Can Democracy Provide an Answer?

A personal opinion from reader Nick Grifford, originally sent in as a comment to this website on the story by Peter Mills, called “White Rights – Positive Action.” Please note this represents only the thoughts of the writer, and cannot be taken to be representative of anyone else.

I am sure that we can all appreciate the effort and the sacrifices that Mr Edmonds has made over the past four decades and only “cranks” would question his patriotism. I would agree that unity is as important as the message itself for without a cohesive body of men and women ready to push forward and advocate and adhere to their ideals, micro attempts at resisting the anti-British policies of the establishment would lead only to frustration and defeat.

Having said that, I do not believe that democratic politics is the solution to our present plight. The public are, whether we like it or not, far too complacent, inattentive and indoctrinated to even comprehend what is happening to our nation and the Western world in general. They have accepted, with very little outcry, bare-faced propaganda for nefarious purposes for an embarrassingly extensive period of time; from brutal baby murdering Germans of the pre-First World War era to the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction allegations – and now, quite possibly, Iranian nuclear weapons.

When the democrats boggle or recoil from what they observe do they protest or vote accordingly or even demand punitive measures to be taken against the traitors involved in spreading the falsehoods? It is an unfortunate fact that most merely switch over the channel to something more pleasant and once again indulge in the disconnected dream world of their existence.

The public require the leadership of true statesmen, not an uneducated ‘stab-in-the-dark’ over matters that concern the security and prosperity of their nation and offspring. We should learn from this experience and not become concatenated to the corpses of the past, repeating the same mistakes over and over until we diminish.

Until such time as an effective platform for overturning the dogmatic and dictatorial regime that we are subjected is formulated, Nationalists should stop wasting their valuable resources and energy in trying to engage with a disinterested electorate; they will come to us in time, it is inevitable. Conditions in these once fair isles will become so inimical and noxious that the native population will demand leadership – but they are not quick to act have thus far displayed no forethought whatsoever.

Exploring new avenues to strengthen our cause and movement must be a priority but preceding that even, it is our duty to finally consign party politics to the loft and leave it there for the time being. I would be the first to admit that it does provide a valuable shield against the hypocrisy of the system, but reinforcing our ‘democratic’ credentials has not so far ending physical attacks from our enemies or the unrepentant lies and distortions of the anti-British media. I wonder how many times Mr Edmonds has been asked “Do you condone violence, Mr Edmonds?” That much repeated mantra seeps into the national psyche and it undermines the very reason why the democratic position was useful to us.

And, if some of our groups are banned by our enemies, then at least we know for certain that we are finally becoming and effective opposition to the forces that would rid themselves of our kind. Utilise the despicable format that our enemies and their protégés engage in when their businesses deliberately file for bankruptcy: do they slope off in shame never to be seen again, or do they immediate set up again under a new guise? Our enemies are affective and they have soundly backed us into a corner. If we cannot analyse their strategy at this moment in time and compose an efficacious counter-assault, then there is very little hope for us and certainly only a bleak future for our children.

7 thoughts on “Can Democracy Provide an Answer?

  1. Nick, yours is a great piece of writing and I agree with what you are saying. My own article “White Rights – Positive Action” (to which your article was a reply) was an attempt to “get the ball of thought rolling” in this same kind of general direction. Someone (I forget who) once defined “Democracy” as “The Triumph of the Average”. The result of having a democratic system is that we always get an average governments. It is significant that soon after the 2nd World War started, democratic government was suspended in Britain and a “solidarity government” without party political boundaries was established. This, surely, is a clue that democratic party-political government is merely a “path of least resistance” type of government that cannot cope with major sociological upheavals or events of national crisis. I believe British Nationalism should move in the direction of becoming a “People’s Movement” rather than a political party or number of parties. That is, Nationalist political parties should, of course, continue, but we in Britain have so far tended to overlook the equal necessity of developing a Nationalist “People’s Movement” on parallel lines to the American Civil Rights movement. Black people in the USA had their priorities right – the first stage of achieving success was to encourage the rising of a popular movement consisting of a specific line of thought, a common resentment of oppression, and regional and local activist groups that were nominally allied but not all under one management or chairman (or political party). And this also did not involve starting any specific Black political party, which would have isolated the Civil Rights Movement from much public sympathy. My feeling is that here in Britain in the present day, we have concentrated too much on attempting to build a political scaffolding to support Nationalism – “dancing to the tune of the system which opposes us” – and we have largely ignored the important matter of creating a nationwide popular movement to support the Nationalist cause by applying ceaseless pressure at “street level” and, as much as possible, injecting the ordinary population with strong feelings in sympathy with the cause of Indigenous Rights. Put simply, which would be the greater first triumph for British Nationalism – the final election of two or three British Nationalist MPs to take their seats amongst over 600 others, or the achievement of massive popular support for the deliberate victimisation of Indigenous people (in fact, for all indigenous British people to become aware of the fact that this is what they are, and that their governmental system is deliberately denying them their legal rights and recognition as such indigenous people.) I fear that, by concentrating on playing the political game and trying to use this to get our message across, we have very much “put the cart before the horse”. Imagine the potential success of the last 20 years if we had spent that time establishing a “popular front” that did not have a party political basis, structure or centre, and then the BNP had been founded today on the crest of that wave! Your own statement in your article: “…Exploring new avenues to strengthen our cause and movement must be a priority but preceding that even, it is our duty to finally consign party politics to the loft and leave it there for the time being.” is, I firmly believe, an absolute necessity if the indigenous British are to reclaim control of our country.

  2. There is widespread public apathy regarding democracy in general.
    This combined with mass ignorance, spinelessness, treachery and above all demographics, could mean democracy is the thing that destroys Britain. We are fast running out of time and may well be wasting it anyway with the ballot box.

  3. Richard Edmonds is not only a tried and tested champion of our movement. But a barometer to what is and isn’t right . He’s not perfect but as perfect as one can be .
    We converse over lunch sometimes. I’ve the pleasure of knowing him over 20 years. He’s never put a foot wrong . Telling me that Griffin was not all he seemed . But religiously staye true to the BNP until it was obvious he could no longer.
    That did it for me as well. I’d have prefered to stay in, if only a dissenting vote . But supported Richard to the hilt. I dont know how many knew he was to stand against Griffin .But Andrew did instead and the leader is no more. Just lame duck, and any success that may come his way is on the legwork of the sorts like Richard.

Leave a Reply