A meeting took place in East London to mark the September 1993 election of Derek Beackon in Tower Hamlets. This election win was against all the odds, and the strategy behind it was highlighted by long-standing British nationalist Richard Edmonds. Other speakers discussed the present political system's weaknesses
Part 2 of the nationalist election success in Tower Hamlets: former East London organiser Dave King gives his perspective on the events that shook the established political system, and the mainstream media.
The third part of the tribute to nationalist strategy for electoral success in East London. Four other speakers give their views on how a small group took on the big political parties, and won. (Frank Forte, Tess Culnane, Mike Newland, Jez Turner)
Part 4 of the tribute meeting to Derek Beackon's election success in East London. Peter Rushton gives a broad view of the setbacks that nationalism has faced in three decades, and how the principles behind the effort to regain national identity have not changed
If white racists get into power using civic nationalism, the first thing they will do is kick all non whites out including you
how will you convince white racists, that brown people are ok?
you mean you want to become the leader of the ethno nationalists first and then hopefully the civics will unite behind your new brand of nationalism when they say your popularity?
why don't you just bypass ethno nationalists? why spend so much time with them? they typically are low paid, uneducated and stupid, what do you gain by persuading them of your ideas? they are no use, why not just spend time with people who are already civic nationalists and are making progress
why do you spend a lot of time in the company of people who are racist?
Claire Khaw The problem with nationalism is that nationalists have no idea what they are going to do after they have turfed people out of their country.
People need a Big Idea that they want to be part of.
Perhaps it does if you enjoy going round in ever decreasing circles.
However, since you have no one who is MP material anyway, the whole exercise is irrelevant.
The best thing you can all do is take a long-deserved rest and vote UKIP.
You won't accept this because acknowledging the truth of this means having to embrace civic nationalism.
Civic nationalism is the equivalent of asking her if you can buy her a drink.
Threatening to turf them out has not gotten you anywhere, has it?
The most successful nationalist party in Europe is Front Nationale and it is CIVIC nationalist.
When they ask you what you are going to do and how you will run the country after you have turfed out everyone you want to turf out, what have you to say to them?
This means that civic nationalism has won the argument.
Once they are here long enough they will think of supporting UKIP, or even the BNP!
Immigrants who complain about immigration are the most unrepresented lot of voter in this country.
They cannot complain to the LibLabCon because they will be reminded that they too are also immigrants, while they know the Eurosceptic parties don't like them much and they don't want to be seen as turkeys voting for Xmas.
UKIP cannot defeat the LibLabCon on their own, can they?
Even the LibDems was the result of a merger of the Liberal Party and the SDP.
Only when it has done so would it be in a position to compete with UKIP.
This is so OBVIOUS to me.
That is the bottom line.
The BDP can only go officially and exclusively civic in a convincing way by having me as a member in a prominent position.
Once that is done, the BNP will follow suit and also go officially and exclusively civic.
Only when the BNP has gone officially and exclusively civic will your old party will be in a position to compete with UKIP again.
I have in mind UKIP standing in Tory seats to threaten Tories, and the BNP standing in Labour seats to threaten Labour.
The most useful thing the BNP can do now that it is hopelessly eclipsed by UKIP is to go officially and exclusively civic.
Only when it does that will it have a fighting chance of competing with UKIP again.
If the BNP won't listen the BDP can do so to start the ball rolling.
Remember that Front Nationale now officially civic nationalist and who says it is closer to UKIP than the BNP http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/.../ is only successful because it has come to terms with this political reality, ie that the majority of white people even in white countries do not want to be seen as racist.
Not only must the BDP acknowledge this, it must be seen to be show publicly that it understands this new reality.
To show that it has understood it and to show that is prepared to demonstrate its new civic nationalist credentials, it should have me in a prominent position in the party ie as Media Spokesman.
Now, what would be the problem with this, apart from the fact that you cannot bear the thought of this because you don't really want to be civic and want to remain ethno-nationalists?
Kevin Scott, have you been putting these arguments to Andrew Brons?
It is not just a matter of choosing a leader whom you like and trust, but of also choosing a leader *who will connect with the average voter*.
If you don't understand this reality, you will not understand why you will never get anywhere in politics under your class system.
Do not forget that Nick Griffin is a public school boy and the average voter is a snob who can't help voting for someone in the class above them.
That was why the Tories voted for Cameron when he had no policies and ignored David Davies who was not a toff even though he had all the right policies.
That was why Labour could not get anywhere under the Welsh windbag Kinnock and only started motoring when they had a public school boy as their leader.
Please understand the reality of your class system.
It is not because people don't care about immigration that they won't vote for you. They all love your policies and have done so for decades, as you can see athttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/... It is because they already know which class the average BNP member belongs to.
I am sorry to put it so bluntly to you, but this is the reality you have to grasp before you can understand what it is you have to do have a realistic chance of rivaling UKIP or even being in a position to do deals with them.
1. Discuss amongst yourselves whether I should be in the party.
2. Discuss amongst yourselves whether I would best serve the cause by being appointed BDP Media Spokesman.
Just doing that would make a difference in no time at all.
No canvassing or leafleting or fund-raising required.
Only discussion and decision!
I really would be happy to answer your questions in this regard.
If you were intelligent enough to have read my last post correctly, you will see that my comment did not recommended Richard as party leader but called for someone with his qualities.
As for Griffin appealing to the masses, his appeal has seen the massive growth of the BNP and its current day collapse as people have in time seen through him and his inadequacies.
He will, I have no doubt, lose his seat at the next election and thanks to his conniving, trickery, lies and lack of sparkling personality or ability to perform in front of millions of tv viewers (question time), the BNP will become a distant memory.
Griffin's bubble has burst.
Now take your insults, smug and patronising comments elsewhere as you have now wasted enough of my time
There is not much point being one of you either because I have already noticed that nationalists are not exactly known for treating each other well.
And that is why nationalism will never get anywhere.
I am only taking an interest because I see the Eurosceptic parties as being the only parties left in the country that might promote social conservatism, selective education, be against gay marriage as well as wanting criminals to be punished properly.
It would be nice if nationalists could get their act together instead of just being losers who are nasty, destructive, racist as well as out of ideas. By appearing to be all of the above, we make all the things we ask for seem undesirable and unwise.
It is all about parental and masculine authority, which you cannot retain if you don't respect the institution of marriage.
The reason why marriage is no longer respected is because so many people think they can still respect marriage even if they as they married parents the same as unmarried couples and say it is OK to have gay marriage.
But if you treat them the same then it means there is no practical difference between getting married and not getting married and it is cheaper and easier not to get married at all, isn't it?
The other thing is the welfare state. If there is no welfare state then people would keep in touch with their family a bit more as well as stay married to their spouses.
The state is the "husband" of the unmarried single mother. This means that the taxpayer is her "husband" who has all the responsibilities but none of the rights.
Something isn't quite right here, but does the BNP or the BDP ever discuss such things?