A Speech by Andrew Brons – London Nationalist Meeting – 21st June 2017
We in the Nationalist Movement – regardless of party or non-party organisation – are fundamentally different from every other party or grouping, all the way from the Trotskytists and Communists through Labour, Liberal Democrats, to the Conservatives and UKIP. Furthermore, they all have fundamental beliefs in common and they are wrong.
Am I talking about policy? No, there are indeed differences between them on immediate policy objectives. Their similarity goes much deeper than that. Their similarity is of fundamental beliefs – descriptions about the nature of humanity – how humanity is and prescriptions about humanity – what we want for humanity or our part of it. Our difference with all of them is not confined to policy but is ideological even philosophical.
How might we sum up those differences? Well essentially it concerns what used to be called the nature-nurture debate or if you prefer it the heredity-environment debate – whether observed differences between different branches of humanity – population groups, races, are attributable to inborn differences, which they are to a large extent or are attributable to experience, upbringing or the environment, which they are not to any significant extent. All the others believe that abilities and behaviour are the product of culture. Equally, unusual attainment or unusual deviance from acceptable behaviour or criminality is assumed to be attributable to experience. Whenever there is a particularly unpleasant murder the question is routinely asked, “Whatever could have made him or her behave like that?” This is sometimes followed up by the unquestioned premise: “People are not born murderers, you know”. The interlocutor never queries that assumption. It is simply accepted without question.
Today, you could be forgiven for calling it the nurture-nurture consensus. It is not so much that the debate is simply biased in favour of the nurture hypothesis, as that the nature explanation, the heredity explanation is written out of the question. It is not just that we are led to a nurture conclusion; nurture is assumed to explain everything without the need for argument. There is no debate. There is simply assumption – a false assumption.
What is the source for this bizarre skewed thinking or rather lack of thinking? It can be traced back to one Franz Boas, the founder of the School of Social Anthropology, and to his energetic disciple, Margaret Mead. Their assumption (I shall not dignify it by calling it a conclusion) is that differences in behaviour between different branches of humanity are attributable to culture, as though culture – like the air that we breath – is something that is autonomous and determining and we are all its products.
Incidentally, the School of Social Anthropology has taken over its host and is now routinely described simply as Anthropology. One of its product students – perhaps I should say victims – is our own beloved Prince of Wales, which might explain some of his antics, especially after the Lewisham riot in 1977. I can only say in earnest, “God save the Queen!”
This bacillus, Social Anthropology – I shall not lend credence to the idea that it is an academic school – has had enormous influence throughout the academic world and throughout the media and the world of ideas. In the words of Margaret Mead:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that has.”
Some might ask: “What has all of this got to do with Politics?” Well, almost everything!
If you believe that differences are attributable to culture, to experience, all you have to do is to change the culture and you will succeed in changing the people. If you find – as we and all Europeans are finding -that falling birth rates and greater longevity are leading to ageing populations and increases in the dependent proportion of the population, you might easily be persuaded that the solution is to import younger fertile members of Third World populations who will rejuvenate the populations of Britain and the rest of Europe. The incoming populations will take off their cultural overcoats at the port or airport of entry and put on a British or other European cultural overcoat and Hey Presto – they become new Britons or New Europeans.
Wonderful, a truly magical solution. Except for just one thing: They don’t!
When you import populations from the Third World, they do not become New Britons, New Europeans. They turn more and more parts of Britain and the rest of Europe into the Third World.
Distinctive peoples are not the product of distinctive cultures. Distinctive cultures are the product of distinctive peoples. Differences in intelligence and other abilities and differences in behaviour are more attributable to differences in heredity than they are attributable to differences in environment. In particular, the average of IQ among the Sub-Saharan African population is thirty – not three or thirteen – IQ points below the average of Europeans. However, there is no uniform level; these are just averages.
All of the other parties either do not see immigration as a problem at all – Jeremy Corbyn – or they see it as a problem of numbers – space not race. That is an expression I heard even in the BNP in the middle of the first decade of this century. The bacillus had not kept itself to other parties; it had started to infect the Nationalist Movement.
What about the prescriptive part of our ideological difference from all of the others? We believe that it is vital that we preserve the genetic identity of the people of Britain and of the peoples of the rest of Europe so that our descendants can be as like us as possible.
What does all of this mean for us in the Nationalist Movement?
Whilst it is necessary for us to point out differences in policy, that is not sufficient. It is also necessary that we must engage in a currently non-existent debate about nurture v. nature. We must, in parallel with our political struggle, fight a War of Ideas. If the debate is currently non-existent, we must make it exist, within our limited ability to do so.
Why and How?
Why? Because our policies are extremely vulnerable without their ideological roots. They are too easily written off and rejected as irrational, as the result of prejudice, as motivated by hatred – even by those who would intuitively have some sympathy for our viewpoint.
Of course, those labels – irrational, prejudiced, even motivated by hatred would be better deserved by the nurturists so admired by the Establishment. They are the ones who irrationally deny the evidence available and arrive at conclusions contradicted by that evidence. They are the ones so motivated by hatred of their own people that they want to subject them to genocide by dilution.
All the evidence is that heredity sets the parameters within which the influence of nurture is limited. The separated identical twin studies, when compared with unrelated children brought up together show that the influence of heredity is overwhelming when compared with nurture. Less quantifiable would be the concept of personality but the evidence is still striking.
Identical twins in the United States: Jim Lewis and Jim Springer were separated at birth and brought up separately. They both married women called Betty and then women called Linda. The both had sons and called them James Alan. They both had dogs and called them Toy. They had the same hobbies, tastes and even bad habits, such as chain smoking.
Then there were the so-called Yufe twins. They were born in the 1930s in Germany to a German mother and an American Jewish father. The father left with one of them the other remained with his mother before, during and after the War. They did not meet again until the 1960s. When they met they were wearing strikingly similar clothes. They had the same tastes in food and the same sense of humour and the same social habits and matrimonial record of shouting at their wives leading to their divorce. They disagreed about recent German history and the Second World War which resulted in their alienation from each other – perhaps not surprisingly.
More controversially, the anthropologist Jean-Philipe Rushton found that levels of testosterone and other inherited differences varied between different races and this led to behavioural differences that facilitated generalisations being made. Of course, races do not have uniform personalities but there are modal similarities. We are often told that we cannot make generalisations. We can. Insurance companies make a lot of money from making generalisations. What you cannot do or should not do, is to apply those generalisations to all members of a population.
It is vital that members of the Nationalist Movement, regardless of party or other organisation, know and understand the ideological roots of our policies. Only then will they be able to resist dilution of, and assaults on, our policies. Only then, will they be able to convince others of our political position. Some potential voters and potential members will have been brainwashed by the Establishment’s nurturism and will need to have that countered by those recruiting them to our cause.
When I joined the BNP in 2005, I noticed that there was a concentration on pragmatic arguments for our policies rather than deeper ideological justifications. Whether this was the result of a deliberate strategy to make the BNP more similar to other parties and therefore more acceptable or whether it was simply the result of too many people joining too quickly. As I said earlier, I heard at one Harrogate meeting, the speaker saying that the problem with immigration was “space, not race”. I resolved to counter that tendency, as much as I could.
It is also important that we should, as much as we can, re-ignite the nature-nurture debate, in the wider community. This will involve identifying and targeting opinion formers and opinion communicators. Many names of senior civil servants and journalists are in the public domain. This will be a most difficult project because the Establishment places enormous emphasis on tutoring – that is brainwashing – their functionaries in the public sector and among journalists, with the Establishment’s myths and lies.
Whilst the general public, like the Proles in Orwell’s 1984, are allowed a fairly long leash, the Establishment’s functionaries, in the Civil Service, local government, the police forces and in journalism, like Orwell’s Outer-Party members, are kept under tight surveillance and constantly reminded how they must think – or should that be how they must not think. There is constant in-service training in the Establishment’s orthodoxy. There was one station sergeant who was asked at the desk by an asylum seeker from Afghanistan how to get to the municipal offices. The sergeant gave him directions and when the asylum seeker had left he joked to colleagues that he had managed to travel several thousand miles without directions but need help to travel the last mile. He was disciplined and demoted to constable.
The police are constantly monitored to see whether they are committing any racial heresies. It is not sufficient for a serving officer to refrain from speaking any heresies himself or herself. If an officer hears another officer uttering the forbidden, that officer is under a solemn duty to inform on the heretical colleague or that officer will also be disciplined. There was one station sergeant who was asked at the desk by an asylum seeker from Afghanistan how to get to the municipal offices. The sergeant gave him directions and, when the asylum seeker had left, he joked to colleagues that he had managed to travel several thousand miles from Afghanistan, without directions but needed help to travel the last mile. He was disciplined and demoted to constable
Nevertheless, there must be plenty of silent heretics in all of the public sector and among journalists – some at a senior level. There is a tendency among Nationalists to regard all of the Establishment’s functionaries as personally committed enemies. However, the statistical probability is that a percentage will see things in a way that is comparable to how we see them. Every now and then we see evidence of it. The position of Permanent Secretary is about as high as you can get in the Civil Service and we would not expect to see any of our political friends there. Not political friends, perhaps, but I can think of one former Permanent Secretary, who recognises immigration as a problem and devotes an enormous amount of energy into exposing its extent and nature. That is Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch. I am not suggesting that he is a closet Racial Nationalist. I am sure that he would be appalled at the suggestion and might even sue. However, he did once hint that different categories of immigrant might be assimilible to varying degrees.
I believe that we – not an overtly political organisation but a seemingly non-political, even academic, body – might target selected functionaries and journalists with floated ideas on heretical topics – such as the connection between heredity and intelligence or the disproportionate presence among those convicted of gun and knife crime of certain ethnic groups. We would have to be very careful not to overstate our case. Nobody is suggesting that all or most of any group are involved in any criminality – just a disproportionate number. It would be questioning rather than proclaiming. It would be hereditarianism-lite.
Who would do this? Well, there are plenty of Racial Nationalists who no longer want to chase the headlines and would prefer to keep out of the limelight. I can think of some who would be amply qualified to fulfil this task.
Does this mean that overtly political organisations would leave it to others to spread our ideology? Not at all! I believe that our message -whether spread electronically or on paper in the form of leaflets – must be a mixture of the pragmatic and the ideological. By all means, point out that immigration aggravates housing shortages, unemployment and leads to an overburdened health service. However, we must not shy away from saying that Afro-Asian immigration, in particular is a threat to our identity and that Third World immigrants do not become New Britons but turn more and more parts of our country into the Third World.
If I were to suggest that at a UKIP meeting, I would very quickly be drummed out of UKIP. They would describe my argument as extreme and argue that a moderate – that is non-racial – approach should be followed. Indeed, they would probably use the words racist and non-racist, as though those words had objective meanings.
I am all for moderation but it must the right kind of moderation and not the wrong kind.
We must avoid racial expletives and avoid blanket demonisation of any racial group. We should explain that it is the Establishment that is treating other ethnic groups with disrespect, even contempt when their ethnicities are regarded as so superficial that they can be deleted and over printed with the words British Citizen or worse British National. They might, as a fact, be British Citizens but they can never be British Nationals.
We, on the other hand, recognise that their ethnicities go to their core. They are their defining characteristic. They define them; they identify them; they tell them and us who they are. We are showing them real respect.
In contrast, the wrong type of moderation, which must be avoided at all costs, is a denial of our principles – pretending that ethnicity is only skin deep and that we are all the product of our cultures which can be changed at a moment’s notice. The wrong kind of moderation is UKIP moderation.
I have set the Nationalist Movement a comprehensive task but a very necessary one. Furthermore, it is one that takes account of its fragmented nature.
We might never see Nationalist Unity – there are real ideological differences that cannot be papered over. Furthermore, there are real strategic differences chiefly between those who see an electoral route as possible and seek an electable Nationalist party and those who say there cannot be an electoral route. I do not underestimate the difficulties with an electoral route but I am more than a bit mystified by the alternatives. I hope that I can presume that nobody is contemplating a coup d’état. That would be snuffed out by special forces within a Nano second. Do some hope that the Establishment can be won over to our point of view? Is it expected that there will be a spontaneous uprising by the entire indigenous population? A spontaneous shrug or spontaneous yawn would be more likely.
If we cannot anticipate Nationalist Unity, we do at least have some sort of Nationalist mutual tolerance and mutual respect between members of different organisations and none. This might lead to Nationalist Complementarity – a bit of a mouthful – but essentially different organisations working in a mutually beneficial way towards goals, some of which are shared.
It is meetings of this kind that provide evidence of this and facilitate it.
Of course, in the present climate, we must exercise extreme caution about the words that we use. The security services are rightly pursuing Islamist terrorism but are attracting criticism because, in doing so, they are concentrating on Muslims. Well, there is a good reason for that – Islamists are Muslims, though that is not to say that all or most Muslims are Islamists.
The Government – spurred on by the Opposition – is desperate to ‘balance’ their pursuit of Islamist terrorists with a similar pursuit of non-terrorist Nationalists. The three who have been described by the Establishment’s hate speech label for Nationalists – ‘Far Right’, who have committed (or in the case of the last suspected of committing) politically motivated acts of extreme violence: Copeland, Mair and now the person being held for the Finsbury Park attack were all disturbed loners without party affiliation.
The authorities will be going through everything that we say in the hope that they will be able to claim that we are inciting violence, however remote the possibility. They will try to claim that the person prosecuted for the Finsbury Park attack was incited by a ‘Far Right’ website. There is no doubt that there is a wave of Anti-Muslim sentiment growing in Britain and the rest of Europe but I doubt that one person in a hundred has ventured onto a Nationalist website. They have been incited, not by Nationalists but by events – Westminster, Manchester and London Bridge – as reported in the main stream media. Perhaps they should be prosecuted for reporting truthfully for a change!
The Government has spoken of clamping down on hate speech but the threshold for Islamists is when they preach violence, murder, terrorism. For us, it will be when we criticise multi-racialism.
It will not be enough simply to avoid putting our head in the noose. It will be necessary for us to proclaim that we stand for the opposite of hatred.
That does not mean that we must follow UKIP by playing the multi-racialist card. We must stick to our principles and play the respect-for-difference card.