Just occasionally an opportunity arises which gives us the chance for a fresh start.
With the present decline and muddle surrounding the British National Party and the various proposals for a new movement of national unity it is time to take a serious look at our political options. In order to do so the first thing must be to analyse the current problem. If we are to build a new engine to carry us forward it is essential that we don't use the same worn out parts or faulty construction as we did before and which brought us to our present impasse.
Looking back to my first involvement in the Movement, during the early days of the National Front, I can see that not only does a coming together of various factions generate new energy it also causes tension as different ideas, ideals and people struggle so assert hegemony. This is an inevitable condition with which we have to live, and in the absence of any charismatic leader not one which can be easily avoided. Even such an esteemed Chairman as A. K. Chesterton was unable to prevent serious dissension within the ranks of the early National Front, established in 1967, and it is only now, years after his death, that many people are coming to realise the true worth of John Tyndall who eventually picked up the pieces after Chesterton was gone: but never, except for a short period as leader of the National Front in the late 70's, did Tyndall receive anything like unanimous support from the whole nationalist community.
However, “Cometh the day, cometh the man,” and the essence of life is, as ever, the struggle of hope over experience. If we sometimes feel downhearted we must after all remember that it's only the heroism of previous generations which has brought us thus far. So given our life affirming determination to struggle on, what should be our defining principles and what faults should we avoid?
Authority versus democracy
One of the most common criticisms of the current nationalist leadership is that it's too authoritarian and has consequently become corrupt. As Lord Acton said, “All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Nevertheless, it is important to remember that any system is only as good or moral as those who run it and that in modern conditions the power of mass democracy is actually more susceptible to corruption than an oligarchy which is somewhat protected from outside influences. The principal reason for John Tyndall's insistence on an authoritarian foundation to the British National Party, established in 1982, was the incessant factionalism and infighting he found post-1979, caused by the “democratic” constitution of the old National Front.
Despite the democratic pretensions of the current British National Party leadership, many Party members were rather dismayed to find at a major constitutional conference a little while ago that the majority vote on any particular issue was repeatedly nullified through the constant appearance of proxy votes which had been fortuitously garnered by post over the preceding few days! Furthermore, we have had the ridiculous spectacle of a rival nationalist to Nick Griffin's leadership falsely accused of being the self-same person as a Searchlight journalist. Now, we hear fellow (now ex) BNP MEP, Andrew Brons, being accused of working for the state! Not to be outdone, others, under the cloak of internet anonymity, have accused Nick Griffin of being a deliberate state agent, planted as a barrier to political progress. On the much wider, world level we are constantly witnessing American war planes bombing hapless nations into capitalist servitude, all in the name of “democracy”. Therefore, I would strongly suggest we avoid the weasel word “democratic” in any title given to our new Party.
Moderation versus principle
Another panacea sometimes recommended for the progress of any new party is that we present ourselves as a little more moderate, just slightly to the right of the Daily Mail perhaps. If we do this, it is said, success will be guaranteed. After all, popular opinion is largely on our side so long as we don't frighten off would-be supporters by being too honest about what we know and think. The problem with this argument is that it fails to take cognizance of the fact that the enemies of our race and nation are already in the driving seat. Every compromise we make is seen by the enemy as a small victory and an opportunity to push us back further, a position from whence they can be even more extreme in their politically correct posturing and demands. Take the old chestnut of “racism” for example: one of Nick Griffin's great ideas for the British National Party was what he called asymmetrical tactics whereby we use the language of our enemy against himself, a bit like judo where we make use of our opponent's own weight against himself. So, under Nick Griffin, the BNP launched an expensive campaign with the slogan, “Racism cuts both ways”. This was meant to enable us to turn the tables on immigrants, who constantly complain about White “racist” crime, by highlighting instances of Black or Asian “racist” crime. Unfortunately, this sort of tactic plays right into the the hands of the opposition because it suggests that “racism” is a crime in itself, an idea our enemies have wanted to instil all along. We are now, if the political establishment is to get it's way, living in an Orwellian world where “thought crime” can be punished.
The distinguished Alternative Right critic, Alex Kurtargic has pointed out that in terms of logic, fairness and truth, racial and cultural loyalists have already beaten the dead weight of anti-life Marxist and capitalist materialism. Every day that passes makes the truth of what we stand for ever more obvious. The problem we have re-aligning our world with the truth we find in Nature is that hitherto we have lacked the moral courage to do so. Large numbers of people have even been coerced by the enemy which controls our society through the mass-media, into accepting the distortion of historical truth, the social destruction of multi-racialism, of feminism and the absurdity of homosexual marriage. This is not only a problem which has been exacerbated as a result of the demoralisation of Europe after the Second World War; it goes back to the origin of universalism which seeks to replace what is in our hearts and loving souls with cold, abstract principle. By having the courage to be true once again to our natural instincts and knowledge, we will be creating a revolutionary situation; and be acting in accordance with science and the very nature of existence. By so doing we give ourselves a renewed chance of winning.
This article was originally published on the website of Civil Liberty, an organization in the UK dedicated to fighting the tyranny of political correctness.