Saturday, 15 September 2007

The BNP and the ANC - PART 1

Nick Griffin is our Nelson Mandela.

One of the defining features of the Gordon Brown faction within the Labour Party that is now running the country is their defining obsession to ‘take back’ the symbols of Britishness from ‘the Far Right’. Gordon Brown is utterly obsessed with trying to create a politically correct and artificial version of British history and British culture that supports, and thereby promotes, the left wing political view of the Labour Party. He is always banging on about how the left must ’reclaim the British flag’ and promote a modern multi-cultural version of Britishness. As a disciple of the social theorist Robert Puttnam, Gordon Brown realises that unless a functional politically correct version of Britishness is created then the various ethnic tensions and social dynamics within multi-culturalism will mean multi-culturalism will collapse as a functional principle of social organisation at some point in the future.

Along with this attempt to redefine and recapture the symbols of British culture and history by Gordon Brown has been an attempt to describe history in a way that promotes the personalities and causes that they want to see regarded as examples of noble idealism by British society. For Gordon Brown the primary noble personality, and therefore the ultimate socially acceptable role model for whites in the world today, who is lauded for his so called ‘selfless idealism’ is Nelson Mandela. For the liberals and the left Nelson Mandela is a hero, not a terrorist.

They worship him like the Soviets once worshipped busts of Lenin and Stalin. His cause to overthrow apartheid and create majority black rule in South Africa is celebrated as a noble cause and statues to the man are now even erected in Parliament Square.

In this article I will offer a radical nationalist re-interpretation of Mandela’s struggle for black majority rule and explain how the liberals current view on Ethno-Nationalist struggles in Europe is both hypocritical but also logically and morally unsustainable when compared directly to Mandela’s struggles and aims. Whilst the ANC and Nelson Mandela should never be regarded as ’moral’ in any way due to their advocacy and use of terrorism as part of the political process, what is interesting is how the media and the liberal elite have managed to turn Mandela into a ‘hero’ without ever logically analysing what other political white majority movements could also be regarded as ’heroic and noble’ for following similar political aims, though with less criminal political methodology.

The ANC are a racist terrorist organisation based on communist ideology. It is an organisation to be despised and not admired. This article is an analysis of the logical inconsistencies of the Liberals view on the ANC and Nelson Mandela, and should not be taken in any way as implying any support for the ANC or Nelson Mandela. South Africa today is a racist state which has institutionalised racism against its white citizens just as Britain has institutionalised racism against its indigenous people. The purely cosmetic whiteness of South African sporting teams, such as the Springboks rugby team, is used to divert attention away from the ongoing pernicious racialism of the South African ANC government directed daily against its white citizens. Most whites in South Africa live in fear of the day that Nelson Mandela dies for they fully expect a black uprising that will inflict racist riots and pogroms against all whites. The brutalisation of white South Africans by racist criminals, especially racist rapes, is devastating the white community and hundreds of thousands of white South Africans have already fled the country. The New South Africa is becoming a racist terror state, not a representative democracy.

Even within the history of the ANC as regards the non-white population of South Africa we can see a racial dimension at work. The ANC represents mainly the Zhosa tribal group and their main enemy was always the Inkatha Zulu tribal group. Thousands have been murdered in ethnic and political warfare between the two tribal groups. Asians and mixed race people were also despised by the ANC for working with the whites. The whites that joined the ANC were mainly deluded idealists prepared to sing songs about killing whites and plant bombs in railway stations in order to curry favour and rise amongst the ranks of their black comrades. The fact that many of these white supporters of the ANC struggle have now fled South Africa citing the racism of the ANC regime is evidence once again of the idiotic idealism of the far left. The political rhetoric of the ANC is today blatantly racist against whites and the South African government supports the racist pogroms of Robert Mugabe in neighbouring Zimbabwe against white farmers. White farms are being seized by the ANC South African government and white businesses being punitively taxed by the South African government. White owned businesses are forced to hire blacks from the majority population, as opposed to hiring whites from the minority ethnic population as is usual under the rules of political correctness, or be fined by the government.

But it is a fact that the actions of Nelson Mandela and the ANC are defined by the liberals and the left in our country as noble. If this true for the ANC then the cause of the BNP must also noble and heroic. Unlike the ANC and Nelson Mandela though, our hands are not stained with the blood of innocents torn apart by bombs, burning tyre necklaces and bullets used to get into power. Unlike the ANC we in the BNP are a peaceful, democratic, political, social and cultural movement who reject violence and whose actions are at all times within the Rule of Law as defined by the British Constitution. That is in direct contrast to the ANC and the actions of Nelson Mandela.

Nelson Mandela is the most successful Racial Nationalist of all time.

He fought for and won Black majority democratic rule in South Africa in the face of determined opposition from a well organised white minority. Whilst Nelson Mandela and the ANC fought for democratic Black majority rule in South Africa, Nick Griffin and the BNP are also fighting for democratic White majority rule in Great Britain. Both the ANC and the BNP are the political mechanisms of an indigenous rights movement. The BNP represents the indigenous ethnic majority of Great Britain and the ANC represent the native black population of South Africa. The ANC fought against Apartheid as the mechanism of minority rule in South Africa, whilst the BNP fights against Political Correctness as the mechanism of minority rule in Great Britain.

Just as Nelson Mandela has been persecuted and prosecuted by the South African government for his political beliefs, Nick Griffin has also been persecuted and prosecuted by the British government for his political beliefs. As Nelson Mandela has experienced, Nick Griffin has also been charged with ’political crimes’ against the State, this being breaches of the so called Race Relations Acts and the Public Order Act 1986. Unlike the ANC though and also Nelson Mandela, Nick Griffin and the BNP have never used terrorism, murder, bombings and violence as part of their political methodology to attain power. The BNP have always been a political, social and cultural movement that have participated in the democratic electoral process and have rejected all forms of organised political violence even when we have been targeted and attacked by both the Far Left and agents of the State security services. We have never even organised to defend ourselves from the attacks by the organised Far Left in a way that would have ensured we could have dealt with the threats we faced. Even though we were abandoned by the police and the authorities we did not respond in any way to those who attacked us. Like the workers in the Mask of Anarchy by Shelley we merely folded our arms and looked upon those that attacked us with the utter contempt they deserved until their rage died away and they crawled away in shame and baseless pride. This means that the BNP are in fact a more ’moral’ movement than the ANC, and that Nick Griffin is a more ’moral’ politician than Nelson Mandela.

Nick Griffin is in fact Britain’s Nelson Mandela. Like Nelson Mandela and Nick Griffin, all BNP activists and member should be seen as heroic and noble people who selflessly dedicate themselves to the preservation and promotion of their country, culture and kin. According to the liberals and liberal media Nelson Mandela fought for majority black rule in South Africa in order to end minority white rule and create a representative democracy. The goal of the ANC that it frequently proclaimed was to ensure that South Africa was a democracy that represented the interests of the ethnic majority as opposed solely to the interests of its ethnic minority, this being the whites. In a way the BNP and the ANC fight for the same thing, though in vastly different ways, which is the right to organise political, social and cultural representation for the indigenous ethnic majority and to participate in the democratic political system. We are also both indigenous rights movements. Just like the ANC we are fighting against minority ethnic rule. For the ANC the enemy was Apartheid, for us it is Political Correctness.

Both Apartheid and Political Correctness are mechanisms of minority rule. They are both political systems of repression that assert the rights of ethnic minorities over those of the ethnic majority. In Britain, as it was in South Africa under apartheid, the ethnic majority are under direct Minority Rule. This is the Tyranny of the Minorities that is the basis of the burden of Minority Rule that we indigenous Britons are forced to tolerate and pay for. The Tyranny of the Minorities is when the rights and interests of ethnic, political, social and economic minorities within the nation take precedence over the social interests and democratic rights of the indigenous ethnic British majority. This is the basis of our nations system of Minority Rule.

In Britain today we are controlled by a cabal of minorities ; these are the rules of Political Correctness, Middle East oil billionaires that fund the political parties, the laws of the Race Relations Acts and Public Order Acts, the Liberal Consensus, Media Corporations, Leftists, Globalists, Dhimmi-Politicians, Sharia Socialists, immigrant lobby groups, Liberal Judges, PC vicars and religious faith leaders, religious pressure groups, corrupt union bosses, foreign corporations and supra-national political institutions such as the EU, ECJ, ECHR, WTO and NATO. Each of these groups represent only the rights and privileges of factions and minorities within the nation and do not the interests of the ethnic majority of British citizens.

Pressure group politics and professional lobby groups dominate the democratic consultative processes, whilst the functions of the legal system and the outcomes of legal cases are dependent upon those ethnic groups and other organisations that are financially able to access the legal system.

The New Apartheid in 21st Century Britain is based on Political Correctness. Just like apartheid was in South Africa, political correctness in Britain is a political mechanism designed to empower minority groups at the expense of the majority ethnic group. It is part of the Cultural Struggle and Racial Struggle of the left to subvert and destroy our native indigenous British society.

Over the decades a succession of minority Conservative and Labour governments have controlled the country via minority rule in order to advance their own sectarian interests. Not once has any of those governments had the democratic legitimacy of having the direct approval of over 50 % of the British population. The total electorate in the 2005 general election registered to able to vote was 44, 245, 939 in a country with a population of nearly 60 million - that means nearly 16 million people are not even registered to vote. 61.3 % of the total electorate able to vote actually bothered to vote. The present unelected Prime Minister Gordon Brown runs a government that was voted into power in 2005 with just 54.95 % of seats in Parliament with just 35.3 % of the vote and with the support of only 21.59 % of the British population ( not including the 16 million who did n ot register to vote). 79% of the British people did not vote for the present government, but the voices of the silent majority are not heard in the political process. Only 8 candidates in the whole country got more than 50 % of the votes cast in their favour - and hence had a democratic mandate. Labour won the election with a vote of 35.3 % of 61.3 % of those that actually turned out - not even a majority of those who bothered to vote. With a simple majority in Parliament the minority rule politicians can control the entire country.

That is not a legitimate democratic system. Neither is that a democratic mandate to rule, that is the very definition of Minority Rule and it is the capture of democracy through the capitulation of the majority to either apathy or alienation. These minority governments both left and right then undertake political programmes that primarily represent and reward the sectarian interests that support the parties themselves. The Labour Party passes laws to help the unions that fund it and gives knighthoods to the foreign businessmen that also fund it, whilst the Tories represent the interests of the global corporations and the foreign businessmen that fund its political campaigns. Neither of the three big parties represent the People, they represent only sectarian factions within society. The Trades Unions represent only the financial interests of the union bosses who grow rich on membership fees of the unions and also the sectarian political interests of the political groups the unions support. The only people the unions do not represent is the interests of British workers. They represent the interests of Cuban and Chinese workers, globalisation, asylum seekers, immigrants and ethnic minorities and do not ever represent the interests of British workers.

Minority Rule is also enforced in the New Apartheid British state by the Race Relations Acts and the Equality Department that contains the C.R.E. The C.R.E and the rest of the state funded race relations industry are mechanisms designed to empower immigrants and ethnic minorities at the expense of the indigenous ethnic majority. The role of the C.R.E. is to ensure that the law pro-actively discriminates against the ethnic majority and that we white indigenous Britons become second class citizens, and a racial underclass, in our own country. The C.R.E pro-actively works with the government and private companies to ensure that ethnic minorities are fast tracked and promoted into jobs they are not qualified for whilst whites are denied jobs and systematically penalised because of their colour and race. The C.R.E recommends new race based laws to the government that it wants to see put on the statute books. These new laws are designed to promote Positive Discrimination policies and Affirmative Action programmes that accelerate the disenfranchisement of the indigenous British people from the economic process. The C.R.E, the media and the Police all ignore and minimise racial attacks on whites in Britain,whilst race attacks against ethnic minorities are turned into political crusades to demand the removal of ever more rights for whites. The Police are routinely dragged before Employment Tribunals for racism against white officers and white applicants for jobs are denied interviews they are qualified for so that under qualified ethnic minorities can benefit from affirmative actions plans.

In the New Apartheid of Political Correctness a whole new system of totalitarian Minority Rule has been constructed that just like under classic apartheid is a classic fascist race based system and that rewards a person solely on the grounds of their colour or racial background and not on individual merit. Indigenous white Britons in Britain are now nothing more than second class citizens in their own country, and that second class status is now fully enshrined in the law itself.

Another mechanism of Minority Rule is the takeover of our democratic system by the media. The media propagandise the political parties that the public are conditioned into voting into power. The media decide who wins elections, not the people. Through their power to control public opinion, to selectively present facts and ideas to the public and their almost total control of public debate on political issues, the media effectively control who the public vote for. It is the minority of plutocrats, corporations and leftist editors and journalists that control the media who unilaterally decide what is politically acceptable in our society and thereby who gets elected into power. It is the media liberals and leftists in papers like the Guardian who advertise the governments politically correct Servile State jobs whose self appointed experts then tell us that we cannot have closed borders because immigration benefits our society and at the same time imports in ever more new Labour Party voters. It is the media capitalists in papers like the Daily Mail that support ‘controlled immigration’ as it brings in cheap workers and lowers British workers wages and thereby benefit’s the corporations that advertise and sell their products in the Daily Mail. The media do not represent the interests of the British people, they represent and promote the interests solely of the corporations or factional interests that own the media and the puppet political parties the media control. The role of the media is to ensure that the interests of the majority of British citizens are not represented by political representatives that they are conditioned into voting into power. The media promote and advertise only the political parties that they own. Then once in power those elected politicians then reward their media and corporate masters with laws that profit the corporations that own the media. Only the corrupt and the servile ever get elected into power by the media. The agenda of the media is to prevent political change, not represent the interests of the British people or the British nation. The role of the Media is to ensure that their own factional interests, left, right and liberal, are allowed to control the political development of society by denying access to any political parties that threatens media minority rule over the British electoral system. It is the media that says we cannot close the borders of Britain, that we cannot deport immigrant illegals and criminals, that we cannot scrap political correctness and the Race Relations Acts. It is the media that demands our total adherence to the totalitarian creedo of Political Correctness by labelling anyone that dares speak out as a ‘racist‘. It is the media that calls those political parties like the BNP that demand the removal of illegal immigrants and convicted immigrant criminals ‘racists’ and then use their pages to demand that the public not vote for them. It is the media that bears the primary responsibility for our plight.

Another aspect our Minority Rule is the takeover of the so called ‘independent’ legal process by minority groups and supporters of Political Correctness. The liberal Judges that have infiltrated the British legal system now routinely overrule British statute laws with bogus ’human rights’ arguments that put inane theories on universal human rights before the actual national security interests of the majority of the British people. Other Judges have political interests that interact with their judicial roles. The recent libel case involving the BNP activists Chris and Barry Roberts was heard before Judge Sir Stephen Sedley, a long time member of the British Communist Party and President of the British Institute of Human Rights with links to Liberty and Amnesty International, is a case in point. Under the dicta enshrined in the Pinochet Principle in Re Pinochet (1998) the Judge should have withdrawn from the case as a long time member of the Communist Party can scarcely be said to be ambivalent to nationalism and nationalist activists in their court. This rule for Judges is in place in order to ensure that there is no chance of any judicial bias in legal cases. The law requires that Judges ‘ Must not appear biased or impartial ‘ . The Judges adherence to the Communist cause in the Barry and Chris Roberts case meant the Judge was not fit to hear a case involving well known Nationalist activists for the BNP involved in a libel case against a well known Communist election candidate and Communist supporter - this being the convicted liar and thief Gerry Gable of the Searchlight magazine. Instead of withdrawing from the case the Judge, and the other two judges on the bench hearing the appeal, found against the BNP members and at the same time ‘clarified‘ the position of the libel laws in the UK to ensure that the Roberts brothers and others in the future did not come under its protection. The Roberts Brothers were not told of the Judges political affiliations. This is the same Judge who said that too many black males had their DNA held on the Police computers and that therefore everyone in Britain should be required to provide a sample of their DNA to the police to hold on their computers. The role of Judges in the modern legal system is to repress and remove the rights of the ethnic majority and create a ’legal’ apartheid state where we, the indigenous British, are legally recognised as a racial underclass in our own country. Other judges, such as Sir Henry Hodge the husband of Margaret Hodge the Dagenham MP and vociferous critic of the BNP, who is jointly responsible for allowing the convicted immigrant murder Learco Chindamo to stay in the country after he is released from prison, place the interests of immigrant killers before the safety of society as a whole. Other judges blocked the Home Offices’ attempt to appeal the decision not to deport Chindamo after his release.

12 comments:

SOD14 said...

I think you will find that the only indigenous blacks in South Africa are the Zulus. And they were proscribed from the ANC. In fact if you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkatha_Freedom_Party

You may not wish to associate Nick with Nelson Mandela...

Lee John Barnes said...

Unlike in South Africa the indigenous whites in the UK ARE the indigenous people and their rights are minimised and ignored. This article is about two things - the way the liberals and media media portray the ANC and its cause and secondly how they do not apply their own logic and standards to the BNP.

In the terms of a politician fighting for majority white rule in the UK, as Mandela fought for in South Africa, then Nick Griffin is very much Britains Nick Griffin.

The fact that reactionaries amongst the Nationalists who confuse their own antipathy to the ANC with the logical analysis I have undertaken in this article is to be expected. Those motivated by irrationalist hatred or romanticism always reject logic and rationalism.

The article mentions the antipathy to the Zulus by the ANC and the racist dynamic within the ANC.

The point of the article is to analyse what the ANC 'SAID' it fought for and the reality. The article also analyses what the Liberals in the UK 'SAID' the ANC fought for and how the BNP, UNLIKE THE ANC, are the only political movement that aspires to the IDEALS of what the liberals say the ANC stand for - and also the article reveals that the ANC never were a movement based on those ideals and that the liberals are hypocrites as they do not understand that the BNP should be the one paty that shold support in the UK, as it is th only one that aspires to the same ideals and aims as the ANC said it aspired too ( though in reality it didnt ).

Perhaps you need to re-read the article or realise that you are probably too thick to understand , and therefore should desist from comment.

Lee John Barnes said...

That should of course say Nick Griffin is very much Britains Nelson Mandela - and that is a corrct analysis.

If people used this wonderful thing called LOGIC then that would become apparent.

I have spent years in the nationalist movement trying to get nationalists to THINK as opposed to HATING, to embrace the clarity and purpouse of directed rationalism as opposed to embracing the fog of irrationalism and mindless hatred.

Hating is what our enemies want us too do as it empowers them to create and pass new laws to clamp down on free speech in the guise of tackling 'Hate Speech'. Those that use Hate Speech and embrace Hate Politics merely empower our political enemies against us. They work for and assist the enemy.

We are fighting a DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL struggle and that requires logic to win it - whilst the decades long path of hatred embraced by the nationalist movement ( against Jews, Catholics, Slavs etc etc ) has led nationalism nowhere.

The people who espouse hatred are nothing more than marginalised and insignificant voices in British nationalist politics living in social, economic and political ghettos and going nowhere.And so are the pitiful little pseudo-political cults they are members in and support. They are jokes.

The aim of democratic politics is to take power - anything that delays that process needs to be rejected. That is pragmatism - anything else is idiocy.

The one thing the BNP has done is prove that those parties, and their activists , that preach hate are social, political and cultural irrelevances.

Thats why they attack the BNP and hate the BNP - as they are pissed off we have shown to everyone in nationalism - and most importantly British society - just how useless they are, how obsolete their ideas are and how pathetic their little pseudo-political cults are.

SOD14 said...

The truth of the matter is that Mandela was never a nationalist leader of indigenous black South Africans. That was the only point I was trying to make. A great deal of word play going on here, and fair play to you, but it doesn't change facts. Mandela was the African version of Gerry Adams, and any Irish Republican can make exactly the same claims as you do by linking him to Nick, who by the way I have met and liked very much. Which brings my brief entry to another point you raise. As a leading member of one of the smaller parties, I can honestly say that hatred of the BNP and / or it's leader is not on our agenda. We have many differences, had this not been the case then why would we bother? But I personally made it my policy to stop BPP members from attacking the BNP, in fact I told our members to vote BNP in the last local elections, and stood down the only two candidates we had ready to stand, because the BNP were standing in the same wards, and obviously had a better chance than us. we already know your policy of proscribing us, and my advice all along is that your proscription was and is right for your party. The 'false flag' accusation was untrue and uncalled for, but we did not respond, mainly because it was election time, and we refuse to hinder any form of patriotic nationalism in Great Britain.

Anyway Lee, thank you for answering my first post on your blog. I'm all for continuation of this kind of dialogue, but won't hold my breath.

Best wishes, PSW.

Lee John Barnes said...

Sid,

You are totally right in that Mandela was NOT a leader of the indigenous South African blacks, but that it precisely how he is percieved and portrayed by the media, the white liberals and the majority of the British and world public.

In politics the art of deception is the art of success. In politics what matters is not what is true - BUT WHAT IS BELIEVED TO BE TRUE.

As Clausewitz wrote, war is an extension of politics.

If that is true then in the modern political battlefield , just as on the modern military battlefield, then one has to wear CAMOUFLAGE in order to survive and avoid being targeted, attacked and killed by ones enemies.

The era of Trench Warfare type WW1 politics is over - no more ' over the tops lads and keep running until the machine bullets kill you ' type of politics can be deployed.

People like Peter Mandelson and Alistair Campbell understood this decades ago and this is why the Labour Party only became electable when it purged the communist flag waving, red flag singing, Lenin wosrshipping morons of the Militant Faction from its ranks.

Those Militants who accused the Labour Party of 'abandoning its principles' are now nowhere. Today we have the 3rd Labour government in a row led by those the militants once called traitors. Whilst the Militants are in the political wilderness, the labour party is in power and changing British society every day.

The Labour Party was a political party set up to take power via the democratic process ( as is the BNP ) and therefore those that called the party 'sellouts' for adopting a populist approach to getting into power (as opposed to adopting the political cultism of the Militant Faction that merely alienated the majority of the voters required to get the paty into power ) were frankly idiots.

The Labour Party and the BNP are both doing what they were meant to do, which is take power.

The WHOLE point of the political process is TO TAKE POWER - without power ones principles are just so much hot air. Only when in power can one apply ones principles in such a way that one can change society.

I can respect those that put their principles before their politics as individuals, but I cannot respect them as polticians and nor will Itake their political criticisms.

The years we have wasted on 'Posture Politics' that alienated us from the masses and that drove Nationalism as a political force into the margins of society can never be claimed back.

We have less than 50 years before we become a minority in our own country and therefore able to take power back via the democratic political route.

We can waste no more time on Posture Politics, and we can tolerate no more the type of extremist rhetoric that alienates us from the conditioned masses and that allows the media (who control British society and the British politicl process) to constantly undermine our political growth.

We can no longer give the media easy targets, we can no more allow our own people to shoot the movement in the foot, we cant afford the extremist types that regard getting votes as a waste of time.

The real disciplined nationalists follow the hardest path of all - the path of democratic electoral politics.

Andromeda said...

Interesting that you should say you are following democratic electoral politics.

How would you feel about an opinion-polling direct democracy politics website that allows its members to cherry-pick policies they like?

It works a little like a virtual single party state that COMPELS you to think for yourself without reference to party loyalty.

www.1party4all.co.uk

Lee John Barnes said...

I find the concept of 'McPolitics' an interesting one but essentially a facile concept for real political parties.

As stated in the article it is the media who control politics, and therefore unless the media are sorted out then any political system that uses such a method will be controlled by the media.

Nationalist politics represent eternal principles as opposed tothe present political system that represents transient interests - Nationalism represents the land, the indigenous peope, our culture, our British constitution, our ancestral heritage and our ancient liberties.

We are opposed to modernism when it invades the sacred spaces of our country and the life streams of our people and culture.

Andromeda said...

"I find the concept of 'McPolitics' an interesting one but essentially a facile concept for real political parties."

So you call Athenian Democracy "McPolitics", do you? That is in essence what 1Party it is offering: a virtual single party state that allows you to express your political views on all important aspects of government policy, and which COMPELS you to think independently without reference to tribal party loyalty. I guess this is too much for most people to grasp and perhaps a bit scary when they don't know the answer. However, at 1Party, you only answer the questions you care about, and leave the others to others.

Have you even looked at its opinion polls? I think someone who is one of your supporters actually said he would be happy with a party like that - at any rate with its current collective opinion. Obviously it will change the moment a new member registers and starts voting on a range of issues.

I notice that, like UKIP, the BNP *CLAIMS* to support Direct Democracy, but only on its own terms! At least I have realised that, if you do believe in democratic government, you must at some point have to trust people to make the right decisions, without your hectoring them or preventing them from asking or answering questions.

"As stated in the article it is the media who control politics, and therefore unless the media are sorted out then any political system that uses such a method will be controlled by the media."

How are you going to control the media when you haven't any connections, are completely clueless about media management but don't want to take lessons, seize opportunities or take risks?

"Nationalist politics represent eternal principles as opposed tothe present political system that represents transient interests - Nationalism represents the land, the indigenous peope, our culture, our British constitution, our ancestral heritage and our ancient liberties."

When you start talking about "eternal" principles, you make me think of religious fanatics who go on about "divine principles". Whoever is stupid, weak and wealthy gets invaded and exploited. If they are too stupid and weak to fight back or do anything about it, they become extinct. Yet what are the BNP doing? Asking for more Socialism but for whites only, the very thing that started this country's addiction to cheap foreign labour. Do more of the same, get more of the same!

"We are opposed to modernism when it invades the sacred spaces of our country and the life streams of our people and culture."

You sound just like a Luddite. Are you sure that this is the best way forward for the British people in the 21st century? Darwin's theory was that only the fittest and most adaptable species will survive in the long term ...

Lee John Barnes said...

"I find the concept of 'McPolitics' an interesting one but essentially a facile concept for real political parties."

So you call Athenian Democracy "McPolitics", do you?

**** The idea that the state we live in is anything like Athenian democracy is so laughable to be beyond any comment. Athenian democracy was a system based on ancestral rights, the present British state is based on immigrant rights. As for athenian democracy - you accuse me of being a luddite - it is those that want to replicate the political models of ancient greece are the ultimate political Luddies.

That is in essence what 1Party it is offering: a virtual single party state that allows you to express your political views on all important aspects of government policy, and which COMPELS you to think independently without reference to tribal party loyalty. I guess this is too much for most people to grasp and perhaps a bit scary when they don't know the answer.

**** The idea that the mass of ordinary media conditioned people are capable of independent thought is riduclous. First we must deal with the media before the individuals in our society are capable of independent thought - read Herbert Marcuse 'The One Dimensional Man' for a detailed analysis of the probem.

However, at 1Party, you only answer the questions you care about, and leave the others to others.

Have you even looked at its opinion polls? I think someone who is one of your supporters actually said he would be happy with a party like that - at any rate with its current collective opinion.

***** Since when did collective opinion ever change anything for the better in the present system, collective opinion and the social consensus is a product of the media not of independent thought. Just because a thousand sheeple bleat their support for a policy they are told to support does not make that policy correct.


Obviously it will change the moment a new member registers and starts voting on a range of issues.

I notice that, like UKIP, the BNP *CLAIMS* to support Direct Democracy, but only on its own terms!


***** We support Direct Democracy solely on the basis that the media that create the opinions of the masses in our society is changed. That way individuals will have to discover their own opinions instead of vomiting up the opinions the media feed them.


At least I have realised that, if you do believe in democratic government, you must at some point have to trust people to make the right decisions, without your hectoring them or preventing them from asking or answering questions.

****** Whare are you making this up from ? We believe the people should run the country not the media - change the media first, allow individuals to reclaim their individual opinions and then allow them their rights to decide what they want. At the moment the masses are just sheep led to any opinion they are told too by the media. We want a nation of individuals with a range of free opinions - not a nation of sheep all with the same opinions of the corporations that own the media.



"As stated in the article it is the media who control politics, and therefore unless the media are sorted out then any political system that uses such a method will be controlled by the media."

How are you going to control the media when you haven't any connections, are completely clueless about media management but don't want to take lessons, seize opportunities or take risks?

******* 1) CHANGE THE LAW
2) Its not us who obviously needs lessons on the media , its you.


"Nationalist politics represent eternal principles as opposed tothe present political system that represents transient interests - Nationalism represents the land, the indigenous peope, our culture, our British constitution, our ancestral heritage and our ancient liberties."

When you start talking about "eternal" principles, you make me think of religious fanatics who go on about "divine principles".

******* Is the bio-sphere not an eternal principle , is not the needs for trees to give us oxygen an eternal principle, is not a homeland for our people not an etrrnal principle, should we not remember the sacrifices of the generartions of our people who bequeathed us our rights and liberties as eternal principles, should we discard our culture, language, art, traditions etc etc or are they eternal principles - stop talking such tendentious nonsense. Nationalism is based on eternal principles rooted in reality - not religious principles situated in the nebulous and the divine.


Whoever is stupid, weak and wealthy gets invaded and exploited.


***** No, whoever is educated to be ignorant and weak by those that control their society gets invaded and conquered. Before a civilisation falls from without, it must be destroyed from within. Thats the fundamental principe of the downfall of civilisations in history.

If they are too stupid and weak to fight back or do anything about it, they become extinct. Yet what are the BNP doing? Asking for more Socialism but for whites only, the very thing that started this country's addiction to cheap foreign labour. Do more of the same, get more of the same!

******* More nonsense. This 'the BNP supports socialism' type garbage is nothing more than a neonorman tebbit rant. We support SOCIAL JUSTICE not socialism. We believe the best should rule, not the most corrupt. We believe in meritocracy not oligarchy, plutocracy, heterarchy and a disctatorship of the media, money or the EU.



"We are opposed to modernism when it invades the sacred spaces of our country and the life streams of our people and culture."

You sound just like a Luddite. Are you sure that this is the best way forward for the British people in the 21st century? Darwin's theory was that only the fittest and most adaptable species will survive in the long term ...

***** a Luddite rejects technological prgress - we dont. Read the section above for the eternal principles we stand for ;

The eternal survival of the British natural environment so that future generations of our children may have clean water, clean air, fresh food and a nation that is filled with natural beauty

The right of the indigenous
British people to always be the masters in their own homeland

the eternal existence of our British culture and history

The eternal remembrance of our ancestors

The remembrance of our dead heroes and their sacrifices for us and the freedoms they fought and died for

our British language

our traditions and heritage

our British Constitution and the rights and liberties of our people

etc etc

Andromeda said...

In case you hadn't noticed, the system of Direct Democracy I am proposing most resembles shareholder democracy that is NOW in use.

As for Herbert Marcuse's One Dimensional Man thesis, I propose solving the problem by promoting the use of Direct Democracy by fringe parties.

1Party4All is being marketed as a virtual one-party state that COMPELS its members to think independently, without reference to tribal party loyalty.

What possible objection can you have to this?

Your manifesto claims to support Direct Democracy, like UKIP's, but obviously only on your own terms!

Have you had a look at it, Lee?

The most popular topic is a question about your party.

Have a look at its members' views.

Now, don't you think a 1Party banner would sit quite well on the BNP website?

In case you are wondering, it is NOT a registered political party - thought it may sound like one - but an opinion-polling politics website promoting Direct Democracy.

Lee John Barnes said...

Andromeda I am total support of Direct Democracy such as referenda etc and peoples courts etc but the problem I have is that such a system will only work AFTER we get into power and change the power of the media and allow people to re-educate themselves rather than allowing them to carry the false beliefs,false consciousness and false needs that the media have inculcated into them.

Freedom begins when one first realises that one is a slave.

At that point the self begins the struggle for freedom, until that point the slave remains unaware of their bondage.

A slave in chains is more free than the slaves in our society, as the slave in chains is aware of their slavery and fights for their freedom. The slaves in our society have no idea they are slaves of the media and therefore have no concept of freedom or their individuality. We slavishly follow the creedo of political correctness in our Public Lives and abandon our individuality to consumerism in our private lives.

We are the tribes of Nike and Reebok and coporate whores instead of a proud British people with a strong Britidsh culture and also cringing lickspittles of anyone that dares mutter the word'racism' who crawl away and hide in case of being labelled a 'racist' by any jumped up fifthwit

Believing what the media tell you, buying what the media tell you to buy and living how the media tell you how should be living and swopping consumerism for British culture and comfort for liberty are how the slaves remain in chains of their own ignorance.

Andromeda said...

At least we are agreed then, that the beginning of freedom is when we first realise we are enslaved.

I am just a little cross that an excellent opportunity was missed today after reports that Cambridgeshire police was appealing for extra funding to deal with extra immigrant criminals.

If a 1Party banner was already in place at the BNP website, it would have picked up quite a few new members, since I imagine this is the sort of news that would have sent people there IN DROVES.

It doesn't matter that Direct Democracy cannot at the moment work.

The website just polls the opinions of people who care enough to register their view. Should it become big enough, its views will be unignorable because its membership composition will be diverse and will not be tarred with the same racist brush as you lot.

Do you realise how many non-whites - including the Muslims you loathe - are complaining about uncontrolled immigration???

Not many people realise that the Muslims and the BNP are agreed about one very important thing and have been proven to be right - the Iraq invasion. I was at the demo in 2003 and saw almost everyone there - Liberals, the BNP, Muslims, Jesse Jackson, Ken Livingstone etc, and thought what a shame it was that Blair was going to get his way because the faeces-like Cameron felt he had to vie with Blair in playing Britain's traditional role as America's poodle.

If we could all have voted about invading Iraq, do you think it would have happened? I like to think not, anyway.

Direct Democracy: making the most of our agreement!