2008 – Elections and Party Strife

Tomorrow, Friday 4th January, we will know the results of the Iowa caucus gatherings. If Mrs. Clinton is not the clear winner on the Democrat side, the MSM will spend the next week or two convincing the US people that the result did not matter.  Since Mrs. Clinton is the nominee of the Media Class, on this website we hope she loses by the proverbial mile. Given the constant showcasing of her in the Media over the preceding months, this is highly unlikely. Even if she loses Iowa by a substantial margin the MSM will spin for her a tale of triumph over adversity in the subsequent rounds for she has a long-distance strategy.

Still, an Obama win, no matter how narrow, will dent the aura of invincibility which she sought to project to the Democrat rank-and-file at the outset. If she and her Media Class sponsors have to battle him in many more States’ primaries, three things will present problems for her and them. Firstly, it will test the pretence of ‘niceness’ she is trying hard to project and force her to reveal more of her consuming ruthlessness. Secondly, it will suck extra money from her campaign coffers, though her sponsors, who represent the new rich US master class, have very deep pockets. Thirdly, it may test the loyalty to her of the African-American voting bloc, a constituency crucial to her ultimate election as President. We shall see!

On the Republican side, the likely outcome in Iowa looks like bad news for conservatives. Huckabee is a blatant and shameless populist on the campaign trail and whether there is a genuine conservative lurking below his surface is anyone’s guess. I hope we do not have to find out the hard way. One thing is certain and it is that the Iowa result will not be nearly as winnowing for Republican candidates as for Democrats.

The extreme cold weather which is gripping most of the US, including California, has put global warming on the back burner in the elections. No pun intended! If it continues, any intention that Al Gore had of putting himself forward as a unifying Democrat candidate, will go down in flames. Again, no pun intended!

I was intrigued to read Nick Griffin’s New Year message to the BNP membership. Since the Party has no internal democracy as far as I can judge, it is impossible to know for sure what the recent revolt and expulsions were about. It is always dangerous to come to any conclusion when one has only heard one side of a story. This is true in marriage disputes, criminal court cases and even global warming debates, and in the BNP dispute we are hearing only Griffin’s side of the story. Even that is couched in terms that only a Party insider, already privy to Party affairs could fully appreciate.

On this website, we are not BNP insiders and we do not go searching for BNP information on fringe websites of the Left or Right, since getting into slime is unlikely to clarify anything. We have to assume that the BNP’s internal struggle is over both policies and personalities, since all internal struggles in any political party always draw the two together. Griffin has accused his BNP opposition of wishing to take the Party back to a nakedly racist past that would make the Party unelectable. He cites his opponents’ fury over his willingness to let a Jewish woman become, not only a Party member, but an elected councilor. He also cites the case of one Laurence Rustem, who is now a BNP councilor and who has a Turkish Cypriot father. Apparently, the Sadie Graham rebels/conspirators viewed the presence of such people in the BNP ranks as a betrayal of the Party’s racial purity. Griffin alleges that they also resented the Party newspaper quoting a BNP council candidate speaking warmly of his mixed race grandchildren. It seems the man’s daughter had married an African.

It may be that Sadie Graham and her cohorts who were seeking to remove Griffin from the Party leadership, have been misrepresented, but it seems more likely that Griffin is indeed seeking to liberalize his Party’s stance on race and doing so by small incremental steps. Mr. Radical suggests that Griffin is too educated to be personally racist and is trying to inch his Party’s membership towards a more humane and civilized race policy without causing a destructive internal civil war. He may be right.

The problem for Griffin is that he has to go through some intellectual contortions in order to defend a new tolerant racial policy for individuals and at the same time stay in line with the Party’s long-stated policies on race. He ends up claiming that the BNP should not interfere in matters ‘of the heart’ where individuals are concerned and at the same time defends a policy for the UK of no miscegenation.

There is logic in arguing that races and nations have developed strengths and unique physical identities as a result of geographical and religious barriers over countless generations. It is also true that cultural identities have similarly grown from racial isolation and that cultural identity and customs are suddenly abandoned at great peril. Indeed, no people should have cultural change forced upon them, as is happening in the UK and much of Europe now. ‘Whiteness’ has increasingly become something that British people are being made to feel guilty about by their elite rulers. This is dishonest and disgraceful and the BNP is the only Party offering resistance. For this alone the Party deserves the support of all British people. Many of the Leftists who are outraged at the ‘whiteness’ of the UK’s towns and villages are emotionally sick people. Some are unhinged by Utopianism. Others know that Socialism can only be imposed on a people who have been demoralized and divided. The whole idea of swamping a proud and distinctive people with alien masses from the Third World is criminally insane and yet that is blatantly the policy of all the major Parties in the UK, for how else can the immigration situation be explained?

The BNP could and should approach the immigration/race issue from an altogether different standpoint, for it is possible, in fact quite logical, to argue that Great Britain was overcrowded long before the floodgates were opened to foreigners. It is also perfectly reasonable to oppose the cultural and racial swamping of the British people, for what is desirable about deliberately reducing the UK and indeed the world to one color and one culture? One day, well into the future, it may be that the world will be populated by one mixed race and if this comes about gradually and by the sum total of individual choices, so be it. In the meantime, the BNP can campaign to turn the clock back on forced racial and cultural immersion. Such a policy need have nothing to do with ‘blood’, impurity, inferiority/superiority and all the other Darwinian evil that was espoused by Hitler, Himmler and Houston Chamberlain. Griffin is connecting his Party to the Christian tradition of Europe when he argues that people who fall in love across the racial divide have the right to do so. The race/blood policies that some old hands in his Party appear to hold can only lead to crazy, monstrously cruel totalitarian outcomes when they are implemented. When we start to divide individuals by blood, what do we about those of mixed blood, many from sexual unions of couples who existed generations way back in the past? It is surely nonsense that anyone with even a trace of ‘black’ blood is categorized as ‘black’. We have also seen how Himmler and his SS kidnapped foreign people with blue eyes and blond hair for breeding, in a desperate and insane effort to bolster their supposed master race. None of us choose our parents or our race and surely it is the truly magnificent and civilizing achievement of Jesus Christ that he taught that all individuals are unique in their worth.

Griffin would do well to take on the Darwinian Nazis in his Party. He could lead his Party by defining the rights of the individual and by setting out a charter of those rights and the limitations that a BNP government would put on the State and its apparatus. It is here, where the individual and the State interact that all issues about race, personal freedom, economic freedom and morality are clarified. A nation State is like a family home and the traditional Christian family is a good guide to what is wise and what is foolish. Good parents do not open their doors to all and do not let outsiders occupy their house and claim ownership. Neighbors or friends who have experienced a tragedy may be given temporary shelter and that is all, for parents owe it to their children to put their interests first. The British people understand this.

If Griffin and his BNP rejected the race/blood policies and produced a written constitution for the British people that enshrined individual rights and limited the powers of the State to what is necessary to preserve the national homeland and its traditional culture, he would make it very electable and a startling contrast to the other political parties that now betray the British people. Someone should direct him to this website!

What's Your Opinion?