This is the transcript by V. S. of one of Jonathan Bowden’s British National Party stump speeches, delivered in Wigan sometime after Nick Griffin’s Question Time appearance on October 22, 2009. The speech can be viewed on YouTube here. If you know the precise date or have corrections, please post them as comments below.
[Speaking of Nick Griffin’s notorious Question Time appearance:] This was the handpicked audience, although slightly representative of what “progressive London” has become. Half of the audience was ethnic, a proportion sort of homosexual, and the rest was sort of White liberal Camden Town, Kentish town, Camden Market, slightly alternative society, that sort of thing. There were probably 3 or 4 party members. I think one of whom, I seem to recall, asked the question to the panel about if they think there are too many immigrants in the country. Straw, on a reflective pause, said, “No.” No, he doesn’t think there are too many immigrants in the country. Well, that’s interesting. The others equivocated and refused to answer.
The BBC said there will be a repeat of this circus on an annual basis, and they said it’s the fault of the British for voting for this political party that we’re on Question Time to begin with.
Now, it’s a great moment in a sense, because the Question Time appearance, even though it’s just one TV broadcast breaks something called the “no platform policy.” Since the late 1970s, there’s been a tacit agreement amongst broadcasters that the British National Party or any organization of a similar sort is not allowed on with the others. The BBC has now endorsed this party, say what you like. They are now regarded as a mainstream party, and although they’ve rigged the show so that they would show their prior disapproval to their liberal friends and reflect their politically correct ideology, internally as well as externally, the truth of the matter is that they now know that this party is a mainstream organization. As far as the masses are concerned, the British Broadcasting Corporation or the BBC has endorsed the British National Party or BNP and that’s what all the screaming was about.
When Peter Hain, the former leader of the anti-Apartheid movement in Britain, a man who has campaigned against White and European people all over the world in South Africa, in relation to the Rhodesian struggle . . . Most of those societies have gone, of course, and just have a look at the nature of the societies that have replaced them. Why do you think many White South Africans live here or live in Australia or live in Canada or live in North America? They live there because they’re escaping from what occurred there and from what individuals like Hain campaigned with every waking moment that he possessed in the 1960s and 1970s to bring about.
But when Hain, the former Welsh and Northern Irish secretary of this government, said that it’s a nightmare to allow the British National Party on, irrespective of how the chairman does in the debate, he’s right. The hardliners on the other side are perversely right, because they understand that it’s a war of position and when you’re on, you’re on. The masses look at that broadcast and they think, “Well, they’re all ganging up on him and he’s not entirely allowed to speak and he’s being relatively moderate and, on the other hand, he’s arrived. He’s with the Tories; he’s with the liberals; he’s with Labour; he’s with pompous Dimbleby; he’s with the token “Black history” expert. He’s there on the BBC in front of them all!” And that is where you have to be in relation to this society.
We’re heading towards the Second World by the middle of this century and the Third World by the end of this century on present trends. Not just demographic. This country’s in radical decline in almost all areas: civically, racially, culturally, religiously, in terms of the family structure, in terms of our military preparedness, in terms of our government bureaucracy.
It’s déjà vu. I grew up as a teenager in the 1970s where the lights flickered, and the dead weren’t buried, and the bin men were out, and the postal workers were out, and the lights flickered overhead earlier on under Heath, and so on. It’s getting a bit similar, isn’t it? The bin men are out in Leeds; the post office is going through convulsions; they have no pension, they’re sacking tens of thousands of their men and women; the Tories are aching to privatize it and only just didn’t do so last time around before ’97. Mandelson wants to privatize it.
Much of our infrastructure is in decay. Look around this society now. It’s quite clear that in 1909 we ruled a quarter of the world and were the most powerful society on Earth. 100 years later in 2009 we are a minor society misruled and misgoverned on the edge of Europe, sucked into the European Union, beholden to the United States of America, fighting war after war on their behalf which is not in our interest, when our tanks are in Afghanistan and Iraq and yet the cities and towns of much of our country are lawless to a certain degree on Friday and Saturday evening. When Blair was premier we had a third of our tanks in southern Iraq around Basra, and yet this government doesn’t control the streets of South London or inner Birmingham on a Saturday night. This is the reality of what Britain has become in 2009.
New Labour is one of the most cynical governments that Britain has had since Attlee’s administration ’45 through ’51. People are often nostalgic about old Labour regimes, but the mass immigration that afflicts many of our towns and cities now throughout England, Scotland, and Wales, north, south, east, and west of the compass began under Attlee. In 1948, the first of the post-war Nationality Acts was passed, and Attlee said in the House of Commons, it’s in Hansard, which records what people say there, that the races of the world, according to the mild-mannered British Premier of that hour, had to be mixed together because if this was done there would be no more war. There would be no more conflict.
This is sort of idiotic, anti-colonial Left-wing attitudes from the early part of the 20th century. Because what he didn’t understand is that if you mix populations in that way you institutionalize divisions not between societies but within the societies in relation to the constituent groups. Because no group entirely loses its group identity. We’ve had 50 to 60 years of liberal propaganda dinning into all of us that we must grow to love the society that Enoch Powell said in the late 1960s that we shouldn’t, and it hasn’t really worked. Although we are amongst the most liberal of groups on Earth, it is still true that a majority of our people resent what has happened, don’t agree in their hearts with what has happened, dislike the center of Birmingham when they go there, put their windows up and lock their doors when they drive through areas like St. Paul’s in Bristol or Handsworth in Birmingham or Brixton in South London or Toxteth in Liverpool and so on. These places are no longer in England, and when one passes through them you realize that they have to all intents and purposes ceased to be realistically English, and Labour have done quite a bit of this, certainly under New Labour post-’97, by design.
This world is not ruled by accident and contingency, although just the affairs of a few individuals that may take place. If you don’t look when you cross the road, you may be knocked down. But the society has not changed out of all recognition over several generations and decades without some sort of a plan. Although one has to be careful about these so-called “leaks,” a former member of the 10 Downing Street research department the other week has said that there was a definite plan to increase the number of immigrants coming into this society in order to create 4 to 5 to 3 million more new Labour voters and that this was knowingly done in and around 2000 through 2004. At the height of the boom, mass immigration was encouraged to build a new working class that would keep Labour in in perpetuity.
When Labour came in in ’97 they had been out of power for the best part of 20 years, and they were determined to remain there. There was a plan among the hardcore New Labour ideologues that was called “the project.” Mandelson was at the heart of that project along with some of the others. This was the idea that the liberals and Labour would merge over time, maybe lose a few stray elements along the Left-fringe of the Labour party, to form one bloc and to keep the Tories out in perpetuity. That, of course, didn’t become a possibility.
Another was to introduce the Euro into Britain when it became the European currency and integrate us further into the European Union. Blair was all for that in the first term between ’97 and 2001 where many of our people did not have the view that they now entertain about him. Rather than a shallow man and a sort of non-scheming grinner and an actor as a politician who could argue for and against the same proposition within the same sentence, a trickster, and a pathological liar, which is now how the British view Tony Blair . . . If you remember, between ’97 and 2001, like the innocent ninnies they often are, many of our people loved him. They thought he was marvelous! “That marvelous man, Tony Blair! What a marvelous smile he has! He’s so nice! He’s whiter than white! He’s civically pure!” Do you remember all these New Labour slogans about how intolerant they’d be of corruption? When it’s quite clear in relation to their expenses scandal that they had their snouts in the trough in the first Labour term, in the second Labour term, and the third Labour term, and it’s coming to an end, because we all can sense that we’re living through the fag-end of New Labour.
Look at this government now. It’s in radical and terminal decline. Brown has schemed all his life to get control of the absolute levers of power. He plotted against Blair for much of the New Labour administration, but he’s aware of everything that’s gone on. He can’t put red water between him and the previous ten years, and he will go down to possibly a devastating defeat in the middle of next year. The problem is that when the Tories come in they will recommence much of what Labour has done. Maybe at a lower ebb, maybe with less energy, maybe with more caution, but the same process of decay will not be changed, will not be arrested. Although there’s talk that Labour unleashed a massive splurge of immigration around 2000-2004 to keep wages down, to provide a pool of junk 24/7 labor just in and around the minimum wage to make sure that the capitalism fueled by debt and more debt and more debt kept on growing to the degree that it led to a bubble that burst in the sense of the recession/depression that we’ve got around us . . . Irrespective of all this, the Tories will do much the same, but in a more cautious way.
The Tories are no longer a national party. In Wales and in Scotland, in large parts of the north and in the cities, in parts of the post-industrial midlands, particularly very urban areas, they don’t exist, and they are a minority party. In many areas, this organization is more of a nationally representative party than they are. Only in the part of the country that I come from do the Tories really have some kick and really have some power. But they have actually vacated a space, because Cameron’s the first leader of his party, virtually, to have no Right-wing views and to be incapable of pressing any Right-wing buttons at all on any issue.
I mentioned United Against Fascism earlier. It’s not that widely known, although it is a factual statement, that David Cameron is a member of United Against Fascism. The Conservative and Unionist Party leader, because that’s the reconstituted name of the party now after a 30 year gap, is a member of United Against Fascism! This is a quite remarkable thing, actually, because no Tory leader, even Major, would have taken a step like that. Because Cameron is purely synthetic, and everything he is in is gestural, just like Blair. He’s a Tory version of Blair, and that’s why they elected him during the Blair era. He will bring back a blue-coated version, a slightly more upper class version, of Blair’s regime. That’s what the Tories want to do!
There will really be no change next May, even though Labour may be down 100 to 120 to 160 seats. In certain seats they may deconstruct and implode and cease to be a viable political party. There is a possibility that this party, as Labour dies in certain areas, could wipe them out and could take power. Many of the MPs in Barking and Dagenham, for example, where a breakthrough has occurred en masse at a local level, are worried. Cruddas is very worried, which is why he’s always in the media ragging this political party. He’s always talking about it because he was one of the people in the research department under Blair that allegedly planned this idea to open up Britain to the waves of multiculturalism that were coming from the Third World long beyond what the Major government had in preparation. They would rub the Right’s nose in it! This is what the media is saying they thought at the time.
It would make anyone who’s against it appear to be a “racist,” would outmaneuver their opponents, would create an in-built pro-Labour majority in many city districts, because they knew that the White working class in many of these areas would turn on them, would turn on the party that they’d always thought was theirs, that they always thought would look after them, the party founded by the trade unions in 1900, the party called the Labour Party. It has now become very obvious to many people that Labour, in a sense, is not just a party that doesn’t represent them but is a party that is actively trying to destroy their lifestyle, their jobs, their communities, their families, and many of the regions from which they come. It’s as if Labour couldn’t do more damage to their core vote and to the indigenous population of these areas if they tried to think how otherwise damaging they could be both by intention, by accident, and by design. They have contrived to unleash a great swell of forces, economic, racial, semi-political, criminal, that infests the areas where many of our people live.
Many of these people have a great dilemma, because they’ll never vote Tory, and the Tories don’t really exist for them and don’t really want their votes. The Conservative Party is only concerned about the middling and upper tier in the society and those in certain regions of the country, primarily but not exclusively outer London, the southeast, parts of the Midlands, the southwest, and general south. Britain doesn’t exist beyond that as far as they’re concerned, and the Conservative definition of patriotism excludes more than half the population almost by definition.
This means that people need another vehicle for their patriotism, particularly in the north but also everywhere in the country. Because all parts of the country to us are equally important: north, east, south, and west. People in areas in the north vote Liberal in order to get back at Labour, not because they’re Liberal themselves. Most of the Labour politicians that they’re up against are ultra-liberals who favor every item of decay that will lead to the destruction of our society. They’re against the family; they’re against any racial feeling in the indigenous population; they’re against the national history of patriotism; they’re against the empire and its legacy; they’re against military commitment; and they’re against the idea of the armed forces to a degree and yet slavishly they’re always making use of our armed forces on foreign, Zionist, and American adventures in the Middle East and elsewhere that have little popular support despite the fact that there’s endless media overlay about how we should support these initiatives in Iraq, now coming to an end amidst squalor, middling success, and abject failure, and in Afghanistan.
Why are we in Afghanistan? Why are we propping up a totally corrupt regime? The difference between the two candidates in the Afghan election was such, their vote was such that one candidate cannot claim to be the leader of that country. His rival, Abdullah Abdullah, a man who likes his name so much he obviously repeated it, is quite right to claim that the Karzai regime is completely corrupt. Why are our men dying for this government? Why are our men dying for Brown and, belatedly, for Blair and for Bush foreign policy that has nothing to do with us? We should leave Afghanistan to its own devices; we should leave Iraq; we should mend our own society before we start intervening all over the world at America’s behest. This society here in Britain and in the north of England is broken. We ought to fix this one first before we go out to the rest of the world, pushing and shoving on America’s behalf.
I believe that a great change is coming over our politics and over our society. You saw it putatively in that Question Time debate. We are the demographic majority, and yet everyone in that studio was sneering at our point of view. We are the populist majority, yet the entire political class define themselves by being against the sort of viewpoints of people in this room. Why is that? It’s because they’re all the same. We’re ruled, basically, by one party. It’s got a center-Left wing and it’s called Labour. It’s got a center-Right wing, which appeals to the south of the country broadly speaking, and it’s called Tory or Conservative. They switch around a sort of pivot at the middle that provides them their ideas, and it’s called the Liberal Democrats. But if you look quickly between the red and the blue and the orange there’s really no difference between them. Tiny little differences are magnified out of all proportion, and yet when the opposition arrives as occurred in that studio the other week they all turn on it. They all know what they’re against, not what they’re for.
What ought they to be for? Many of our people next May will vote for Liberal, Labour, and Conservative politicians. They will imagine them to be honest. Look at their expenses! They will imagine them to be patriotic. Look at the false wars such as Iraq based upon lies and Afghanistan based upon corruption and even more lies! They will expect them to wish to see the public finances corrected. Every man and every woman in this room is £55,000 pounds in debt, conceptually, because of the enormous amount of debt that is being leveled down on everybody to save the banks and to fuel mass credit because we no longer make anything in this society at all. We virtually have no primary industry. No coal industry, no steel industry, no car industry, no motorbike industry, a withering nuclear industry. We increasingly make no consumer goods. We import them from the Third World and the Far East using credit and bought money which has to be paid for and which will be paid for with violent cuts in public services in the next 3 to 5 years. Cuts in police, cuts in nurses, cuts in social welfare, cuts in frontline services. Many people now will work their whole lifetime and there will be scant pension left at the end.
These honeyed times that some people thought they’d enjoyed in the ’60s and ’70s and ’80s which were esteemed before the Thatcherite recession to be a lot of employment and a lot of easy money around, this is gone! I believe that in the next 10 to 20 years there will be major cuts in social welfare and much of what Liberals and Labour party built in the 20th century will be scythed down.
The National Health Service is creaking at the edges. You go into the NHS now, even though the operations are still good, you go in reasonably healthy and come out looking like the Elephant Man. This is how much of it’s gone!
All of our bureaucracies are sordid and run down. Go outside this country and come back in and you see the defeatism, the cynicism of our rulers, the lethargy of those who are in power, the lying of the BBC and the rest of the media, the refusal to talk about immigration, the refusal to talk about patriotism, the refusal to talk about the European Union.
Do you remember when Brown and Blair said that we would have a vote on these treaties which bind us even more into the European Union against our will? And although it’s a very boring single track issue, it’s important. It means that people who say the odd little thing in fringe meetings can be arrested on European arrest warrants and trundled over to Germany and other parts of the European Union totally contrary to our traditions, totally contrary to our law. Didn’t we fight in wars so we could say what we thought and say what we wanted about our own future and our own country? No! We can’t say, completely, what we want!
There’s about 11 laws that have been passed since the late 1960s which means that somebody like myself often has to speak in an abstract way about many issues, because a large minefield has been constructed, primarily by the Labour Party in its various forms, but the Tories have never done anything to reverse it. It’s now illegal to make too declamatory, negative, and definitional statements on race, on age, on disability, on homosexuality, on Islam and/or other related religiosities. All of these laws have been passed. Many of them when Straw was Home Secretary in and around the new millennium after Blunkett. These laws have been passed to deny British people freedom of speech on core issues in their own country and when they don’t think they should say anything at all except in private conversations even those are mentally policed by an ideology which is called “political correctness.”
Fifteen years ago, no one knew what it was apart from a few obscure academics in America and elsewhere. Now, a five-year-old child knows what political correctness is. They know what they can say, what they can’t say, they know what the minefield of their own tongue is about where even private words and so on are regarded as a species of thought criminality. But it has to be said that we’ve allowed all of these things to be done to ourselves. We’ve gone on voting for these old parties again and again and again. You knock on many a people’s door and they’ll say in the north, “I’m Labour ‘til I die. Labour forever! Cut me open, and the color is red,” and in the south it will be blue and the same argument with a different party. These people don’t even begin to see that the mess that we’re in and that which we are sliding towards, which is worse than the mess we are in now, is due to these parties, due to their absence of patriotism, due to their absence of vigor, virility, and sense of force, due to their inadequacy and their cowardice at every level.
At every level of British life now, you sense cowardice and funk, self-treason, and a sense of betrayal. Everywhere! Did you see what the late Archbishop said the other week in the News of the World, I’m sure a journal that he scans every Sunday? Former Archbishop Carey said that the views of everyone in this room were irremediably evil. Irredeemably evil. “Evil,” he said, “evil.” This is very unusual, because very few Christian churchmen can ever say anything’s evil now. There’s nothing at all that they denounce, because they’re liberal and jelly-like and wobbly on everything. But they know one thing that’s irredeemably evil when they come to see it! And that’s this political party or the viewpoint it could be said to adopt!
Now, it’s rather unfair for somebody who isn’t a Christian, like me, to have a go at the former Archbishop of Canterbury, but there you are. But there’s the example of the church.
Now, let’s look at the royal monarchy. It was said the other week that the Queen was outraged, allegedly, about the chairman of this party appearing on Question Time and we must “redouble our efforts,” she said, “to combat racism in every area.” But of course no one knows what her real views are. This was a spokesman speaking on her behalf. Well, racism and the concept that goes with it is a two-edged sword. One man’s prejudices is another’s identity. One man’s intolerance is another man’s strength. One man’s preponderance is another’s possibility of opposition to the presence of another. It depends on where you are and what perspective you’re looking at the thing through and it’s the same with all of these things.
When they say, “racism” and “racist” and “you’re one of those” or “racialism” or “politically incorrect,” you say, “No, it’s patriotism. It’s self-identification. It’s proud of being English. It’s being British. It’s being from Wigan, in being a northerner, in being a White European.” And when they say “sexism” and all these others, it’s just the belief that gender is biological and that men and women have traditional roles in society and that when you try to destroy and deconstruct them and disable the family unit, you remove one of the great factors that people have to protect them.
Life is a harsh thing. For many people outside a certain warmth and comfort zone of their families and friends and immediate familiars, life is often as tough as the street out there. People need families as the ultimate social resource out of which a national society can be built. The Left’s opposition to the family as an idea and to heterosexuality as a biological institution is not some silly theory that they worked up. It’s a definite attempt to break things down and to deconstruct them before you build them in another way. So, when they say you’re a sexist, you’re one of these, you just say, “We’re in favor of the traditional family. We’re in favor of children being disciplined, loved, and looked after. We’re in favor of men behaving like men and women behaving like women. We’re in favor of that which is given by biology and by nature and by natural law,” and you’ve turned it around on them. You say, “You! You with your cack-handed and new-fangled ideas. You are the destroyer of these sorts of things that we wish to maintain now and into the future, because nobody will have a future, including these deviants, if things like the family as the basis of national life are not maintained!” And you go down through all of the so-called “politically correct” attitudes, which are all designed to stifle the natural instincts of the popular majority in all groups. Ultimately, these ideas are the enemies of all peoples, but the people we are concerned with is our own because we believe that charity begins at home not in the Third World.
When David Cameron says that there are certain budgets that are ring-fenced from social cuts, and one of the ones that’s ring-fenced is external aid and foreign development, why should foreign aid be ring-fenced? Why? Charity begins at home! Unless there’s a reason to spend the money on espionage and other reasons that is directly in our national interest, all of our foreign aid budget should be abolished and should be spent on things here or should be used to plug the deficit here. It should be not squandered on the Third World. They talk about cuts, but I can think of quite a few cuts, and I’d begin with the House of Commons. I’d begin with many of the inmates in our prisons. We can think of very creative ways to lessen the prison population and therefore to improve the deficit by cutting public expenditure, by removing from those establishments a few of the worst reprobates who ought to be so removed.
What do we think should be done with the murderers of Baby P? Yes, we should hang them until they are dead, and we should let the masses see it, and we should televise it and put it on before Question Time. I hazard to guess that the audience for Question Time will be 16 million and not the 8 million who owned up to seeing it the first time around.
The interesting thing is that the vast majority of the population would actually agree with these points of view if they were allowed to hear them, if they could actually see them being discussed. Many of them think, in their dotage, that Liberals and Labour and Tories don’t stand for these sorts of things, that they stand for the popular wishes of the majority, that they stand for the indigenous.
Do you remember on Question Time there were certain people who said that England didn’t exist, that the English identity didn’t exist, that the British identity was a figment, that we’re all a “mongrelized group,” that we have no prior or actual identity? Even the BBC gets a bit twitchy when this comes up, because even they remember the old BBC, the old Reithian model that you’ve got to try to educate people a bit, that we do have a world famous culture, that there are 16 million books in the British Library on the Euston Road in the middle of London, and 90% of them are written by White European males who happen to be dead. Even the BBC has a twinge when people say that there’s no such thing as England and no such thing as Britain and no such thing as our culture. Well, they’re wrong! And they’re wrong in a totalitarian way, and with every breath that we possess from now until the end of our lives we will refute them, because England exists and Britain exists!
We are English. Most people, I take, in this room are English, and we are British. As Kipling once said, “The English that only the English know.” It is true that the English within the British and the British as a whole, the indigenous Anglo-Celtic groupings of these islands, have not spoken yet about what is being done to their society in the last 40, the last 50, and the last 60 years.
When Enoch Powell went outside the political establishment in the late 1960s and risked his entire political career by relinking again with the mood of the popular majority, irrespective of party, which when he made those words fell away from him and he became a sort of supra-political, non-party figure. Because patriotism is not about parties. Patriotism is about the country that you come from. It should not be the case that every party in our country is against the core patriotism of the indigenous population, but it is the case! Labour is against it, the Tories are against it in a different but similar way, and the Liberals the same. They should be on the side of the people who put them in those assemblies, but they are not! And they have been not for 20 to 30 to 40 years! They are loyal to a global agenda that lies outside this country!
And what do we need to do with them? We need to sweep them away! We need to get rid of Labour in the north of England and in Wigan and in Lancashire! And we need to get rid of the Conservatives in the south of England and in the west of England and in parts of the Midlands! And where the Liberals are a small orange sandwiched between the two blocs, we need to get rid of them as well! We need to replace these parties with other patriotic groups!
Groups come up and down. In the 1970s, there was one called the National Front. The National Front failed, but this organization has learned from that experience and the nadir of the recession in the early 1980s which partly smashed that political project to pieces. Out of the pieces of that this party slowly emerged over 20 to 30 years.
Probably after that Question Time, which has broken the “no platform” policy forever, the masses now know that the organization that’s against the establishment is called the British National Party, the BNP, not the National Front. Many people still use that term, but this party represents that radical Right, patriotic, and oppositional tendency of opinion. This is the party the establishment fears. This is the party the liberal establishment across parties hates and detests. You saw some of that in that studio a week or so back. This is the party of which they are afraid. They’re afraid because they may be visited upon in their own lifetime by something they didn’t expect and that is a reckoning. A reckoning for their treason and for their lies and for their evasiveness and for their absence of patriotism and the theft of much of the country’s resources and the fact that they have used the political system to milk it for personal advantage for themselves.
If you stand back a moment, if you are a politician and you steal resources, what are you doing? Of course, you’re stealing, you’re ingratiating yourself, and so on, but you’re also engaged in an unpatriotic act. You are actually, in part, conceptually, stealing from everyone in this room and in this pub and in this town and in this county and in this region and in this nation. But none of them have the concept that they’re doing that because patriotism has receded to such a small part of their agenda that they no longer think patriotically whatever party they’re in, whatever nationality within the United Kingdom they come from, whatever class background they’ve got. They think of politics as something to sack, something to rip off, something to get something out of. They do not think of the patriotism that just leads ordinary blokes to join the armed forces when they’re relatively young. That sort of patriotism (16, 18, 21, and so forth) doesn’t occur to them. It’s sort of something outside of their form of natural consciousness.
We must implant it in such individuals, if it’s not too late, again. One of the ways you do that is to reintroduce national service, to reintroduce service in the army and the navy and air force and Special Forces and elsewhere to physically competent men, and to a degree women, between 18 and 40. Or maybe we should make it retrospective for quite a lot of these politicians. Maybe we should make them in their 50s and 60s run up the Brecon Beacons again and again and again, and when they welter we’ll put a pack on their back and make them run up again and again and again. Maybe this can be a just, inhumanely good punishment for those who have let this country down over the last 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years since 1948, since 1946.
We have not had a patriotic government for 50 to 60 years, but if people vote for this party and for this organization in the northwest of England and elsewhere there is a prospect of renewal. The establishment is more frightened now than at any time in my life. I was born in 1962. I’ve never known the British political establishment more afraid, more alienated from their own people on every issue: on immigration, on law and order, on crime, on social welfare, on economic management, on political corruption, on the European Union, on the union within the kingdom itself, on the preparedness of military life, on the structural changes that need to be made, on the foreign wars we need to stay out of. They are on one side and we are on the other! On every issue, they are in the wrong and the sensibility of the people in this room is in the right. This is what we need to instill into our people.
Many of our people are defeated. They believe nothing can change. They always get in. Nothing can be done. They’re all the same. There’s one organization that’s essentially not like the others and it needs to draw in more and more of our people in their anger, in their distaste for the political establishment, in their confusion. But in their residual patriotism, we need to draw them in. We need to normalize this party even more. We need to make advantage of the near collapse economically of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Joggle them. Break them off from the Tory Right. Consume them. Take in more White working class voters, who hate Labour, particularly New Labour now, to such a degree that they will never go back again. Build an iron-hard force. The first million votes in the European elections, make it five million in the next European elections. Go for four MEPs, not two. Fourteen, not two, not four. Twenty, not two. If you get twenty MEPs, the whole system will be rocking!
Every time I look at Gordon Brown he looks older. One eye is up here; one eye is down here. The jowls get longer and more flabby. First, he was black-haired. Then gray. Now, shocking white. He staggers. He repeats himself at question time. Quite clearly he’s punch-drunk and going down for the count. Now, looking at him from a distance we can say it couldn’t be happening reverse ways around to a nicer chap, but he is the personification of the cowardly political correctness and funk which has been prevailing for the last 13 years.
I ask people to campaign against what Brown and Straw stand for. If you looked at their faces at question time last week, you realize that they are the decaying lords of an upper class which is dying, of a ruling class which is dying. We need new people to come forward with energy, with zeal, with patriotism, with some fire in the belly, with some courage in their hearts. We need new people for a new era for a new Britain.
I ask you to campaign for this political party, to give donations to it, to leaflet for it, to canvas for it, to stand for it, to come forward to the front to speak at meetings like this occasionally for it, to get more of your family involved, to ask your friends, “Which political party do you support? Don’t you think they’re all the same other than this one, which I suggest you have a look at?” and so on. I ask you to vote in the next parliamentary elections for the British National Party. I want us to see some seats in the Westminster Assembly to go with the London Assembly to go with the European Assembly to go with the vote that we now have with the principality to get into the Welsh Assembly. I want the lag between the Scottish and the English parties to decrease and I want the Scottish party to grow in the next 10 years in the way that the party in England has grown and so forth.
We want to see more people supporting the patriotism of their flag and of their society and of their identity both individual and collective, because our party colors are red, the best elements of what the oldest of Old Labour stood for, particularly in areas like this in the north of England, the blue of deep social conservatism of the sort that all people instinctively feel in relation to natural law and which would lead 93% of people to vote for the death penalty, as I mentioned earlier, for the murderers of Baby P, and the white, the white in the middle, which means that patriotism is based on ethnicity, is based on biology, is based on prior belonging, is based on rootedness and racination, is based on who and what you are as an individual and as a personification of a group here in Wigan, here in England, and in Britain forever.
Thank you very much!
Toward A New Era of Nation-States, Part IV: The Ancient Greeks, Jews, & Universal Doctrines
Toward A New Era of Nation-States, Part II: Fifty Years of Turbocharged Globalization
Forthcoming from Counter-Currents:
Jonathan Bowden’s Reactionary Modernism
Remembering Jonathan Bowden (April 12, 1962–March 29, 2012)
Murder Maps: Agatha Christie’s Insular Imperialism
One Carjacking Embodies the New America
Toward A New Era of Nation-States, Part I: The Promise & the Reality of Globalization
Pillbilly Eulogy: Kevin D. Williamson’s Big White Ghetto