Nationalists Discrediting Nationalism

A presentation by Andrew Brons to British Renaissance broadcast on Resistance Radio

There are many different strands of opinion among Nationalists and the range of organisations reflects these differences. However, to the media and therefore to much of the public, we are simply the Far Right – a label that my old, now late, logic tutor would have called an unfinished term because it does not say from which point it is far. We are depicted as an amorphous mass within which differences are difficult to make out – allegedly – and therefore probably non-existent. Therein lies the danger. We all stand convicted of each other’s offences. We are all smeared by each other’s antics.

Some organisations are avowedly National Socialist but many of us are nothing of the kind, supporting Parliamentary democracy and our political system. Most organisations avoid trouble and do their best to avoid prosecutions. The two examples of people, described as Nationalists, committing vile atrocities, Copeland the nail bomber and Mair the muderer of Jo Cox MP, were isolated individuals without connections to any Nationalist organisations in Britain.

However, National Action was banned by the Home Secretary after it allegedly quoted the words of Thomas Mair, with approval, or at least without disapproval, on its website. Furthermore, one of its spokesmen came rather close to advocating genocide at a Nationalist meeting.

Some Nationalists have expressed dismay at this action of the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, in banning National Action. Miss Rudd certainly attempted to justify her action by the wrong criteria, referring to National Action’s disgusting ideology – her words. The Home Secretary does not have a power to ban organisations on account of their ideologies – however disgusting the Home Secretary might think them. The ground for banning them is advocacy of terrorism.

If that is what National Action did and I have not seen its website, then it must bear responsibility for its own fate. So far, it is the only Nationalist organisation to have suffered this fate but once governments have used a controversial power once, they find it much easier to do so a second and a third time. We saw this with the first ban on a march in Greater Manchester in 1977.

National Action’s antics might just have succeeded in putting other Nationalists at risk. The Government would love to balance its ban of several Islamist organisations, with bans on several Nationalist ones. They might be content to wait patient until some lunatic joins a law-abiding Nationalist party and then commits an atrocity. They might go further and persuade a person to join and/or commit the atrocity. They might, of course, legislate changes in the Home Secretary’s powers allowing organisations to be banned on the basis of their ideologies or their antipathy to the Political Class’s alleged values.

We must be on the look out for lunatics in our ranks and if they are potentially dangerous lunatics, they must be removed using constitutional powers correctly. We must not allow the Home Secretary to be given a pretext to make further bans. We must certainly not make her a gift of such a pretext.

The dangers of being discredited do not occur only when there is the prospect of an organisation being banned. Whether we attract votes and members depends, among other things, on our image in the eyes of the public. We must appear to be the right kind of moderate, without being the wrong kind.

We must express ourselves in gentle, friendly language. We must not use racially offensive epithets. We must not make exaggerated claims about the behaviour of ethnic minorities. We must not seem to imply that all, or even most, of a particular ethnicity display an unfavourable characteristic, when that would be false. We might use the words disproportionate or disproportionately, if that is what we mean. It expresses accuracy and care about our choice of language.

We must point out that we, rather than the Political Class, treat ethnic minorities with respect. The Political Class regards the ethnicities of immigrants as a shallow outer layer that can be removed and replaced and over stamped with the words British Citizen. We recognise that the ethnicities of minorities as their defining qualities.

We must address minorities directly, urging them to be proud of their ethnicities and not to allow themselves to be robbed of their identities. They must be encouraged to re-invest themselves in their countries and continents of origin.

We must not, of course, embrace the wrong kind of moderation – betraying our principles by becoming Nationalist-Lite, like UKIP. We must not pretend that all peoples have the same potential and can be made British by the right kind of nurture.