The Way Ahead ~ Part 6 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 election- eering 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 �0 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 �,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 �million of television time, plus the value of the accompanying radio time, plus something in the region of �,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 �,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.

Democracy is the Great Pretence in politics, the pretence that the peo- ple 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 Democ- racy 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.

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 ca- pable of reasoning, so that the passively uncritical part of the brain pre- dominates. 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 �0 million; and the �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 fic- tional 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 mi- nute 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.

The form of organisation which is the party is thus condemnable because the ostensible cause of combating Democracy it perpetrates the self- defeating 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 ad- mirers. 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.

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 con- formist 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

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.