HTML> The Matter Of 'Media Image': A Point About The BNP And Australian Mainstreamers




The Matter Of 'Media Image': A Point About The BNP And Australian Mainstreamers
Jim Saleam June 21 2009.


The British National Party (BNP) recently elected two deputies to the European Parliament. This effort has refocused attention upon two related matters raised by the Australian mainstreamers, many of whom see the Australian Protectionist Party (APP) as their vehicle:

(a) can 'media image' and political success be developed by arriving at policies acceptable to the 'mainstream'?

(b) what function do 'cleanskins' have in this development?

In the lead-up to the poll, the BNP bent over backwards to pursue 'moderation'. It adopted Winston Churchill as its standard bearer of patriotism, something which the mainstream UK Independence Party also did ; it said that while it did not approve of any advocacy for the 'gay lifestyle', it would accept their votes because radical Islam did not tolerate homosexuality at all ; it said that it would court the votes of immigrants who felt 'British' and diredted its spleen chiefly at Islamicisation in Britain.

Indeed, the BNP has flown many such clever-kites over the last several years, winning extensive publicity for their 'moderation' and undoubtedly recruiting many members who agree with these lines. It has sought to pursue a pro Zionist line on the MIddle East such that the media could not really call them fascists (after all Jews were on the receiving end of fascism) and so as to supposedly they could go on to mobilise hard-line anti Islamic opinion in Britain. It has adopted, in part, a Civic Nationalist view on Nationality, raising the possibility that the large immigrant populations in Britain may simply remain as long as they pursued a type of cultural assimilation and the "indigenous" Briton was allowed to be himself. Taken all up, this sort of thing was meant to help take the BNP to the mainstream.

Nonetheless, despite its moderation (sic) the British Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader lambasted the BNP throughout the recent Euro campaign. The usual anti-racist / anti-fascist goons were brought out to scream 'Nazi' at the BNP. The party was condemned for the ideological pasts of the leaders and alleged connections to Continental extremists ad nauseum. It seems that a wide section of the British public did not particularly care about the BNP's extremism (sic), racism (sic) and even anti-semitism (sic), but voted for it anyway. Either the public could see through the lies, or really the public took the party on face value for many of its policies (ie. British jobs for British workers etc.) - and just didn't care what the media 'reported'.

Did supposed moderation help all this?

While the media has reported the 'moderation' of the leadership, it just as equally resorted to the usual lies. Will the BNP now try even harder to jump through the hoops put in front of it - and reason that breakthrough-mass-success lies just after jumping through the next respectability / mainstreaming hoop?

The important fact is to note that the supposedly positive impact of the mainstreaming line of the BNP is really - very different to quantify. It is more that the party leaders say that it is so, rather than they 'know' it is so. Certainly, the BNP spruced itself up over the last ten years and acted in a professional way. Was that why people then voted for them? Probably. Did British workers vote BNP because the party leader takes the neo-con line that Israel is good because it kills Palestinians who happen support the Moslem party Hamas? We doubt it.

It is our view that the BNP is in fact a dualistic party. It is internally split thanks to the mainstreaming policies of the leadership. Some people take the mainstreaming seriously and some do not. Because many other British nationalists disagree with the whole process, we have seen a revival of the National Front - as a competitor party, which puts things in congruent terms to those discussed here.

The identity of one of the successful BNP candidates to the European Parliament - Andrew Brons - has also raised a matter for the cleanskinner faction over at the APP. Why?

The State-linked "anarchist", "Andy" at the Slackbastard blogspot, wrote one of his usual would-be brainticklers recently, asking whether there was a future for me in view of the election of Brons. So kind of him. After spending a lot of intellectual capital trying to argue that I was - and I assume still am - a neo-nazi, he referred to the well-known fact that the teenager Brons had been a member of the 1960's National Socialist Movement (NSM). This was the neo-nazi group of Colin Jordan. It was the case that a few persons at the APP made a similar allegation against me and maintained that I had a shocking media profile because of this 'fact' of some thitrty four years ago (sic).

In the case of the chief mainstreamers at the APP who have followed the BNP's evolution with reverance and awe, they are now stuck with a most non-cleanskin sitting in the European Parliament. Again, did the British public really care what his media image was? What??! Am I now rehabilitated by BNP practise?!! Could the APP welcome me as a member?

It is a most minor fact of Australian nationalist history that some APP mainstreamers, who were then associated with Australia First, called a secret meeting at a Cronulla hotel in late November or early December 2006. They decided that I had a 'Nazi' image and had to go from Australia First. They would use this attack as their anvil to bring 'cleanskins' to power in the party, those fresh-faced lads with no pasts that the all-powerful-media could not wail on about. They would then change the direction of the Australian nationalist movement - as I have recorded elsewhere on this sub-site.The Nazi smear was developed over the next several months right in tandem with the anti racist / anti fascist websites. That was significant as it showed a sort of common interest.. There developed a wave of smear in laborious twisted detail. Certainly this entire campaign was just a cover for the attack upon nationalist principles, and nationalist leaders - and it has served that aim thereafter. Occasionally, it is still trotted out. Amazingly, it was part of the copycat line about the BNP; here, it was even said that I was "Australia's John Tyndall", an ideological neo-nazi who was holding us all back in some manner the cleanskin mainstreamers best understood. The BNP was praised for purging its Tyndall (John Tyndall: former leader of the BNP ousted in 1999 by the British mainstreamers, a man hardly by then a 'neo-nazi'). It was said the Australian mainstreamers would repeat the drama here. Ten years go by in Britain: but the British people elect Brons!.

So, where are we now left? Of course, let us prefer to hope that, in some manner or another, the British people will regain sovereignty of their own land. Yet, let's not misanalyse the BNP. It may be, or it may not be, that Brons is also now a mainstreamer. I know he is certainly not a neo-nazi. Further, he may even represent the non-mainstreamer faction in BNP. But for certain people at APP: please explain. How does Brons's election conflict with your stated gameplan?

It seems that some people who hold APP memberships need to look again at the line they are pursuing. The entire cause would benefit if they did.

As for the Australian movement: we must continue to reject the logic of the mainstreamers and develop the nationalist vanguard party Australia needs.

And a PS from me: Unlike Brons, I don't seek to be a candidate!


Home: Defend Australian Nationalism