IS ELECTIONEERING THE WAY TO WIN?
The objective of the Vanguard is success in the pursuit of power: power meaning the whole compass of opportunity and ability to implement our ideas for the salvation, upliftment and prosperity of the Aryan peoples. For this successful pursuit we need the right sort of people, inspired by the right sort of ideology, and brought together in the right form of organisation with the right methods. Nothing else will suffice.
In thus defining our purpose, we are currently prompted by the proximity of a General Election in the United Kingdom to raise the question whether the conventional political party with its integral commitment to electioneering is the right form of organisation with the right sort of people and the right methods for our purpose. Does it instead represent a woefully mistaken, habitual conformity to gross waste in the pursuit of an utterly illusionary aim?
The British National Party and other lesser nationalist parties in this country, where at present there is no outright National-Socialist party, believe that the way ahead must be through a political party contesting elections. The BNP has accordingly committed itself to putting up 50 candidates in the forthcoming General Election, a target fixed precisely because of the free, five-minute television and radio time this extent of candidature will entitle it to, along with free mailing of election literature. It and the other participant parties of nationalism are currently convulsed with high excitement in their feeling of having climbed out of the shadows of comparative obscurity to join in “the big time” of ballot box competition.
The BNP explicitely recognises, realistically, that on this occasion it cannot expect to capture any parliamentary seats, or even in almost all constituencies to regain -through securing the necessary proportion of the total votes cast -the £500 deposit required of a candidate by the authorities. Nevertheless, it is insistent that the operation will prove immensely worthwhile in the recruitment obtained through contesting. It rightly points out that for a cost of some £50,000 in deposits and the other expenses of contesting, such as printing costs (although not accounting for the value of all the time expended by party members on the electioneering), the party can gain around £3 million of television time, plus the value of the accompanying radio time, plus something in the region of £60,000 of postage. Considered purely on this arithmetic, the financial return so exceeds the financial outlay as to make the venture greatly worthwhile. However, a full and accurate assessment has to delve much deeper than this attractive but superficial reckoning.
Recruitment, the BNP has named as the immediate objective and justification for its electioneering, so what volume of recruitment and quality in that volume can be expected for the expenditure of the £50,000, plus the value of all the time expended? Set by its own criterion, the BNP case for fighting the 1997 General Election stands or falls on this asessment. In the final analysis this becomes the simple question of what amount of extra work and financial assistance can be expected from the total of election-won recruits in return for the total expenditure in obtaining them, and subtractlng from this the further cost in accomodating them and keeping them content with membership. We will look into this crucial question in the course now of an examination of the whole question of party politics under Democracy.
THE GREAT PRETENCE
Democracy is the Great Pretence in politics, the pretence that the people rule themselves whereas in fact some particular people do the ruling for them. Under it, periodically we have a festival of head counting whereby, after candidates acceptable to the permanent dictators behind the scenes have been put before the public, and notions favourable to those candidates have been implanted in the minds of the public by the media, the public are said to decide between these candidates and so determine the government.
Certainly some extent of divergence is necessarily presented between the approved candidates in order to give the illusion of free choice. However, the divergence is kept within the family, as it were, confined within safe bounds. Thus the seemingly different parties are virtually but different wings of the same team, wholeheartedly agreed as one and the same in opposition to what National-Socialism holds to be vital for the salvation, up – liftment and prosperity of the Aryan peoples.
Consistent with this, whenever the contrived array of parties comes up against a potentially dangerous outburst of discontent, safety valves are created. Bogus champions of rebellion are set up as in the case of Enoch Powell in the 196Os on immigration, and now on European union the billionaire, Jewish financier, sir James Goldsmith, and his Referendum Party, and, to cater for all tastes, the United Kingdom Independence Party. Showing their bogus nature, both of these parties have a lot to say about the infringement of British national sovereignty by the European authorities at Brussels, but not a single word about the infringement of our sovereignty by way of the alien influence in and on British government at London emanating from such as the fellow tribesmen of Goldsmith. Patriotic Britons who persist in remaining blind to this disqualifying contradiction, hailing these fakes as St George – like saviours, are pitiable in their so easily satisfied gullibility.
Goldsmith at least lives up to his name. The Sunday Teleqraph (London, 21 April 1996) revealed regarding this shining crusader of Britain’s national sovereignty nitwits, descended from the Jewish ghetto of Frankfurt, Germany:“He keeps his wealth in gold and foreign currencies, dipping in and out of the world’s stock market like a gambler when he senses a swift profit.”
One thing we can be certain of is that this man’s profit is not ours, swift or otherwise. Anyone so shallow minded as to be drawn by election fever to support him or any other representative of the Old Order of Democracy is clearly and conclusively feeble and not of Vanguard quality. What we need and want is freedom from the Goldsmiths of this world, whether based in Britain, Brussels or the Back of Beyond. Getting Britain out of Europe is not the supreme need. Getting the tribe of Goldsmith out of power in Britain and elsewhere is.
RULE BY BRAIN-BENDER BOX
The success of the Great Pretence of Democracy is attributable to the success of its practitioners in utilising the power of the media which they almost exclusi vely control, including the posi ti vely hypnotic power of the kind of image radiation peculiar to television which makes it unique as a means of mind control because of its magnetic capacity. These radiations, resulting from the electronic scanning peculiar to television, bombard the brain at a rate beyond the ability to cope of that part of the brain capable of reasoning, so that the passively uncritical part of the brain predominates. This visual hypnotism is comparable to the audio hypnotism achieved by repetitive, ultra-rapid “rock”, radiated beyond the pulse rate of the human body, and thereby its ability to resist domination, which has reduced the younger generation to a zombie-like condition.
Democracy’s dictators have established their domination of the ballot box through their domination of this compelling force of the brain-bending box in well-nigh every home, whereby the minds of the masses are enslaved to the system. Thus this dictatorship cannot be overthrown by playing the party game of the ballot box in the absence of gaining power over the brain-bending box, either by acquiring an adequate television facility in competition or by putting the television transmitters of the dictators out of action and keeping them out of action. Even Adolf Hitler could not today have succeeded otherwise in attaining state power, and we have no faint shadow of a second Adolf Hitler around today.
The mental enslavement of the masses is set to be made even more secure by the forthcoming introduction of 30-channel, digital television on top of satellite and cable television. Thus will primary television be reinforced in providing a daily, round-the-clock domination of the minds of most of the people, and thereby the majority of voters in the beguiling business of parliamentary elections as the core of Democracy’s confidence trick concerning public rule. This digital access to the brain box as decisively influential to the verdict of the ballot box is to be in the hands of a consortium encompassing the British Sky Broadcasting of media magnate, Rupert Murdoch, whose mother was Jewish, making him by rabbinical standards Jewish too; Carlton Communications run by the Jew, Michael Green, worth £200 million; and the £7.5 billion Granada group; all very indicative of government of the people by and for the Chosen People.
So what of the BNP’s goal of five minutes on the box? The realistic answer is that it has to be measured in effect against the effect of all the rest of the time, day in, day out, year in, year out in which the dictators of Democracy have been and will be conducting on that box what amounts to constant electioneering. They have been conducting this in the ceaseless propagation of their propaganda, both directly in the presentation of alleged information,accompanied by the elimination of contrary information, and indirectly in the deliberate and highly suggestive projection of fictional material favourable to their aims, for example the portrayal of inter-racial liaisons in an attractive setting, this being far more effective than mere exhortation to this end. The BNP’s five minutes on the box cannot be more than an inconsequential flicker in comparison. Can the cost of this flicker prove worthwhile?
In estimating the answer to this question, we have to ana lyse the nature of a political party in relation to the nature of the British public today. A political party today is a reflection of the Democracy under which it operates, whatever it may incorporate in seeming challenge to that Democracy. A party is wide open to the masses who have been moulded by indoctrination by the media of Democracy, and that party’s ultimate aim is to solicit successfully the sufficient approval of those indoctrinated by the media of Democracy. Electioneering and the party are thus inseparably linked, the electioneering of the party being pitched at the masses and the party in turn seeking to incorporate the masses.
The vast majority of the people who will watch the BNP’s appearance on television and will read the BNP election literature coming in the post will be either Whites who are firm opponents or hostile Coloureds, and on all of these the indiscriminate output will be completely wasted, so that in respect of most viewers and readers what will have been costless will be gainless. Beyond that there can be expected to be a comparatively small number of people who nod their heads in agreement, but who do nothing more about it. Beyond that there can be expected to be a comparively minute number of people who are sufficiently stirred to write for more information and even to enrol. Among them will probably be a very small part of them who will not only continue their membership permanently, but prove prepared to contribute substantially more than the cost of retaining them, these last-mentioned being the ultimate gauge of the worth of the operation, and probably costing in terms of the expenses of electioneering for their procurement a very high price each.
The great majority of that minute minority who may be recruited, temporarily at any rate, as the reward of the current electioneering will be conspicuously and injuriously the products of Democracy, far more reflective of the system, its outlook, its values and its ethos than rebellious to it, theri rebelliousness in most cases being only to some part or parts of it without depth of perception of the interaction of all parts of the come pattern of decay. As carriers of the psychological diseases of Democracy, they will have at least as much capacity to infect others as to improve them.
As background to this, it has to be faced up to that the great bulk of British people of today, while certainly not the scum of the earth, equally certainly not the salt of the earth as so many nationalists fond of making out in flattering them for votes and membership. A great part of the best of the breed was thrown away in the death toll of mad wars against our brother nation, Germany. What remains has in most cases been duped and doped, degraded and corrupted by years of never-ending influence by the media of Democracy, their strength of character so sapped they have become docile to the point of acquiescence in their own national and racial ruination, displaying the dismal demeanour of a beaten people.
It is thus fantasy to think that salvation can come through soliciting masses. They will not be brought to undertake an uprising. On the other hand they will not take to the streets in violent defence of the system.As a motive force one way or the other regarding the rescue and resurgence of Britain, the general public is truly irrelevant.
The great majority of existing members of the nationalist parties, and great majority of those who may become members through electioneering and will be in the nature of things people of poor quality, part-timers, on talk, big on beer, small on effort, wanting to be entertained, giving little and requiring as much if not more to keep them in place, poor on staying power, so many of them losing heart or interest after a while. So it is that the party is always like a bath with the tap running but the plug pulled out. They reflect the hard fact that people at large are not by nature fitted to be political workers and fighters, but only bystanders occasional auxiliaries and suppliers of some money.
PARTY CURSE OF COMPROMISE
The form of organisation which is the party is thus condemnable because the ostensible cause of combating Democracy it perpetrates the selfdefeating contradiction of throwing itself open to the products of that Demoracy, and seeking outside the approval of these products at large as access to and sanction for state power. This inevitably means, sooner or later, major compromise. It cannot be otherwise. The process is a vicious circle. The recruited members of the public, being carriers of the psychological disease of Democracy, maybe subtely but no less surely stamp their character on the organisation, influencing policy and practice towards compromise. The leaders of the party, under the pressure of the bulk of the members, are led into compromise in order to retain their support. They are furthermore led into it in order to attract new support from outside.
The domiant inclination in a party is thus to adapt, omit,tone down, however debilitating this trimming is to the purported policy for national resurgence, wherever original principles come to be experienced as severely clashing with the prejudices and shortcomings of the recruited members and the solicited public; prejudices and shortcomings induced and fostered by the very promoters of degeneration in power at present. Thus a party by its nature imports the thought, spirit and habits of Democracy, and is in constant danger of succumbing to them, being in this fashion taken over by democracy, and rendered incapable of conquering it.
Not suprisingly the vast majority of the members of nationalist parties, heavily infected with the way of thinking of Democracy, are readily responsive to, indeed always eagerly expectant of Democracy’s game of electioneering. One of the prime agitators for electioneering in one of these parties recently proclaimed that ” …nothing enthuses party members and activists like a General Election …” as he passionately proceeded to applaud and promote this propensity. Either incapable of perceiving the arguments against electioneering or incapable of pursuing the alternative paths to power, the votaries of electioneering are instantly aroused to feverish excitement by the bustle of this conventional competition, forfeiting with alacrity what circumspection they otherwise possess. By their shallow disposition they are forever itching to stampede to the polls, / to the feeding pens, and intent on making their leaders aware their favourite exercise which they fondly want and first and foremost expect.
The tiny minority, already present in the party or to come to it in consequence of its General Election publicity, who are capable of higher things than the dull round of party activity amid beery gossip ballot box delusions, can but be disabled and depressed by dispersal the mass of mediocre or even more deficient members, instead of being selectively recognised and set apart so that their superiority can put to best advantage.
This lumping together of the majority, who do and give little with tiny minority who do most of the work and provide most of the money in consequence are an elite, has been defended by one of the national leaders as a mixture beneficial to the party because the comparively inert majority help the party with some financial contributions and literature purchases. This advocacy of combination disregards the fact that these minor benefits could be coaxed from them without incorporating them in the organisation, instead dealing with them as auxiliaries outside thus without the nullifying cost of accomodating them inside,including the drag and deterrent they exert on the elite. It is an advocacy that comes strangely from a man fond of military analogies, since it is comparable to the advocacy of combining in one and the same unit back line pioneer Corps and front line Parachute personnel, a practice shunned by the British Army and every other army in the world.
While the BNP is currently foreshortening the election debate to the matter simply of contesting for the sake of television and radio time, whereby access to the public and resulting recruitment can be gained, this cannot be taken as the end of the line, but only as the beginng. Having started out on the election road, this and any such party will inevitably carried further along that road by the unleashed motive force involved in electioneering.
. This means, incontestably, a permanent tendency to compromise as the price of soliciting the votes of the masses. This is so because the masses, being in the state they are thanks to the success of Democracy in using the media in its possession to mould their minds, will never accept what is really necessary for national and racial salvation. Any alternative party which failed to compromise heavily, reducing its message to flattery and fleshy bribes and thus imitating the old parties of Democracy whose purpose is to keep the masses content with their exploitation in their degraded state as darkness falls, would be presenting to them a message essentially offensive to their vanity and taste in its appeal to the higher considerations of life above the lower. It would, therefore, not win their general support. The masses will not vote for their own upliftment in a higher order of society. This has to be accomplished without their support and request, despite them and indeed against them. It is absurd to pivot your whole project, as does a conventional party, on the submission of change to the decision of those who so need to be changed. You might as well make the case for law and order conditional on the approval of the criminals.
So the name of the party game, if it is to be played successfully, has to be compromise, compromise and still more compromise. The religious issue, namely the need to replace ruinous Christianity which is at the very bottom of our troubles, has to be avoided in a major move of self – emasculation in the cause of acceptability, so as not to lose the votes of all the Christians. Freemasonry, another instrument of corruption, has to be avoided, so as not to forfeit the votes of all the freemasons. The odious royal tribe has to be preserved from requisite condemnation, if not spoken favourably of, so as not to lose the votes of the multitude of doting admirers. The foul din of the jungle called “rock”, so immensely damaging to our younger generation has to be compromised with too, at least to the extent of self – censorship if not explicit acceptance (as was officially awarded in an item in the December, 1996, issue of the BNP magazine, Spearhead. Queers, being now so numerous and obtrusive as a natural result of thesystem of perversion known as Democracy, compromise with them is similarly called for in the quest for popularity and electoral success.If enough votes are not obtained through a certain amount of compromise, then playing the party game more and more compromise is needed.
If, eventually, such a self – mutilating, new party did happen to win its way to state power as a government, you can take it as certain that the long – standing habit of compromise would have become so ingrained as to keep it permanently on the path of compromise to retain the state power acquired by the same means. Thus the nominally new party would become in fact nothing new at all. In a process of compromise it would come more and more to resemble the parties of Democracy it was supposed to replace.
HAIDER, LE PEN, FINI: THE WAY OF SELF-DEFEAT
Those in Britain who argue for electioneering as the way to power by courting popularity by trimming policy appropriately heavily rely on citing the electoral advances of “new” parties in Austria, France and Italy as proof of what can be achieved this way, and should be copied in Britain. What they do not candidly concede in the presentation of their argument is that the trimming they have in mind is so deep and extensive in its effect on principle as to change the nature of the party to that of more of a conformist than a rebel. All three of the supposedly “new” parties they have in mind have compromised themselves out of the latter category into the former.
The nearer a “new” party draws to the policy and practice of the old parties, the nearer it gets to the electoral support the latter obtain. It can always advance in popularity by retreating further and further away from the principles required for real resurgence. The reward for this contortion in the course of the party game is not the reality of success. It is the reality of self-defeat. In projection of this mirage of success, we have held up to us the example in Austria of Jorg Haider and his “Freedom Party” which gained 28% of the Austrian vote in the November, 1996, European Parliament elections. Its deputy leader now in that European Parliament happens to be a Peter Sichrovsky, identified by the London Jewish Chronicle (22 November, 1996) as a Jew
. The Washington Post (U.S.A.; 1 December, 1996) said of Haider, “He disavows any plans for wholesale expulsions and stresses that he only wants to throw out illegal aliens and toughen citizenship laws. He also says that Turks and other immigrants from Islamic nations are welcome to stay if they adapt to Western secular traditions.” Will something like this crass compromise be attractive to election enthusiasts in the BNP as policy enough to present to the British public in respect of Britain’s Coloured Invasion?
As we in Britain await the Labour Party’s projected penalisation of “holocaust” denial, will those same election enthusiasts be happy to know that Haider the trimmer is already doing the job for our enemies of suppressing denial of this dogma of Democracy? He has expelled from his party a member who dared to deny the Jewish propaganda Sunday Times,( London, 17 December, 1995). From France we have held up to us the example of Jean-Marie Le Pen and his vote-chasing National Front. “Le Pen has indeed consistently supported Israel and in February 1987 met with representatives of 24 American-Jewish organisations with whom he had ‘positive and cordial’ exchanges,” reported Right Now, (U.K., No.10, 1996) quoting an interview in the Jerusalem Reportt of 27 February, 1992.
In a biography of Le Pen, who is a longtime friend of Robert Hemmerdinger, vice-president of the national committee of French Jews, the novel ist Roger Mauge wrote: “Before the meeting I had engaged in conversation with a young Jewish French doctor from Amiens, a member of the FN since 1988. He was fiercely proud to tell me of his huge admiration for Le Pen and that whatever the FN’s detractors may claim, it is not racist but a nationalist party and one with hundreds of active Jewish members, likewise black and brown members and supporters …” (Right Now, ( U.K., No. 10). Will those same BNP enthusiasts for electioneering endorse the same course of compromise for the BNP, namely cordial arrangements with Jewish organisations, and the admission of numerous Jews and Coloureds as members
From Italy we have held up to us the example of Gianfranco Fini and the National Alliance into which by drastic compromise he has turned the former fascistic, MSI. How drastic that compromise has been is shown by that a National Alliance delegation visited Israel in August of 1995 to meet Ephraim Zuroff of the baleful, Los Angeles-based simon wiesenthal Center, and in the following September Zuroff went to Rome to meet Fini at the party headquarters. Will those same BNP election enthusiasts who look to and acclaim Fini as a model, as they do regarding Haider and Le Pen, be prepared to follow suit and invite Zuroff to London to discuss co – operation in the pursuit of what are called “Nazi war criminals”?
The Institute for Jewish Policy’s 1996 Anti-Semitism World Report analysed the electoral advances of Haider, Le Pen, Fini and the like as being the consequence of seeking respectability by rejecting overt anti – semitism. Are the election enthusiasts of Britain’s nationalist parties similarly prepared to sacrifice principle in respect of the Jewish problelem fo the sake of attaining respectability? Some have already shown so.
The lure of electoral success has already caused supposedly “new” parties in Russia to compromise decisively in this respect. Nikola Lysenko, a former leader of Pamyat, has got himself elected to the Duma, the lower house of parliament, after renouncing anti-Semitism and declaring Israel is “Russia’s strategic ally” Jewish Chronicle, (London, 31 March) Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the reputedly nationalist “Liberal Democratic Party”, has put himself on record as stressing that he views Jews as equal citizens, which is not so surprising since his own father was Jewish Jewish Chronicle, (London, 14 June, 1996).
In holding up as models for the BNP the performance of these parties of abject compromise, one of the BNP’s chief agitators for electioneering by drastic compromise, a Tony Lecomber, has gone almost the whole way in selling out principle for the sake of expediency. Spearhead (March, 1996) he has poured scorn on fascism and National-Socialism as something “old, stale and unsaleable”, terming any association with Hiler’s Natiohal-Socialist Germany “the kiss of death”. It only remains for this gentleman to consummate what he no doubt considers to be his smartness by coming out explicitely as anti-Hitler, as have certain other nationalist bodies in Britain already, that much more to curry favour with the moronic masses, and to seek to appease the enemy.
Contrary to the misconception of this misleading Mr Lecomber, National – Socialism is not a dead creed but a living one whose principles reamain as valid today as ever in the past. Properly understood, National-Socialism is neither restricted to the ways and means of the past in pursuit of those principles, nor it is driven to compromise those principles in in order to pursue different ways and means in different times, such as now.The commanding requirement is simply that changes must always be consonant with and not conflicting with those principles. That the brainwashed public is currently opposed to National-Socialism, which they misunderstand due to media misinformation, is no valid argument for shedding National – Socialism to appease that public. Instead, power has to be pursued in all ways possible which are consistent with the inviolate preservation of our principles, and these do not include the party game and electioneering
STOPPING A REBEL PARTY
If by chance a new party not only retained its soul from ruinouse compromise but also gained enough votes to become something of a real the controllers of Democracy – in combination a miracle – you can be absolutely certain that those controllers would bring about in one way or another the exclusion of that new party from state power. They would stop at nothing in putting a stop to the attempt to overthrow them. For them not to do so does not make sense, and does not fit with experience.
So what is our experience bearing out this conclusion? We might begin the answer 60 years back, when the British Union of Fascists looked like a growing threat. Then the holders of state power brought in the 1936 Public Order Act banning political uniforms to stop the great advantage the BUF was gaining from their use.
Over the past 30 years the holders of state power have brought in law after law increasingly to stiffle our essential, racial message in our fight against ruinous Democracy. They are still at it, planning further laws to ban questioning the alleged, Jewish “Holocaust” and to prohibit virtually any racial expression not complimentary to the Jews and the coloureds.
At the same time as they have advanced in the use of outright, explicit prohibition they have as their other arm of suppression advanced in implicit prohibition in practice by the denial of the necessary facilities campaigning by a party of revolt. Banning by way of police and Home Office exclusion and harassment has come to prevail in the matter of outdoor demonstrations and marches and meetings. One prominent example the exclusion of our sort of people from Trafalgar Square, London’s leading, open-air meeting place, ever since 1962, when the NSM there proclaimed “Hitler was Right”! Yet ever since then every kind of racial minority from all over the globe has been allowed to use it. Indoor gatherings have been made extremely difficult, if not yet entirely impossible, by pressure on the owners of halls, joined to a tolerance of attacks on meetings by rampaging Reds.
While the sly preference of Democracy is to ban indirectly by the impositions of handicaps, if this failed to be sufficient to prevent a new party of revolt, intact in its principles, from approaching anywhere near to state power it is inconceivable that the present holders of power, who shown how ruthlessly they will impede such a new party, will allow that new party to attain a victory at the ballot box, and sweep them from power. While quite content, as long as that new party distant from that power, to let it squander its resources in electioneering, pocketing its forfeited deposits, once the dictators of Democracy estimate the danger line has been reached you can be certain that they will outlaw the rebel party as “criminal” in its “racism” or “subversion, fabricating anything and everything necessary to this end.
Already the path towards outlawing, if necessary, is being prepared. one route al ready in place lies in the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the General Assembly and ratified by 129 states by the beginning of 1992. Its Article 4 (a) prohibits (1) All dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority, and (3) incitement to racial discrimination, and (6) The provision of any assistance to racist activities. Consider how easily these sections could be stretched to envelop the BNP and put it out of business!
Already the European Commission of Human Rights in a case designated Request No 6741/74, X v. Italy, has agreed that seeking to reconstitute a fascist party is a criminal offence, and already such as the BNP is dubbed a “fascist party”. In Germany ever since 1945 it has been rated a criminal offence to seek to establish a fascist or National-Socialist party, although the NSDAP in elections and referendums had the support of a transcendent proportion of the German people, who thus were in effect disenfranchised in 1945 by the power-wielders of the Great Pretence.
Already the European Commission of Human Rights case designated Request 9 and 8406/78, Glimmerveen and others v. Netherlands, it has been laid down that Holland was correct in imprisoning the Chairman of the Nederlandse Volks Unie, a party supporting ethnic homogeneity for the country, for the offence of issuing an election manifesto expressing this; connfiscating the election manifesto; and correct in invalidating the electoral lists bearing the Chairman’s name; all on the grounds of “racial discrimination”.
How much longer do you think it will be in Britain before, in line with such international rulings, it becomes prohibited to stand for a Britain for the British, prohibited to advocate discrimination in favour of our own, prohibited to oppose further Coloured immigration into Britain, and to advocate repatriation of the Coloured immigrants already here?
The dictators of Democracy, besides being able to act against the BNP on the grounds of “racial discrimination”, will also be able to act on the grounds of “subversion”. Major-General Frank Kitson, expert on “counter subversion”, gave the following definition of “subversion” in his book, Low Intensity Operations (Barrie & Rockcliff, 1971):“Subversion, then, will be held to mean all measures short of the use of armed force taken by one section of the people of a country to overthrow those governing the country at the time or to force them to do things they do not want to do.” This echoes the statement of Britain’s Director General of Military Intelligence 5, otherwise known as the “Security Service”, who in June, 1994, proclaimed: “The intention to undermine democracy is what ‘subversion’ means to us.” Those who over 30 years ago in the Spearhead Trial of 1962 were able to convict leaders of the then National Socialist Movement, including myself, of creating some sort of private army because they had organised a stewarding force for defensive purposes only against Red and Jewish violence should have no great difficulty in contriving a successful prosecution against the BNP for “subversion”, securing the imprisonment of its leaders and the banning of the organisation.
ELECTIONEERING: DEAD END ROAD OF FAILURE
In summary, from the survey which has been made the inescapable conclusions which arise are, firstly, that electioneering is a colossal mistake, tragically consuming the time and effort and money so sorely needed for other, truly productive pursuits of power. Even in the very short-term analysis as a means now to a media appearance and thereby recruiting it is not worthwhile. The quality and productivity of the recruitment will not be commensurate with the cost and effort of obtaining it. The 1997 General Election operation will thus prove a failure.
In the long term, electioneering will fail to advance the party in the face of the overwhelming power and effect of a hostile media, unless an utterly ruinous extent of compromise is undertaken, which is in itself a form of utter failure. If it does not fail through cancerous compromise, it will fail nevertheless because the dictators of Democracy will intervene to crush it by the imposition of impediments or the imposition of a ban.
The vote-chasing herald of compromise, Tony Lecomber, calls his pipe dream “the electoral motorway”. Actually it is no more than a dead end track to nowhere. A few occasions may occur when an abnormally substantial vote is obtained, maybe even an occasion of stark rarity when a winning one in a solitary constituency is obtained, but on any sober appraisal this is not to be taken as any indication of the beginning of some marvellous break through to power, but only a temporary derangement in an otherwise competently restrictive system.
The second, certain conclusion is that a political party today is an instrument of failure in the pursuit of power because its overriding concern is quantity before quality. Accordingly, in drawing in all grades of people, it draws in the defects of Democracy, and in combining all those grades in one and the same organisation, it deprives those of quality of the opportunity to function at their best because of the encumbrance of the mediocre members who are the majority.
It is said that a political party at the very least serves to provide a mustering facility whereby persons capable of better things, those with the potentiality to function as an elite, can be initially detected and contacted. However, even in such a secondary role it is a failure because it equally serves to bring people to the notice of the enemy, both the surveillance agencies of the authorities and the agents of other hostile forces. Such contacting has thus to be avoided. Recruiting for the Vanguard has to be pursued outside and away from the overt functions and visible presence of a political party as a matter of the most elementary security. It has to be done by discreet, private approach to particular individuals of seeming suitability, and in no other way.
I have no hesitation in the outcome not of mere, armchair theorising, but the experience of some 50 years of political activity of almost every kind from the distribution of hundreds of thousands of items of literature, speeches at meetings galore, electioneering both local and national, and personal participation in an underground force which eluded apprehension by the authorities in proclaiming the political party and its inseperable electioneering to be hopelessly unfitted for our needs today in pursuing power. I am absolutely convinced that, if we persist in occupying ourselves with a structure and a field of operation which has proved itself a failure, we will lose our very last chance of victory. I am sure that the very beginning of hope of victory lies in the complete rejection of the political party as an instrument, and thereby the liberation of the elite from the crippling clutches of this egalitarian structure.
In thus firmly rejecting the party game and its electioneering, it is clearly incumbent on us to go beyond a condemnation which is purely negative, however compelling its logic, and constructively supply an alternative of convincing efficacy to complete the argument. In this we have overall to show two things. Firstly, we have to show that we are not destructively arguing for a withdrawal into a retirement from action in which to dote on the past to the exclusion of the present and future which would be to pervert National-Socialism into a cult of nostalgia akin to that of the souvenir and fancy dress playboys who are satisfied with a Hollywood Nazi role to the delight of the enemy and the damage of our cause. Secondly, we have to show that we are thoroughly practical, being both thoroughly innovative and yet thoroughly averse to indulgence in fanciful aspirations beyond our current competence.
Hence at the outset let it be made abundantly clear that – contrary to any attempt by those of a contrary persuasion to cast us into ridicule by misrepresentation – we are not in the business of engrossment in juvenile fantasies of armed uprisings now or in the near future which are just about as crazy as the dreams of ballot box victory by those of a contrary persuasion. If there is to be any future whatsoever for Aryan civilisation, the time will come for the physical seizure of state power by our people, be certain of it as the only way of acquiring that state power, but that time is nowhere near. That time will only arrive by way of sufficient, preparatory undermining of the present system, which will take a long time and an immensity of effort to accomplish, and to which all attention and resources must from now on be devoted in place of the waste on futile, political parties.
What has to be grasped is that, appropriate to present conditions and our present cicumstances in those conditions, the need of the day is for guerilla activities. Open and frontal confrontation, as with marches and other conventional demonstrations and public meetings and the canvassing and picketing of electioneering,play into the hands of the far more numerous forces of the enemy, giving the big the chance to overwhelm the small, and which may show the bravery of the latter, but also most certainly shows its tactical stupidity. At this point, preparatory to examining what needs to be done in place of the party game, we should be reminded of our opening definition of our objective. This is the pursuit; of power in all its forms contributory to the salvation, upliftment and prosperity of the Aryan peoples.
This means that we have at the start to break free from the mental confinement of conventional politics whereby political power is seen as singularly synonymous with state power, and thus the matter alone of attaining the power to form a government of the state with the ensuing power to arrange the society of that state as desired. Power exists wherever the opportunity and the capacity to implement National-Socialism is to be found, and it is our job to identify and utilise all such forms of power in the outcome of a comprehensive study of the subject. This totality of perception of power accords with our totality of perception of our cause.
FORMS OF POWER TO PURSUE
In this we are brought, firstly, to recognise the most basic power of all: that of the individual to conduct his or her personal life as a fulltime, fully developed National-Socialist, daily living the National-Socialist way, and thus detaching himself or herself as far as possible from the society and life of Democracy. Here we come up against a distinguishing defect of the nationalist party which is that, so accomodating to the human products of Democracy, so intent on reaching out in electioneering to those products, most of its members in the pursuit of state power lack the understanding and application of this personal power. They babble incessantly about what they will do to put the state right when they win at the ballot box, all the time showing their sheer inability to put themselves and their families right. They cannot even govern their own homes and bring up their own children properly, let alone change the country for the better.
In so far as power comes through knowledge, the study – both by individuals on their own and by specialising teams -of everything pertaining to our struggle from the extent of our racial heritage to the workings of the enemy state and the enemy forces, as a prelude to successful action against that state and those forces, is a vital aspect of the pursuit of power. The systematic engagement in this prerequisite for success in that pursuit has to be a distinction of the purposeful and effective elite in contrast to the ignorant and impotent amateurs of the political party who regard vote-chasing as the be-all and end-all of political life.
Power in the form of influence exists in the ability of specialist teams to perform spectacular, propaganda operations which achieve an impact out of all proportion to the effort expended, and which is far beyond that of the customary propaganda of a political party. This is to be achieved through the combination of a highly imaginative selection of daring targets and the highly competent preparation and execution of operations by wellorganised and well-trained personnel
. Here, contrary to the political party with its electioneering, the purpose is not to try to solicit the votes and the membership of the public at large, but specifically to stimulate discontent with and disruption of the system, creating sympathy for rebellion as preparation for the day when a seizure of state power becomes feasible because of the break down of the system. Come that day, the public will then at last become of real importance, not as active participants in the actual seizure, which will be the highly specialised task of the Vanguard, but, beyond mere abstention from active opposition, as sympathetic suppliers of auxiliary help. In this way and to this extent the consent of the people, however tacit, is ultimately needed, and therefore all along to be encouraged.
SABOTAGE THE SYSTEM!
Major, even decisive, power exists in the ability of specialist teams with the necessary aptitude, knowledge and training to strike at the delicate and vulnerable workings of the present system, inflicting serious damage contributory to its desired break down. This break down, which alone can provide the opportunity for the seizure of state power – break through only coming through break down – is not something simply to be waited for as the culmination of the inherent strains and defects of the system, however important they are as factors to be taken advantage of. Contrary to those who realise that only a break down can bring a break through, but then treat it as something which they can only wait for as bystanders, so that their realisation becomes an excuse for inaction, a break down is something which has to be brought on through the constant application of acts of sabotage, impeding and dislocating the machinery of government.
This conception of power through sabotage is most definitely not some facile and fanciful notion devoid of practicality and efficacy. It is an unconventional one of high potentiality meriting the most careful consideration. Among so much else, it includes, as a mild but nevertheless worthy form, the sabotage of the electoral process of Democracy, this process being vital to its Great Pretence. In place of participation in this process, contributory to its continuation, involved in the electioneering of nationalist parties, we have to urge strict abstention through the message of “Don’t Vote!”
Alongside this imperative and invaluable disruption of the machinery of the present system, there is much scope for the disruption of enemy persons and organisations to counter their disruptive activities against us. For example, it is disgraceful that the Jewish Searchliqht gang has been able for decades to continue to infiltrate nationalist parties and NationalSocialist organisations, molest their members, and bring pressure to bear on owners of halls and hotels to refuse or to cancel bookings. Appropriate Vanguard personnel should be quite quickly capable of putting this gang out of business, and keeping them out. Likewise for another example, it is disgraceful that the impudent Asian, Ameer Anwar, who desecrated and destroyed the Rudolf Hess memorial in Scotland several years ago, has been allowed to go unpunished ever since.
Activities here indicated are all necessarily covert ones, and one rule which has to be stressed and stressed is that covert and overt activities and personnel must never be mixed for the most obvious reason of security. Having established this firm rule for the Vanguard, it can be mentioned that, strictly for those who have no intention now or in the future of engaging in covert activities, one highly purposeful, overt activity open to such Vanguard personnel, and which in its exercise of a form of power is not to be ignored as unworthy in comparison to covert activities, is the promotion of one form or another of National-Socialist community. Therein, National-Socialism can be put into practice on a small scale as far as possible, the community resembling a National-Socialist state in miniature, and in this constituting some seizure of power from Democracy.
Some of the alternatives to electioneering in the party game have now been briefly mentioned here to show that such exist. They and others will be examined in more detail in parts of “The Way Ahead” directly following this one. All of them require an elite, a Vanguard, as the one and only, competent form of organisation for their implementation.