British Nationalists and The Holy Grail

Andrew Brons – Sheffield Talk – 10th June 2017

The Holy Grail that has been sought, by Nationalists and occasionally even found – at least for limited periods – has been Nationalist Unity. It was found in the late 1960s with the National Front and in the first decade of the 2000s with the BNP until its Chairman decided to destroy it.

I will certainly be courting controversy, if I say that the search for complete, all-embracing Nationalist Unity will be fruitless and might even be misjudged. What might be more realistic and indeed more desirable would be Nationalist complementarity. Rather than trying to shepherd all Nationalists into a single organisation, papering over real differences, perhaps we should accept that different organisations might work towards those aims and beliefs that we do have in common, in an understated if not overtly mutually supportive way.

Nationalists have ideologies that are shared but also differ.

By and large, the core descriptive parts of our ideologies are shared by all Nationalists. By descriptive, I mean how we perceive the world and humanity to be, as distinct from how we think it ought to be, though parts of that are shared too.

This is particularly true of our shared belief, because it happens to be the truth, that human differences between different peoples and between different individuals are much more attributable to heredity or nature than is usually acknowledged and much less attributable to environment, upbringing, nurture than is usually acknowledged.

This is true of intelligence and other abilities; it is true of personalities; it is true of behaviour.

We also share a core prescriptive belief that the identity of our people but also the identities of other peoples are valuable assets that must be safeguarded for the future.

It is in the broader prescriptive parts of our ideologies – what principles should govern the nature of our society and state structure – our preferred vision for the future that differences among different strands of Nationalism will be seen.

There are also differences in strategy – broadly between those of us who see an electoral route, without playing down the difficulties and those who say there can be no electoral route.

Among the latter there are differences between those who see themselves as lobbyists for a different world view – presumably persuading those who are in power that they ought to adopt our policies and those see an alternative route to power for Nationalists.

I do not underestimate the obstacles that face us on the electoral route – they are enormous – but all the other routes are infinitely more fraught with difficulty. Assuming that nobody is proposing a coup d’état – that would be dealt with by the state is a fraction of a nano second – what are the other routes? Do we hope that we can persuade Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn over to our point of view? By comparison, the electoral route looks like plain sailing. Do we imagine that there will be a spontaneous uprising by millions of indigenous Britons? A spontaneous shrug of the shoulders or yawn would be more likely. Do we think that all of the ethnics in our midst are going to buy their tickets back home?

Those of us who see the electoral route as the only route to power and office, however great the difficulties, must ensure that any political party – the vehicle for electoral success and the public face of its membership – is fit for purpose. Those who seek election must be electable.

What is more, the activities of an electable party must be the activities that the electorate expects of a political party. They must be confined to political campaigning and not extend to activities associated with unruly lobbyists and street fighters.

I do not think that I am likely to be thought of as a fan of Mr. Griffin but I would praise one change he initiated in the activities of the BNP. He stopped it from taking part in marches and noisy street demonstrations.

Now, there will be those among us who have enjoyed street demonstrations and marches and I would count myself among you. Furthermore, some are convinced that they have a part to play in creating a climate of opinion.

There are two distinct points here.

We are not in Politics for our personal enjoyment. We must judge activities by whether they advance or retard the cause.

Secondly, an activity might help to create a favourable climate of opinion and yet, at the same time, damage the electability of a Party taking part. Electors might at one and the same time be persuaded by the message but unfavourably impressed by the fact that the messenger is bringing it. As they say in God’s own county: “There nowt so queer as folk”.

In my view, organisations and individuals must decide whether they want to be electable politicianbs or street lobbyists. Those who want to be street lobbyists should leave political campaigning to those who do not.

Street lobbying by organisation A might then truly complement and assist the strictly political campaigning by organisation B.

Some prescriptive ideologies – however sincerely believed in and however worthy the holders of those ideologies – would make those holders unelectable for the foreseeable future. To put it simply, voters will be reluctant to vote for people they believe will prevent them from ever voting again.

So what can we do that would be complementary, if not necessarily suitable for doing together?

I have often said that we must all engage in a War of Ideas. The ideas on which we should concentrate should be those on which all Nationalists agree – the shared descriptive parts of our ideology and which distinguish us from all of the other parties from Communists, Trotskyites, Greens Labour, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives to UKIP.

The central plank here is nature over nurture or, if you prefer it, heredity over environment. We must not overstate our case but we must say that the role of heredity has been routinely ignored and the role of the environment has been grossly exaggerated and even assumed. In fact the evidence supports the opposite conclusion – that numerically countable differences are attributable mainly to heredity rather than the environment.

If we concentrate only on policies and neglect our ideological position, we should not be surprised if our policies are seen to be irrelevant and misguided.

The public has been misinformed and misled about the roles of heredity and environment throughout their lives and not just (or even mainly) by politicians but by the educational system and the media – not just in documentaries but in so-called entertainment and even in advertisements. Big business has taken it upon itself to proselytise in favour of multi-racialism.

The public is told continually, if not quite continuously, that we are born with a clean slate – a tabula rasa – and our abilities, personalities, and therefore our behaviour are imprinted on us by our experience.

If you believe that, you can easily be made to believe that a falling birthrate among the indigenous population and ageing population can be compensated by allowing and encouraging immigration of young adults from the Third World.

It is only when we re-educate the population with the truth that Afro- Asians are indelibly different from us that our people can be made to see the necessity for that migration flow to be stopped and put into reverse.

When the whole of public policy is based on a lie, the lie must be exposed and replaced with the truth in order for policies to be rectified.

This re-education process can be done separately by different organisations, if that is necessary, but in a way that is complementary – mutually sustaining and supporting.

The role of heredity is relevant not just to immigration policy but to criminology and therefore law and order, to social policy and to education policy. However, we can return to that on another occasion.

Our message is often – or should I say invariably – described as one of hatred. I would not simply refute that; I would say that it was the opposite of the truth.

Our opponents’ attitude to the ethnic- others in our midst and whom they, our opponents, welcome to our shores, is that their ethnicities are unimportant; indeed that they are superficial. They are so superficial that they can be airbrushed out and the words British Citizen overprinted in their place.. If that is not treating them with contempt, I do not know what would be.

We, on the other hand, recognise that their ethnicities are deeply rooted to the core of their beings. That is what defines them; that is what identifies them; that is what tells them who they are. That is truly respecting them and recognising and respecting their differences.

Our opponents love the word diversity and claim that they are promoting it. In fact, they are promoting only a very short term diversity in European countries. For the long term, they plan and they promise global homogeneity – the genocide of the European peoples, in particular, and potentially of all distinct peoples.

We stand for global diversity in all its glory – respect for all the distinct peoples who make up human kind. That diversity is the strength of humanity and we are determined to protect and promote it.

Just in case some of you are feeling less than persuaded by my last remarks, I would ask you to consider a connected but distinct point.

Since the advent of Islamist terrorism in Europe, British governments have been reluctant to single out Muslims for particular scrutiny. They are desperate to look for – and find – a spurious balance – an opportunity to subject a section of the indigenous population – Nationalists – to the same scrutiny and restrictions as they will have to some Muslims. Of course there is no equivalence. Members of the indigenous population who have committed terrorist acts have been a tiny handful – Copeland, the nail bomber at the end of the twentieth century and Thomas Mair in 2016. Neither was involved in Nationalist politics. Indeed they were entirely unknown.

The Government has spoken of clamping down on hate speech. In the case of Muslims that will apply only to those who advocate murder and other extreme violence. In the case of Nationalists, it will extend to those who oppose multi-racialism.

It will not be enough for us to moderate our speech to avoid putting our heads in the proverbial noose. It will be necessary for us to proclaim in loud voices that we engage in the opposite of hate speech.

That does not of course mean that we join UKIP in playing the multi-racial card. It means that while sticking to our principles, we play the respect-for-difference card – one that is principled and protective at one and the same time.

We have not achieved Nationalist Unity. We have not even achieved Nationalist Complementary. However, we have achieved Nationalist Symbiosis and Mutual Acceptance. The evidence for this is to be found in meetings like this.