Two foxes shot but what about the elephant?

By Mike Newland.


For a generation the British political system has largely silenced dissent against the turning upside down and obvious eventual obliteration of our people by consequence of its unrelenting immigration and claimed ‘enrichment’ and ‘diversity’ policies.

The selfishness of politicians and their ruthlessness in pursuing their own short-term career interests without a national revolt against them is one of the wonders of the age. How have they got away with it? How could obviously absurd levels of immigration which undeniably amount to population replacement be pushed out of regular discourse and been made unmentionable.

The technique has been in essence been to jump in and complete the sentences of complainants before they do so themselves with a standard repertoire of inserted dialogue which amounts to “So you hate foreigners and are prejudiced against other races”. Few could stand up to it.

The nationalist movement has been less than ingenious in finding ways round the bullying and simply engaged in headlong verbal conflict which emphasised to others that the risk of speaking out was not worth it.

UKIP – whatever you think of it – has been far more ingenious than nationalists. You may call it more evasive if you wish but the fact is that its prominence has substantially killed off the old tactics employed by the political system. The full chorus about ‘racism’ and so on was deployed against UKIP during the recent European election campaign by the entire apparatus of politicians, left-wing mobs and the major newspapers. It almost entirely bounced off.

‘Racism’ is never going to be as effective a silencer as it was. Nor is mentioning immigration ever again going to be so demonised. Both these official foxes are perhaps not shot dead but certainly gravely wounded. Simon Heffer in the Daily Mail says that it’s time the great R word was banned. Changing times!

In the world of twenty years ago we might have found great comfort and signs of possible hope for our country from defeat of the almost entirely bogus crimes of ‘racism’ and opposition to migration. If immigration had been halted then our country would be safe.

Unhappily, it’s no longer enough when so many millions have since entered Britain and are increasing in numbers so fast internally. From this elephant in the room we are required to divert our gaze. UKIP will not touch the subject. We are supposed to believe that all be well if immigration is slowed when it’s now too late for that. Even without further migration we will be overwhelmed.

At this point the official retort is to ask what one would do about it. The answer is that even if nothing can be done people are entitled to know the position they will face in future and to debate it. To what extent will growing communities from abroad coalesce into particular areas for example? What protections will a white British minority enjoy? What about resources – water, energy? What about the technological revolution in software which may make umpteen millions more redundant from the economy. The Tories are now – in the wake of UKIP’s electoral success – talking about telling people from EU countries to leave if they don’t find jobs. They won’t do it but a line has been crossed.

The purpose of the question about what one would do is, of course, to elicit something which can be presented as the proverbial cattle trucks being employed to remove people. Somehow it’s made out to be unthinkable that anyone should leave for reasons of protection of identity even if they are merely economic migrants well equipped with their own homelands to return to. However much they wish to alter our country to resemble their homelands it’s also unthinkable to refuse although a little fudging is in order.

We require a national debate about the future of Britain which does not pretend that both ancestral Britons and newcomers can both receive all they want by some magical process sold as either ‘integration’ or ‘enrichment‘. We need a debate about the fairness of what has been done to our country instead of slyly asserting some form of guilt about which the British are required to atone and which makes any objection at all unreasonable.

In the same manner in which UKIP has managed to defuse much of the poison of the ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’ attacks concerning immigration we need to put debate about the millions already here onto a rational basis perfectly fit for discussion.

That is not a job which UKIP is currently prepared to undertake. It’s one the nationalist movement must address. The elephant in our room can no longer be airily ignored.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. (Party Member) Talking about people in the media trying to re-write history or over influencing items in the news, how about Sky News. Although about four out of ten for fairness, compared to the B.B.C. at one out of ten, Eamon Holmes has finally overreached himself by attacking someone for mentioning the elephant in the room. In recent years the smiling Irishman with the classless accent has become very pro-Labour, very stern faced and scathing in his biased comments regarding items in the news. He was very rude about false flag Nigel’s comment about people being concerned if a group of Romanians moved next door to them. This backfired as most people, if they were prepared to admit it , did not agree with angry looking Eamon, but did agree with Farage. Eamon Holmes wants to remember that he is a WELCOME GUEST in this Country and like any GUEST must not interfere or OVERSTAY HIS WELCOME !

    • JohnShaw, Eamonn Holmes is at home! He comes from Belfast in Northern Ireland and the last time I looked NI was still a part of the United Kingdom!

  2. UKIP is Nationalism with brains and political savvy – we should have had brains & savvy in Nationalism at least 60 years ago, instead of a succession of blunt instruments, in which case the country would not be the abject catastrophe it now is: however, better late than never! Of course, all the blunt instruments will disagree and take potshots at UKIP. Instead, we should follow their example – it’s a wakeup call to all British Nationalists of any denomination! Have we all forgotten the important and very true saying; “United We Stand, Divided We Fall”?

    • Peter, UKIP is NOT a nationalist party. It’s a Thatcherite Tory Party that simply wishes to get Britain out of the EU. That being said, they do present what they stand for fairly well and as politics is sadly more about perception than reality we can learn some lessons in how to market ourselves and our ideology. This is something genuine nationalist parties in Britain have been abysmal failures at.

      I think we should look towards Marine Le Pen and her FN party for a guide as to the right way to sell our policies and philosophy.

      • Steven, I accept what you say, that UKIP is not a Nationalist party. However, I think it could be a political “foot in the door” for Nationalism if only Nationalists were to present a common united front, instead of lots of splinter groups with delusions of grandeur similar to the Warmington-on-Sea Home Guard (who thought they were the only barrier to invasion). You are right that the French Front National is a shining example to us all, but my point is really that it only became able to surge forward with increased credibility in the polls after Marine Le Pen took over the management from her father and restructured the party’s image. I suppose it’s a case of “credibility is everything”. Current British Nationalism has no credibility with which to attract non-nationalist voters because there is no united effort or charismatic inspiring leader. It’s just a number of rival “Home Guards” under various Captain Mainwarings, none of whom have registered the fact that they can do nothing alone. The struggle to be King of the Castle destroys the Castle! In this respect, Ukip – even though not Nationalists – demonstrates what Nationalism SHOULD look like to the public! After all (and probably not the best analogy), Hitler did not come to power by promising people the Gestapo, concentration camps and war.

        • Marine Le Pen should be an inspiration to all European nationalists. She has cleverly enlarged the pool of potential voters for the FN by either ignoring/downplaying some issues or moderating the party’s stance on them so that the FN’s position is about the most acceptable ‘Right-wing stance you can get away with in modern Europe. In other words, obvious ‘headbangers’ on some of these issues have avoided joining the party because she has moderated the stance and as a result they are not interested in the FN. Therefore, she has not needed to weed these damaging people out the party.

          Politics is very much about image and how you present what you stand for. Marine Le Pen has successfully ‘softened’ the image of her party whereas her father never really did and as a result more and more French people are listening to what the FN has to say about issues whereas before they wouldn’t have given the party a hearing.

      • (Party Member) Sadly for you Steven, you would not get on well in the Front National either. They have always had support from all sections of French society, particularly now. You do not seem to like people who have got on in life, whether they have worked hard for it or not !

    • graham thewlis-hardy

      “UKIP is Nationalism with brains and political savvy “, sorry Peter but I do not think it is. UKIP is the flavour of the month, Here today gone tomorrow or any other old hogwash you want to use .Ukip represents the ideals espoused by the Right of the Tory Party Farage has admitted as much ” if Thatcher was alive there would be no need for UKIP” being one of his more offensive ramblings . Nationalism is a dynamic force that threatens to sweep away the Political dishonesty and corruption that has become the norm. We cannot compromise, we cannot water down our beliefs,this we must never do ,or we become as corrupt as our enemies.

      • (Party Member) Well said Graham Thewlis Hardy. ” We can not compromise, we can not water down our beliefs, this we must never do or we become as corrupt as our enemies “. Well considering 2014 has shown every sign of being the turning point ( as predicted on our website ) in Nationalism’s fortunes, WHY ON EARTH WOULD WE , now we are starting to win through with public opinion turning our way as Mike Newhall is ably pointing out !

    • (Party Member) Well said Peter Mills, Ukip do present themselves well, certainly better than the ‘ old party Chairman. However, constantly taking potshots at deceptive Ukip and not promoting our wonderful Party, with it’s superb Policies, is doing us no good at all !

  3. Sensible points but one of our biggest problems is the British habit of choosing the “easy option” you know the type ,Mass immigration must be halted but I will never vote for a Nationalist candidate or the type that rages for several minutes about immigration and immigrants but then finishes by stating “but of course I am not a racist”.

  4. An excellent article with a perfect policy suggestion for the British Democratic Party to adopt. To espouse a policy which calls for a serious and adult debate about immigration surely cannot be condemned as racist. This could become a centre piece of BritDem policy and become a focal point for any future manifesto.

    • (Party Member) Yes Geoff, but we already have the very best policies. I read them and applied to Join that very day. We are superb on Immigration and Repatriation. With sensible and detailed enhancements I am sure are in the pipeline, the British Democratic Party already lead the way !

      • johnshaw, I agree with you that we have excellent policies already. My point is that the media are very quick to denounce such policies and sneer at nationalists generally. Misinterpretations and outright lies about what we actually stand for are the game of our political opponents and their media chums. My point is a simple one. If we simply call for a full and adult debate about mass immigration, and make this known to the electorate, then any misinterpretation or refusal to accept the importance of such a debate by our opponents and the media will become very difficult to justify. They will easily condemn a policy of repatriation, and one of completely stopping any further immigration as racist. This word/accusation, whether we like it or not, has become entrenched in the psyche of the British people and is something that brings the fear of potential punishment to individuals who are being cowered into submissive silence and acceptance of the enormous and unwelcome changes that mass immigration has brought. On the other hand, calling for a debate cannot be denounced without the denouncer being seen as unreasonable. The British people need to become braver, yes, they need to grow a backbone, but it is a reality that within any civilisation only a small number of people ever have the strength and courage to stand up and be counted. Those who put the good of all before themselves and their own welfare. Few will back us for being brave enough to declare that we would carry out certain policies if elected, but more might back us for demanding that we should be allowed to discuss what many are silently afraid to even mention.

  5. (Party Member) Multi-culturalism, on a large scale, is an unnatural fantasy that is not working and never will. This dreadful philosophy has been forced upon the British people in ever increasing intensity for the last forty years. Now we are seeing the unravelling of all this political correctness and desperate covering up of its failures in the ‘interest of community cohesion’ at a place called ROTHERHAM. We are in the abyss now with our major city’s and towns being on a knife edge as SHARIA LAW slowly appears. We need a return to common sense and decent British values with the British Democratic Party.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked *