A Nationalist's Duty

Someone wrote into FC by e-mail today asking 'why are we so anti-BNP?' after the FC e-zine alluded to a prominant BNP supporter who has a Chinese boyfriend.

It made me think. Are we anti-BNP?

We're not seen as anti-National Front, though we have ideological differences with the NF and have criticised it in the past when, for example, it allowed the homosexual and MI5-plant Peter Marriner [at the time comrade-in-arms of Martin Webster] to hold a post which gave him access to members details and young boys [which by his own account on TV, his MI5 handler asked him to bugger in order to get 'pillow talk' on the NF].

We're not seen as anti-British Movement, though we have ideological differences with the BM, not being National Socialist. But we know where they stand, and they know where we stand, and their is an affinity, a friendship, an understanding. We cannot criticise them for what they are and what they do - because they make no pretensions otherwise.

And so on... We have our differences with groups as disparate as the NF, BM, and Third Way, perhaps ironically as their liberal centrism first enunciated in the early 90s is close to the line increasingly taken today by the BNP.

Yet none of them would really say we are 'anti' them...

So are we anti-BNP?

Well, given that many BNP members, activists and even organisers read and enjoy FC magazine [and e-zine] and have no difficulties supporting FC and agreeing with us, it can't be feasible that we are anti-BNP, otherwise these people would in turn be anti-FC.

We have also been critical of some of those anti-BNP forces who really are anti-BNP to an extreme, to the extent of repeating verbatim the lies and half-truths of anti-fascists when they relate to certain BNP organisers [including genuine nationalists!].

However, that does not mean that as a media outlet we should remain quiet when we see something happening before our eyes that we heartily disagree with. Furthermore, from our interaction with BNP members at all levels it seems that they rely on us to speak out because there is no 'democratic' [sheesh] means for them to do so 'within' the party -- leastways without recriminations, vilification and/or expulsion in a regime of control freakery, nepotism and cronyism that would have Teflon Tony Blair turning green with envy – but neither do they want to turn to the Searchlight operatives and C18 linked group whose sole existence seems to be to fuss about what the BNP is dong.

And so, it should be perfectly logical that one may agree with the general direction of a party [perceived or otherwise], or the founding aims of a party - or anything between the two - without remaining silent when wrong is done.

Or should we all remain robots?

Certainly those committing the ills, whether for the best or the worst reasons, do not remain quiet when they perceive others to be doing wrong.

They have attacked those who side with the Lebanese or the Palestinians.

They have attacked those who stay without the BNP - perhaps those with ideological or other differences.

They have also attacked those 'dinosaurs' who stay within the BNP – perhaps those with ideological or other differences [it seems they can't win!].

They have attacked those in other parties who betray party lines [anti-socialist Blair, modernist Tory Cameron] whilst demanding all to stay silent at their command when they allow colossal u-turns to take place within the BNP.

Lately they have attacked Iran for wanting nuclear power [not so Israel who already have nuclear WEAPONS] even lying to the effect that Iran threatened to 'nuke' Israel when the threat was the other way around, and the BNP leader decried the Iranian president - who has confronted Israel perhaps as no other world leader has done, whilst remaining measured and intelligent in his correspondence and speeches [for those who bother to read them and not Sun or Daily Mail editorials!] - as simply 'mad.'

Perhaps the cherry on the cake is the denouncement of revisionists as being beyond the pale and persona non grata for the BNP. This particular chutzpah is gross coming from a party led by the former editor of The Rune who walked out of the National Front over the Jewish issue... but then the rewards to be gained explain all.

The movement of the BNP mirrors that of Vlaams Belang in Flanders and the Front National in France.

We shouldn't be surprised, for both these are powerful electoral machines.

The movement is that of organisations becoming increasingly post-Nationalist. Not surprising as the BNP leadership lauded that traitor and renegade Fini [of Aleanza Nazionale in Italy] as the perfect ideal and example to follow when they fought to gain the leadership from John Tyndall.

Fini could give lessons in dressing betrayal as success, for he has excelled at both.

Why, for example, take a strong line against homosexuals when they vote?

Homosexuals are knowingly allowed in positions of influence in the BNP as anyone of any worth in South London BNP will tell you. The leadership may say otherwise, possibly not these days, but that is a fact.

Jews are openly sought as candidates, as was proven in Essex BNP, and there is certainly no block on Freemasons joining 'the cause' - indeed one of the organisers of the first Red, White and Blue festival belonged to 'the Craft.'

So is anyone who opposes homosexuality, Jewish influence and/or Freemasonry being anti-BNP? Is anyone who reads revisionist web sites or subscribes to their journals and worldview anti-BNP?

According to a recent BNP diatribe, they DO NOT WANT revisionists anywhere near the BNP, let alone inside it!

So is it OK for the BNP to be against those of us who are revisionist?

So is it OK for the BNP to be against those of us who are against Freemasonry?

So is it OK for the BNP to be against those of us who are against organised Jewry?

So is it OK for the BNP to be against those of us who are against homosexuality?

So is it OK for the BNP to openly attack other nationalists - including an election leaflet attacking the National Front and showing BM members, put out in Lancashire using Mr. Griffin's own personal PO Box?

And as the BNP seeks to maximise its votes by not offending all the above, what of us who oppose abortion?

Some leadership sycophants - whilst seeking to play up their 'pro-Christian' credentials whilst opposing Islam have slated FC as being some sort of 'Christian Taliban' for daring to have.... Christian beliefs.

One wonders what the [non-Taliban perhaps?] Christian front-groups make of the BNP's tolerance of homosexuality, of abortion... but that's another issue.

So when the BNP opposes so many groups of people who dare to hold ideological principles [sneeringly dismissed as 'purists'] any of us who fall into those categories should not squeak anything back in protest?

As the BNP now openly allows members of mixed-race and members with mixed-race or non-White 'partners' [sorry for the pc language but we might assume that some may be married, some not and some just partners in buggery] those of us opposed to race-mixing will be [probably already have been] condemned as dinosaurs!

We'll all be painted as neo-nazis... like some Sunday Mirror editorial we'll all be dismissed as Ku Klux Klan cranks for daring to believe that one's nationality should, in part, be judged by race.

Now we are all aware that cranks do exist [both within and without the BNP], and one man's crank is another man's visionary. In a world increasingly devoid of stability [i.e. without knowledge of traditions and history going back over 50, never mind 500 or even 1000 years] we know that in this kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man is king.

That is how the Blairs and Camerons of this world manage to fool most of the people most of the time.

Media image is all. Subservience to the City [i.e. Finance], to Zionism, to other lobbies such as the increasingly powerful homosexual one, become the measure of success.

Winning over Rupert Murdoch becomes far more important in winning elections than direct contact with the electorate. And there are many others, lesser would-be Murdochs who can help mould a party's image in the public domain...

Thus Third Way's patriotic non-offensive centrism of 1990 has come full circle to be embraced by the BNP. And why not! It makes perfect sense!

In a world devoid of ideology, the programme devoid of ideology will bring more success.

In a world governed by the media, the programme deemed 'less offensive' will bring more success.

In a world in which Capitalism, Zionism and Homosexual lobbies are the real powers behind the throne, the programme that tips its hat to all three will bring more success.

Of course all will be achieved in a typical two steps forward, one step back to keep members on board - that is until they are replaced by more subservient and wealthy ones and the 'old guard' can be forced out as unwanted cranks, nazis, revisionists and dinosaurs...

Thus it is that at various stages the BNP leader has sworn to others that he is a Welsh nationalist, a revisionist [and that revisionism was the most important thing!], a third positionist, a British nationalist, a national socialist, a white racialist... until the technicolour coat was replaced by much more moderate guise - no doubt the suit and tie so promoted by the media as some kind of new image.

For many within the BNP, the changes in policy until recent years were understandable as mere frontage, a facade to be fed to the media – remember softly softly catchee monkey as enunciated in the pages of Spearhead and The Patriot by Messers Griffin and Lecomber?

With a nod and a wink it was a case of we're all still racial nationalists, revisionists etc... but we have to dress it up in more acceptable clothing to gain more votes. And the concessions lead to more concessions, which lead to yet more, which become u-turns...

But elections are a cruel mistress. They are controlled by a media, which can do so much damage. Plus the vote is given equally to Jew and gentile, black and white, homosexual and heterosexual...

So an electioneering machine will soon discover there are certain ways to maximise votes, and the concessions and u-turns increase...

And that is why the BNP mirrors the VB and FN. The VB boasts of its huge Jewish vote in Antwerp as it concentrates solely on attacking Islam. The FN embraces and promotes black 'French' patriots whose first allegiance is to the French motherland.

As nationalists do we think a party is more important than its programme? Should we be hoping for a BNP, which can get a large block Jewish vote in London? Or a BNP which promotes black 'British' patriots whose first allegiance is to the British motherland?

You might laugh, but the BNP's anti-Islam mania is mirroring the VB's which the Jews find so attractive, and the BNP already tried the Black British line in Cumbria - which backfired.

Would conservatives mind if their party promoted socialism? Would it matter if it won them votes in the inner cities, Wales and Scotland? That would be a success after all.

We have seen Blair promote Private Finance Initiatives [PFI] in the NHS in a direct contradiction to Socialism; and his involvement in an illegal war in direct contradiction to pacifism; and his involvement in replacing Trident in a deal designed solely to make big business multi billions.

All have helped make Blair a world leader - celebrated in the right-wing/Zionist media: a success in some ways...

What does the BNP make of these betrayals? Does it stay quiet in a respectful and courteous manner? Does it quietly dismiss those who oppose them as ne'erdowells who fail to realise what realpolitik is all about? Does it politely applaud moves designed to placate the REAL powers-that-be and thus ensure a peaceful hold on power?

Or does it - shock, horror - denounce such miserable behaviour? Does it state it is a betrayal of Labour's core membership and of Labour's founding fathers? Does it scoff at such wanton disregard of the party's once sincerely held principles?

What do you think?

As someone who opposed the invasion of Afghanistan when the BNP were supporting it;
As someone who supported the Lebanese as BNP officials backed Israel;
As someone who opposes homosexuality whilst the BNP allows them as officials and representatives;
As someone who opposes Freemasonry whilst the BNP states no ban on people belonging to that secret society -- as it does on Combat 18 members [I wonder which of the two has done more damage to our nation];
As someone who opposes Organised Jewry and Zionism whilst the BNP courts the former and supports the latter;
As someone who opposes race-mixing whilst the BNP - at best! - turns a blind eye to it in its own ranks;
As someone who approves of revisionism as a concept, open study of history in practice and freedom for historians to debate - from the Inquisition, to Confederate prison camps, to Auschwitz - whilst the BNP attacks revisionists...

Should I support the BNP?

The BNP has stated that it does not want or need my support!

I and those like me have been dismissed in turn as nazis, cranks, purists, Taliban-esque dinosaurs in that same monosyllabic style in which Israel's main enemy is dismissed as 'mad' by the new, modern BNP.

Far from being anti-BNP -- it seems that as someone who opposes Zionism, homosexuality; Freemasonry; race-mixing; 'exterminationist' history closed to debate -- that the BNP is increasingly against me, and many others who consider
themselves Nationalist.

And please do consider that I have NOT touched upon the myriad accusations of monetary and other skullduggery within the BNP as enunciated quite clearly by those who have held high official office within the BNP throughout the last 6 years and know much more about it than I ever would. Many of their accounts have been published previously.

I have also made no direct mention of the dropping of repatriation as a policy and the gradual creep of open acceptance of coloureds here en masse: So a party which sought to 'softly softly' bring more people to racialism has instead been made into a multi-racial party whose sole platform seems to be an anti-Islamic stance topped up with a national Capitalist [don't export jobs] and Wesminster-rule policy.

No I have merely sought to answer a very brief question poised today - i.e. why FC is 'anti BNP'.

We do not oppose the BNP as an organisation. It is an electoral machine. We are not.

We do not oppose BNP members, activists or organisers, many of whom read and support FC.

It seems rather, that the current BNP leadership, and those close to it are taking positions that are diametrically opposed to racial nationalism.

We should ask why the BNP is so against us!

Someone once said would we rather oppose the BNP and see the globalists have a free-run or give our support to the BNP?

Well, we in turn should ask why we should support a quasi Zionist electoral machine that states it does not want or need our support?

Furthermore, we have to ask if supporting the BNP as it currently exists and given the direction it is travelling, will stop the globalists?

Those who founded the Labour Movement at the beginning of the 20th Century thought [leaving aside the shortcomings or errors of socilaism] they would help the workingman and overthrow the Capitalists.

The Labour Party are now part of Capitalism. They bow to the same elites. They start the same wars. The Animal Farm process is complete, the latter stage having taken less than 10 years if one takes Blair's victory in 97 as the starting point.

The BNP in its 'new' guise has existed for around 6 years. It has already changed in the ways enunciated above. It is already on talking terms with the likes of arch Neo-Con apologist David Aaronovitch [remember the BNP 'tanker' which we were told would take time to turn around... not that long it seems], Rod Liddle and countless other media columnists ever-so-keen to promote this new changed BNP!

The sign that its Zionist apologetics is no fop to an enemy media was the relationship exposed between the BNP leader and Barbara Amiel, the arch-Zionist whose husband used to own the Telegraph group.

Amiel has more Zionist fingers in more Zionist pies than you can imagine. She is the female equivalent of Henry Kissinger. She KNOWS powerful people.

That she is phoning the BNP leader direct speaks of some kind of agreement, probably more of an understanding than anything so formal.

Thus the idea that the biggest betrayals in recent nationalist history – the support of Israel, the condemnation of revisionists, amongst others – are accidents or have occurred organically can be dismissed by thinking nationalists or intelligent people of any or no ideology.

If called upon to do what Barbara Amiel wants me to do - i.e. support an organisation doing what the Zionists want it to do, I would rather respectfully decline.

I CAN - and do - support those who speak out against coloured immigration [yes, it's RACE not SPACE], just as I can support those who speak out against homosexuality, abortion, EU membership, usury/capitalism, socialism, and whatever else I in conscience support for the good of my nation [whether they are parties or one issue groups].

I have in the past gone to BNP meetings and given into the collection [those denouncing FC have probably never done likewise!], just as I have supported pro-family groups, small publishers etc. etc.

However, those who believe that we all have a duty to sycophantically follow the BNP leadership as it betrays principles and overturns nationalism on vital issues are just plain wrong.

For if we do not speak out when they seek to betray - who will? And who will stop the Barbara Amiels of this world from buying up groups like the BNP – I have NOT said and do NOT say financially, but there are various ways to win influence and change policy - so that things will never change for the better?

If I support a pro-life group that suddenly says that abortion before 20 weeks gestation is fine, then I not only have the right to decry that group, and withdraw my support, it is my DUTY to do so.

It is an act of true charity because my role then is to get that pro-life group back into a pro-life line. Otherwise the pro-life group will get a victory which is no victory, for selfish men will still push their wives to kill their child, and children will still be ripped apart so that couples may go on winter ski holidays or have two cars.

Charity is not suffering error because it might achieve something that is not the publicly stated aims. Charity is speaking up for those you care about, for those you see doing wrong and caring enough to state it; openly and honestly [not in whispering campaigns as seems the rule in most political parties] that the greater Crusade may not suffer.

The soldiers of inter-war Germany felt betrayed by those back home who surrendered. They said the war was lost at home, and not at the front.

There is no point in fighting a war when the Generals have already given up, sold out or are playing footsy with the enemy; which is not to say that we should suffer the Lord Kitchener style over-the-top headlong charges into the hail of the enemy's machine guns or media brick-bats.

But in seeking an intelligent thought-provoking nationalism and sensible electoral machine, we should not have to remain quiet when gross errors of judgement are made.

If the BNP wishes to stifle debate and controversy over the more questionable parts of its platform it can - and does! - do so internally to its hearts content.

It cannot do so externally without contradicting one its own alleged banner statements: Freedom.

For what is freedom if we have no freedom to question or to debate? - ask the revisionists!

p.s. As an afterthought may I just say that I have no problem with the BNP quoting the Koran and seeking to expose its adherants, in part because of the bad effect of their presence in the UK: but why should I or others be condemned for doing the same to the Talmud and seeking to expose its adherants, in part because of the bad effect of their presence in the UK?

Why is one acceptable to the quasi-Kosher BNP and not the other? Whoops! I just answered my own question - no need to e-mail in your answer Ms Amiel...

p.p.s. For those sad enough to care what we had for Christmas food, I had – or rather Santa had - a pork pie and a beer on Christmas Eve [Rudolf had a carrot and some milk]. We had toast on Christmas morning [made by me, i tried not to burn it], we had turkey with roasties etc. for dinner [made by Mrs FC], and on Christmas night we had nibbles, beer, pop, whiskey and cold turkey, roasties etc. to varying degrees! Mmmmm. Very middle class!