I like Peter Hitchins, he is a bit like that grumpy old bastard from the late 1970s who used to live down the end of your road in an wild, overgrown, jungle of a garden and who shot at the kids with an air rifle when you accidentally kicked the ball into his garden. This was back in the good old days when the local copper would arrive in just a few minutes from the local police station down the road where they had been having their dinner, and then just take the gun away from various idiots without calling for help from an S019 armed response unit and then jailing them for seven years.
We had a Peter Hitchins in my village. He was called Neville and was a flambouyant Bohemian sculptor who lived in a house that resembled Steptoes Yard. Once in a while Neville would have a turn ( usually after a drink ) and then fly out of his front door weilding a broom like a Zulu warrior in the heat of battle at Routes Drift, then begin clunking the broom about the bodies of any kids in the immediate vicinity of his property who may have kicked the football into his garden. I think I remember at some point in time that some slightly bruised and pissed off kids one evening took a green 2CV from the driveway of a house near his and then carried it down the street to his house, turned it upside down and then left it on his lawn. As an artist and a sculptor I think he must deep down have recognised the artistic merit of their youthful attempts at situationist protest art.
But like all old reactionaries Pete is in the thrall of a pious sentimentalism that has more to do with an the liturgy of Anglicanism than any contemporary political realities. Peter is the Bishop of Fleet Street, and sees the world through the rose coloured pinz-nez spectacles of the lay clergy that sit perched upon the end of his haughty raptors conk.
Peter hates the BNP because Peter is a paid apologist for those that created the state we are in - the finance capitalists, the media, the Conservative Party, the Church Of England, The Catholic Church, the economists, the middle class civic nationalists that espouse liberal values. Peter pipes the tunes his Bosses want him to play, as playing those tunes pays Peter well.
It has not been the BNP who have been in power during he collapse of our country, it been both Labour and Tory who have been in power over the decades of our nations decline and who have presided over the slow death of our community There can be no solutions to the problems of our country that comes from within the established political class of Labour, Liberal, Conservative, as these are the very basis of the problem itself.
Each of the established political parties are ideologically bankrupt - as they are all products of the 18th, 19th and 20th Century and historical era that have now ended. The 18th century was the period of Whig Toryism, the 19th century the time of Classical Liberalism and the 20th Century was the time of Labour and Leftism.
We are now in the 21st Century. The old political parties and their old ideologies are now nothing more than anachronistic dinosaurs, that are just too stupid to die off and instead just keep lumbering on and on in our society and political system causing perpetual damage and chaos. The extinction event as regards these parties happened decades ago, its just that their tiny pin like brains are too stupid to recognise their morbidity.
Nationalism, unlike Conservatism, is a political principle that is rooted in the organic traditions of the nation - from the Folk Communities of the British people (the indigenous ethnic groups of our nation - the English, Welsh, Northern Irish, the Scottish, the Irish) to the respective cultural traditions of the nation and the links between population numbers, environmental quality and economic and industrial development within the nation.
Nationalism therefore is not a product of transient political circumstances or social trends, it is based on the firm foundations of Land, Folk and Culture which are the timeless values of a living and evolving nation.
Nationalism at its centre is predicated on three essential political foundations these being ;
1) The preservation and promotion of the ancestral rights, liberties and community interests of the indigenous peoples of Great British
2) The preservation and promotion of indigenous British cultures
3) The preservation and promotion of the British natural environment so as to provide a sustainable environment for future generations of Britons
Poor old Peter acts as if we should somehow be ashamed of these things - that just because a few demented sneering liberals despise our values, that we should just abandon them.
It was not the BNP that created this crisis.
It was the Middle Class Establishment that provided the political class for this Parliamentary menace, who once elected merely spent their time in power self enriching themselves financially whilst systematically impoverishing our nation - financially, culturally, morally, internationally, environmentally, demographically and socially.
The Upper Class and Financial Class profited from the system, the Middle Class Establishment ran the system and the White working class were exploited and abandoned by it.
This is Peters attack on the BNP - and I will respond to it in italics in the essay itself ;
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/12/my-riposte-to-b.html
I get a certain amount of pleasure when BNP sympathisers realise that I genuinely do despise their party. It makes up for the gloom that settles round me when apparently sensible people reveal that they have fallen for this squalid, disreputable organisation. Some, I accept, do so in ignorance of its true nature. Far worse are those who do so despite their knowledge of its past and its founding ideas. Quite a lot of them (both sorts) seem to think that I am in some way a secret supporter of theirs, compelled by circumstances to keep my true opinions to myself. Not so. I really don't like the BNP. There is a great gulf between civilised conservatism, with its liking for the rule of law and its roots in Christianity, and the racially defined, profoundly intolerant and often unreasoning National Socialism from which the BNP originates.
Poor old Peter, he forgets that the whole basis of the rise of National Socialism was its alliance with the Christian Democratic parties and supporters within the Conservative tradition in pre-Nazi Germany. To ignore the fact that the Conservatives funded and promoted the Nazi Party as a way to 'balance' the problem of Bolshevism in Germany is to ignore history itself. Its a Tory-Maoist attempt to rewrite history. What linked both the Conservatives and the Nazis, as well as anti-Bolshevism, was Anti-Semitism, which derived from a shared Christian tradition common to the Nazis and Christian Democrats. The BNP may have its roots in the Conservative tradition that also sprouted fascism, but the Tories in Britain supplied the fascist leader of the British Union of Fascists Sir Oswald Mosely - who was also a Labour MP.
To say the BNP is somehow uniquely evil for having the same Conservative roots as the Tories, is a pathetic critique. Let us leave aside for the moment the violent records of members of this party, some of them quite prominent. Anyone can look this up if they are interested. The two things which have always alarmed me most about the BNP are in its constitution, a document not much trumpeted. This lies behind and beneath manifestoes and policy statements cunningly constructed to appeal to disaffected Tory and Labour voters, and cynically feeding off genuine concerns already well-expressed by Fleet Street commentators, but which are in reality not much more than slogans, with no realistic suggestions as to how they can be achieved.
Seeing as the Tory, Labour and Liberal parties were in power when we fought the First World War and the Second World War, and all wars before that from the Act of Union unto today, then its a bit rich to knock the BNP for being 'violent'. The most violent nutter in Britain was Tony Blair and his cabal of Corporatocracy Killers, including the Tories who voted for the Iraq War. Peter also makes the mistake of conflating an election manifesto designed for ordinary people to read in elections, with the detailed plans that the party has prepared for the revolutionary re-democratisation of our nation and the empowerment of a restored British Constitution. But peter has not read those documents, plans, proposals etc - instead Peter has read the manifesto and therefore thinks he now knows all there it too know about the BNP ideology.
Thats a bit like reading the writing on the outside of a cornflake box and then telling everyone you are now an expert on organic farming and bio-sensitive agricultural production techniques. Section 2 (1), which reveals the roots of The BNP founders' thinking, and says who is allowed to join, gives the whole game away. I am referring here to the 2004 version, apparently the eighth edition, which can be reached on the web via the Wikipedia BNP entry. Here are some samples. The BNP, it says rather ambitiously," represents the collective National, Environmental, Political, Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain. Membership of the BNP is strictly defined within the terms of, and our members also self-define themselves within, the legal ambit of a defined racial group, this being 'Indigenous Caucasian" and defined 'ethnic groups' emanating from that Race as specified in law in the House of Lords case of Mandla v Dowell Lee" - and so it goes on, with another clause listing a series of acceptable 'Folk Communities'.
In short, it doesn't matter what you believe or what sort of person you are. If you are a socially and politically conservative monarchist Christian, opposed to further immigration and fully in sympathy with the BNP's stated manifesto aims, that's not enough. What they really care about is your racial pedigree.
No peter - we are interested in your racial pedigree but your NATIONALITY, as the BNP follow the principle of nationalism defined by Jus Sanguinis as the primary model of British nationalism, as opposed to the internationalist model as defined by Jus Solis. Jus Sanguinis is the basis of nationality in states such as Britian, America, Israel, Canada, Germany, Ireland and Greece and is a component of the indigenous nationalist traditions of those nations going back thousands of years which is defined a product of the thinking of Fichte and also Ferdinand Tonnies in his theory of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, 1887), as opposed to Jus Solis which is a product of Ernest Renan's republican conception of nationality based on French Republican traditions.
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Renan
The BNP are the defenders of our national tradition going back thousands of years, whilst Hitchins an ill informed old goat bleating back at people the learnt by rote facile rhetoric of the Republican, Liberal and socialist idealists of the 20th century who led Europe into the Gulags of the Socialist Genocide with their idiotic and anti-natural ideologies. That seems pretty clear to me. I think we know what sort of people talk about 'Folkish' and 'Folk Communities' and are interested in whether you are Norse or not. The roots of the BNP are tangled up in the lives of such people as the late John Tyndall, whose pathetic Judophobic obsessions and Neo-Nazi dalliances (often involving sad photographs of men in uniforms, simultaneously pathetic and sinister) are another giveaway.
Just as pathetic as pictures of Labour MP's giving the right on lefty salute at the Hammer and Sickle during the Cold War, or John Major shaking Nelson Mandelas hand (TERRORIST !!!) or the Queen having tin pit dictators to tea in the name of British trade and exports. I don't think the BNP's current smooth PR alters the fact that we are here dealing with something outside the rules of reason. That's why I'm perfectly happy to use, and see the use of, mocking epithets about the BNP and about Holocaust deniers.
Here we go - the Ad Hominem attacks begin. The BNP are not Holocaust Deniers, we are Free Speech Supporters, which means we are believers in the principle of free speech as opposed to Liberal Fascist patrionising paternalism which tells us what to think or say. Mockery is generally believed to be the best way of responding to delusional cults, and those who specifically reject reason and truth in their discourse cannot really be treated as if they are civilised participants in the national debate. You might as well try to play cricket, adhering strictly to its laws, with someone who uses a hand-grenade instead of a cricket ball.
Oh Peter, you are a wag. It appears that you are in fact a member of a delusional cult yourself old bean, a cross between Anglicanism and Walt Disney Toryism where history has been replaced by the fouding myths of Conservative Party Headquarters (and its petty little dissidents who go' Yah Booh Sucks and cock a snook at the present leader). .
My general rules for abuse are as follows. It is justified in the conditions set out above. It is justified against powerful people who can defend themselves. It should at least try to be witty and avoid expletives or lavatory wall language. Otherwise it is best avoided.
Except of course when the abuse is dished out at the BNP from the electronic pulpit of the Tory Bishop of Fleet Street, Saint Peter The Misunderstood Genius, Oh Persecuted Martyr Of All Reactionary Conservatives In Exile From Cameron The Fool and The Servant Of Evil The BBC, (Or The Beast As it Shouldeth Be Known), Oh Dweller In The Ivory Tower Of Traditional Toryism, Blessings Be Upon His Type face, Glory To His Computer And His Expenses Account, Unto The End Of The Corporatocracy, Amen.
