it is not for a manipulated mob intoxicated with a misplaced sense of moral outrage to dictate to us who shall be our representatives.

Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons face a daunting task, for it is their lot to explode the negative myths that have stymied the chances of the BNP in particular, and nationalist politics in general in this country. They must be ever vigilant, for not only will they continue to be subject to constant sniping and smears from the powerful in the media and politics, but also from rogue violent leftists, who could endanger their physical safety.

Now that a foothold has been established in the EU Parliament, can this position be used by the BNP to speak directly to the British electorate? Will the controllers of the mainstream media permit this to happen? Probably not, for they know that if this were to be allowed, its message would resonate strongly with our people. The BNP may have scored a modest 6.2% of the total vote in Britain, but the combined nationalist vote (taken here as being represented by the Eurosceptic parties but excluding the Tories) comes to 25%, or 3,795,632 votes. This vote (excluding the BNP) breaks down as follows:

• UKIP - 16.5%
• English Democrats - 1.8%
• United Kingdom First - 0.5%

I have excluded No2EU voters from this total (another 1%), for it is unlikely that they would vote for a self-declared nationalist party owing to the anti-nationalist pathology of many on what is termed "the Left".

If only this vote could be marshalled by a single party it could become a serious contender for national government, for it is not far short of the victorious Conservative share of the EU vote at 27.7%. Many who voted Tory would also be attracted to a viable nationalist party. I am not of the opinion that David Cameron's politically correct stance possesses much deep-rooted appeal for traditional Tories. For all of his talk of multiculturalism being "divisive" and something that should be swept away, Michael Gove is preparing the Party for a huge expansion in state-funded Muslim faith schools after the next General Election. Dave's posturing against multiculturalism and political correctness is nothing more than chaff thrown up to distract the misty eyes of his traditional elderly followers in the shires.

There is thus much to play for in the years ahead in the sphere of nationalist politics in the UK. The situation is complicated of course by the increasingly divergent political scenes in Scotland and Wales and the separate situation in Northern Ireland. Any successful nationalist party will therefore be based upon its appeal to English nationalism, and the three contenders for the nationalist cause are: the BNP, UKIP and the English Democrats. The first two are well-known, whereas the last is not.

The mass media are willing to give UKIP airtime and relatively positive publicity, for they know that it is in part competing directly with the BNP for the popular vote. The English Democrats are a very small party indeed, possessing a little over a thousand members as well as the newly-elected Mayor of Doncaster. Their share of the EU vote in 2004 was 0.7%, but this time around they more than doubled this to 1.8%. In some regions, their appeal to the nationalist vote may have prevented the BNP from gaining a seat: in the West Midlands for example, the BNP polled 8.6% and the English Democrats 2.3%; the combined total of 10.9% would have taken the BNP very close to the 12% which secured the Liberal Democrats a seat, so in this instance, the English Democrats may have cost the BNP an MEP. In the North West Euro constituency they also secured 2.4% of the vote, and with a slightly larger share could have denied Nick Griffin his win.

Although the policies of the English Democrats will not appeal to the mainstream media, the fact that they can serve as a potential spoiler for BNP candidates will ensure that the latter's opponents will do all they can to provide publicity for this new nationalist micro-party. Similarly, the fact that the BNP has made a modest electoral breakthrough will ensure that the media also devotes more airtime and column inches to UKIP between elections than it has hitherto.

We need an effective and viable nationalist party now! Unlimited mass immigration continues; the Lisbon Treaty threatens our sovereignty, and our mainstream politicians court the Islamist vote and continue to enforce and entrench multiculturalism. All of these factors must be stopped and reversed. Which party rises to the challenge and manages to break the hegemony of the British political establishment remains to be seen. The prospects do not appear rosy, but they are far better today than they were this time yesterday.

Apocalypse Now for Labour?

Now that most of the county council election results are in, there can be no doubt that the electorate in England has passed a damning judgement upon the Labour Party. Not only has it lost the four councils that it had previously controlled, but also the number of councillors it possesses in each county has collapsed in a quite breathtaking fashion. Although this electoral annihilation has been most pronounced in the South, the Midlands and the North can hardly be said to offer Labour much by way of hope.

In numerical terms the Tories are the clear victors, with the shires painted an almost uniform deep blue and the Liberal Democrats losing control of Devon and Somerset in their Wessex heartland. However, projections suggest that the total share of the national vote for the Conservatives will be only 38%; rather low for the main opposition party given the Government's parlous position. Still, the first-past-the-post electoral system means that this bodes well for Conservative prospects at the next General Election.

We have yet to view the results of the EU ballot, but on Sunday evening I expect to see a result that is even worse for Labour than that received in the county elections. Labour could quite readily slump to third or fourth position in terms of its share of the vote. Although we may still be trapped in the era of two-party politics with respect to Westminster, proportional representation for the EU elections shows that the electorate prefers to vote for other parties closer to their views and values when there is the prospect of their votes being translated into elected representatives.

There has of late been talk of parliamentary reform, including proportional representation. If such a system were to be introduced for either the Commons or the Lords, we could see the Labour Party sink into insignificance as many of its supporters permanently desert it for the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and the BNP. UKIP is essentially a protest party that possesses no currency outside of the EU electoral machine, so I do not anticipate that it will become a long-term player in British politics. Moreover, UKIP, owing to its free-market focus, is more likely to attract disgruntled Tories than Labour voters.

Labour's lack of a distinctive ideological vision, other than the desire to cleave to power and to undermine our national sovereignty and solidarity, begs the question: just what is the point of the Labour Party? It is authoritarian, anti-libertarian, anti-national, anti-white and anti-male. It seeks to meddle in the affairs of other countries militarily and diplomatically where we possess no vital national interest, and its upper hierarchy is deeply enmeshed in the murky world of international finance. In this, I see nothing positive. This muddled and ugly concoction may appeal to certain ethnic bloc votes, but it has nothing positive to offer the British elector.

Purnell's move against Brown appears to have been precipitate given that Johnson and Mandelson have thrown their support behind the Prime Minister. Which Labour MP would honestly wish to hold a General Election before the last possible date, given the likelihood that they themselves would lose their parliamentary seats? It is my guess therefore, that Brown will seek to hang on for as long as possible, and that on the 6th of May 2010 the electorate shall bid a permanent farewell to the Labour Party as a party of national government.

Slay the Fascist Beast! Its Name is New Labour

The Labour Party is a shell: its form remains, but its contents have long since undergone a process of putrefaction and liquefaction. The antennae of this monstrous crustacean flicker and twitch as its fetid innards disintegrate and ooze outwards. Soon, the light will fade from the unfeeling gaze of its leader's single functioning eye as one mighty last spasm shatters its form into a myriad of stinking pieces.

Recent polls show Labour's support dissolving faster than any principles that its leading members may once have held. All that the ruling clique of this former representative party possess in abundance is the will to power (or should that be the will not to be dislodged from power?).

Having feathered comfortable nests for themselves within the state (what remains of it) apparatus of the United Kingdom, these self-serving, self-interested agents of national dissolution, globalisation and Islamisation are rattled by the prospect of losing office. They may possess power in the formal sense of the term, but all authority they have lost, except in the eyes of their globalist admirers in the EU, the US of A and the behemoth corporate players of the transnational financial system. That the electorate of the United Kingdom is currently in a furiously febrile mood fuelled by the recent parliamentary expenses scandal is beyond doubt, but quite how this shall manifest itself at the forthcoming polls for the EU Parliament on 4 June it is difficult to divine.

The question of the abuse of expenses is but the latest in a litany of indignities heaped upon the electorate by the current Labour administration: national bankruptcy; the erosion of civil liberties; the curtailment of free speech; the ceding of sovereignty to Brussels; historically unprecedented levels of immigration; cronyism; the politicisation of the police; pointless wars; ongoing privatisation and Harman's legislation promoting active discrimination against indigenous heterosexual males. This collection of misdeeds is staggering in its scope, scale and application. That this Government has survived so long as it has is testimony to the forbearance of the average UK elector, but also to the unrepresentative nature of an electoral system that delivers a healthy majority to a political party that received only 35.3% of the votes cast at the last General Election, representing a mere 22% of the electorate.

It is well known that the parliamentary Labour Party is unrepresentative of its activist base, and that its leadership is in turn unresponsive to and contemptuous of the opinions of its backbenchers. So, all in all we see that a minority clique within a minority of the Labour Party with a minority public mandate is intent and able to inflict its programme of misgovernment upon us until the bitter end. In so doing it will wreak the maximum social and economic damage that time will allow.

How, given the aforementioned, has the Labour leadership decided to revitalise its disillusioned rank and file? What on Earth could possibly move them to campaign for such a blatantly undemocratic, anti-British, anti-working class party? What otherworldly superhuman powers could possibly move decent people to campaign on behalf of such a craven, corrupt, blood-soaked administration? Like many an organisation based upon faith, it has reason to resort to calling forth demons.

In this case it knows that the faithful will always respond to the call to slay the fascist beast, and the Party does not let the fact that such a creature does not exist obstruct its efforts at political mobilisation. So, the spectre of the BNP is invoked and bedecked with the mandatory accoutrements of leftist demonology: crypto-Nazism, racism, anti-Semitism, etc. From there it is but a short step to evoking the emotional resonance and warmth of memories of comrades long since fallen who fought in the international brigades and who liberated Belsen and Auschwitz. Meaning is restored to the grassroots activists who feel that their support and campaigning has taken on a noble purpose and mission. Of course, this is naught but illusion: comforting fables for the well meaning but wrong-headed, fed to them by a cynical leadership that understands and subscribes to the logic of Robert Michels's iron law of oligarchy. Thus are decent people duped and transformed into the hate-filled, bile-flecked myrmidons of UAF, Antifa and Searchlight.

What the members of the Labour leadership know and what they truly fear is this: that the members of the British National Party are (with a few exceptions, for all parties contain exceptions) not as they are portrayed. They fear the BNP not because it is a fascist party, but because its policies would exert a powerful appeal to Labour voters were they to overcome their prejudices and learn what they are. So far as I am aware, only one of the two aforementioned parties has advocated a succession of aggressive military interventions overseas (Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq), and it is not the party conventionally labelled with the epithet of "fascist" by its many detractors. This is why Labour and their confederates in the political mainstream insist upon the "no platform" policy.

If Labour activists wish to campaign against a powerful party of vested interests which seeks to subvert democratic norms, individual rights and liberties and to wage wars of aggression, they should look a little closer to home and reconsider the lies that they have been peddled for so many years by their leaders. Slay the fascist beast! Its name is New Labour.