Search This Blog

Wednesday, 28 January 2026

SHOCKING: How Nick Griffin's BNP Secretly Created Reform UK!

Follow Nick here: Substack: Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale Telegram: t.me/NickGriffin X: @NickGriffinBTP ------------------------------------------------------ Support this channel by buying me a coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/nickbuck... #UKPolitics #PoliticalCommentary #PoliticsUK --------------------------------------------------------- Dive into the controversial legacy of Nick Griffin and the British National Party (BNP) in this eye-opening video! Did the BNP pave the way for Nigel Farage's Reform UK by boldly challenging the establishment on mass immigration and exposing the horrors of grooming gangs? We explore how Griffin's outspoken campaigns in the early 2000s shattered political taboos, forcing mainstream parties to address issues like uncontrolled borders, cultural integration, and child exploitation scandals that were once swept under the rug. From BNP's electoral highs to their downfall, we ask the provocative question: Do we owe the BNP a thank you for sparking the immigration debate that fuels today's populism? Featuring archival footage, expert insights, and balanced analysis on UK far-right politics, this video uncovers hidden influences on Brexit, multiculturalism, and the rise of anti-establishment movements. Whether you're a history buff, political junkie, or concerned citizen, discover the untold story behind Britain's shifting landscape. Don't miss this deep dive into nationalism, reform, and societal change! Keywords: Nick Griffin BNP, Reform UK origins, UK immigration debate, grooming gangs scandal, British far-right history, Nigel Farage influence, political taboos broken, UK populism rise. Hashtags: #BNP #NickGriffin #ReformUK #UKImmigration #GroomingGangs #BritishPolitics #FarRightUK #Populism #BrexitLegacy #PoliticalTaboosPhrases for SEO: "Did BNP lay groundwork for Reform UK?", "BNP immigration taboo", "Owe BNP thank you?", "Grooming gangs exposure UK", "Nick Griffin legacy". Checkout my 5 books: Facebook:   / nickbuckleymbe   Twitter:   / nickbuckleymbe   YouTube:    / nickbuckleymbe   Instagram:   / nickbuckleymbe   TikTok:   / nickbuckleymbe   Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast... Spotify Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/5JjjdK4... Substack: https://nickbuckleymbe.substack.com/

France Is Going To Ban Gab the free speech platform

 


This morning, as Gab prepared for another day of defending free speech online, we received a formal legal notice from the French government. It’s the kind of thing that would make most Big Tech CEOs fold like a cheap suit, but not here. Not on Gab.

The letter, straight from a French administrative authority in Nanterre, is written in both French and English. They demand that Gab remove “specific content” and ban certain users within 24 hours. Fail to comply, and they’ll block access to Gab across France. The justification? Vague citations to France’s Law for Trust in the Digital Economy (LCEN) and the EU’s Terrorist Content Online Regulation (TCO or TERREG), which gives governments the power to play digital thought police.

I’ve attached the full notice here for transparency. It’s all there: the threats of “immediate measures” if we don’t censor, and the usual boilerplate about protecting “public order” and fighting “terrorism.” But let’s be real: this isn’t about terrorism. This is about control. It’s about silencing voices some foreign government doesn’t like.

One of the accounts the French government is demanding we ban hasn’t even posted a single thing on Gab not a word, not a post, nothing. It’s a ghost account, inactive and harmless, yet these foreign bureaucrats in their ivory towers think they can waltz in and dictate to an American company like we’re their colonial outpost. This isn’t about enforcing any real law; it’s about raw overreach, trying to force us to purge random users who haven’t violated a single one of our guidelines or U.S. law, all under the guise of their flimsy “trust in the digital economy” nonsense.

It’s insane, it’s tyrannical, and it’s not happening, not on our watch. Gab stands for American sovereignty and free speech under God, not bowing to every petty demand from overseas elites who hate liberty. If they want to play games with empty profiles, let them chase shadows; we’ll keep building the uncensorable internet for the people who actually use it.

Gab was built for exactly these moments. Back in 2016, when the thought police at Twitter and Facebook started banning conservatives, nationalists, and anyone who dared question the regime, we said enough. We’ve faced deplatforming from payment processors, app stores, and even our own hosting providers all because we refuse to police speech based on what offends the powers that be. We’ve been called everything from a “haven for extremists” to a “threat to democracy.” And guess what? We’re still here. Stronger than ever.

France’s move is just the latest in a long line of European censorship crusades. Remember the EU’s TCO Regulation? That gem from 2021 that lets any “competent authority” in the bloc order platforms to nuke content in one hour flat no judge, no trial, just blind obedience. It’s been challenged in court by groups like La Quadrature du Net and ARTICLE 19, who rightly call it a “dangerous techno-solutionist police censorship” that chills free expression. Smaller platforms like ours get hit hardest because we don’t have the resources or the will to build the surveillance machines Big Tech uses to preemptively scrub anything that smells like dissent.

Gab complies with the law. We ban illegal threats of violence. Child exploitation? Gone. Direct calls to murder? Banned. But “terrorist content”? That’s a slippery slope the French (and their EU overlords) define to include political speech, memes, and even historical discussions that trigger their fragile sensibilities. Banning users for wrongthink?

We will not comply. Gab is a platform built for free speech, built by Christians for everyone who values liberty under God. As the Apostle Paul wrote in Galatians 5:1, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” These governments want to yoke us to their digital gulags, but we’ll stand firm. If France bans Gab, so be it. Our users are global. Our mission is eternal. And frankly, losing a country that’s already knee-deep in censorship might just be a blessing in disguise.

To the French government: Your threats don’t scare us. To our users: Keep posting. Keep building. The future of free speech doesn’t bend to bureaucrats.

Support platforms that fight for you.

Andrew Torba
CEO, Gab
Christ is King

At Gab, our mission has never wavered in a decade: to defend free speech as a God-given right, rooted in the principles that made America great. We’re not just a social network; we’re a fortress against the censors, powered by users like you who refuse to bow to tyranny. GabPRO isn’t just a subscription—it’s your stake in this battle. For just a few dollars a month, you get ad-free access, priority support, exclusive features, and the satisfaction of fueling our fight to stay ahead of the regulators and tech overlords.

We can’t win this without you. Your support means the world to us, but right now, with the noose tightening, we need you more than ever. Subscribe to GabPRO today and join us on the front lines. Together, we’ll gear up for the challenges ahead and ensure that free speech endures—no matter what the enemy throws at us.

Upgrade to GabPRO Today

Make A One Time Donation

Civil War In Britain & The US Deep State - Nick Griffin



Civil War In Britain & The US Deep State - Nick Griffin.mp4
 
Watch now
 

Civil War in Britain and the US Deep State

Nick Griffin on the Blunt Clarity Podcast - Recommended Watching!

Follow Nick on Substack
Follow Nick on X


In this BluntClarity episode, Louis Hannah asks some unusual questions on a wide range of subjects.

We cover my warnings on the grooming gangs, well over twenty years ago; how the BNP opened up British politics; the fake anti-immigration poses of Nigel Farage; the power of well-organised minorities and the lessons 21st century nationalists need to learn from earlier history and struggles on the island of Ireland.

We move on to me explaining why, given that Britain is going to end up Balkanised and tribalised, it’s far better to try to short-circuit the process and avoid the no-win civil war so ardently desired by the zio-nats and their paymasters.

“They won’t assimilate” - why that’s completely the wrong complaint, and why assimilation would be the ultimate disaster. I name the biggest and most dangerous child sex grooming gang in Britain. And take a deep dive into the real threat to Britain and Europe from the US Deep State and plutocracy.

All this and much more. Do take a look. Louis is a fine example of how, while so many people judge the up and coming generation by looking at idiot gobshites and chancers on throw-away social media channels, there are in fact a huge number of truly serious, well-informed, sober and faithful young men out there. It bodes very well for the future.

If you enjoy the show, do remember to go and subscribe to his YouTube channelhttps://www.youtube.com/@bluntclaritypodcast

Tuesday, 27 January 2026

The Myth of Virtious Democracy

By Jim Cardoza 

origional Publication at American Thinker 

 Democracy is widely spoken of today as though it were a moral achievement in itself -- an end rather than a means, a virtue rather than a procedure. It is invoked with reverence, defended with passion, and exported with missionary zeal. Yet this reverence obscures a simple but essential truth: democracy, by itself, has no moral content. It is merely a method for making collective decisions. Like any tool, its value depends entirely on what it is used to do -- and, just as importantly, what it is prevented from doing.

History offers no shortage of examples where democratic processes have produced outcomes that were not merely unwise, but profoundly unjust. Majorities have voted to segregate, to confiscate, to censor, to conscript, and to suppress. At various times and places, democratic majorities have endorsed slavery, ethnic cleansing, religious persecution, and wars of conquest. None of these policies were redeemed by the fact that they were approved by a vote. Fifty-one percent of the population does not acquire moral authority simply by being numerically superior.

The confusion arises when democracy is mistaken for liberty. The two are not the same, and they are often in tension. Democracy answers the question, who decides? Liberty answers the question, what may not be decided at all? A society that allows everything to be voted upon has already abandoned the very concept of rights. Rights, by definition, are not permissions granted by a majority; they are protections against the majority.

This distinction was well understood by the architects of the American constitutional order. They did not set out to create a pure democracy, and they said so plainly. What they created instead was a constitutional republic -- one in which popular participation was constrained by law, structure, and principle. Elections determined officeholders, but not first principles. Majorities could choose representatives, but those representatives were forbidden from infringing certain individual rights, regardless of how popular such infringements might be.

That design was neither accidental nor naïve. It was the product of hard-earned historical knowledge. The Founders were students of history, not romantics intoxicated by slogans. They understood that power does not become harmless when exercised by many rather than by few. A lynch mob does not become just because it is large, nor does confiscation become moral because it is popular.

America’s enduring significance as an icon of liberty lies not in the frequency of its elections but in the architecture of its restraints. The Bill of Rights does not begin with an affirmation of democratic will; it begins with prohibitions -- Congress shall make no law. These words do not elevate the majority; they shackle it. They recognize that the greatest threat to freedom in any society is not merely tyranny from above, but oppression from all directions, including from one’s neighbors.

The modern tendency to equate democracy with virtue has led to a steady erosion of these restraints. When every issue is reframed as a matter of “the will of the people,” the space for individual liberty shrinks accordingly. Property rights become conditional. Speech becomes negotiable. Due process becomes an inconvenience. Each of these losses is justified not on moral grounds, but on numerical ones.

What is particularly dangerous about this trend is its self-righteousness. Policies that would once have been recognized as coercive are now defended as democratic. The language of rights is replaced by the language of outcomes. Those who resist are accused not of defending liberty, but of opposing democracy itself -- as if democracy were the ultimate moral standard rather than a procedural mechanism.

Yet the test of a free society is not how efficiently it registers public opinion, but how effectively it protects unpopular individuals. Freedom of speech matters most when speech is despised. Property rights matter most when envy is widespread. Due process matters most when emotions run high. These are precisely the moments when democratic impulses are most likely to collide with liberty -- and when constitutional limits matter most.

Advertisement

The American system, at its best, recognized human nature as it is, not as we might wish it to be. It assumed that people are capable of wisdom, but also of passion, prejudice, and shortsightedness. It therefore divided power, slowed decision-making, and elevated principles above preferences. These features are often criticized today as undemocratic, which is precisely the point. They were meant to be.

Democracy, stripped of constitutional restraint, becomes little more than a counting exercise -- a competition for control over the machinery of coercion. Whoever wins the vote gains the power to compel obedience from those who lose. In such a system, politics ceases to be about justice and becomes a struggle over spoils. Groups organize not to defend rights, but to capture power, knowing that today’s majority can impose its will without limit.

Liberty offers a different vision. It does not promise that outcomes will be equal, popular, or even comfortable. It promises something far more demanding: that individuals will be secure in their lives, their property, and their choices, regardless of shifting public moods. This security is not an obstacle to self-government; it is the precondition for it. People can meaningfully participate in public life only when they are free from arbitrary power, including the arbitrary power of the majority.

None of this requires hostility toward democracy. Voting has its place, and a vital one. It allows peaceful transitions of power. It provides feedback to those who govern. It offers a mechanism for resolving disputes without violence. But these are practical virtues, not moral ones. Democracy is valuable because it is useful, not because it is inherently righteous.

America’s greatness has never rested on the sanctification of majority rule. It has rested on the radical idea that there are things no majority may do -- that the individual is not a mere instrument of collective desire, and that liberty is not a favor bestowed by numbers. When that idea is forgotten, democracy becomes not a safeguard of freedom, but a means of dismantling it -- one vote at a time.

In the end, the choice is not between democracy and liberty, but between democracy constrained by principle and democracy unbound by it. History leaves little doubt about which one preserves freedom, and which one merely redistributes power until nothing remains worth preserving.

Jim Cardoza is the author of The Moral Superiority of Liberty and the founder of LibertyPen.com. Read more of his essays there.

Image: Honore Daumier


Monday, 26 January 2026

The single greatest Christian persecution in Human history.


 

By Fr Daniel



The genocide of Orthodox Christians in Atheist Soviet Russia is perhaps the single greatest Christian persecution in Human history.

What crimes did the Bolsheviks commit during the ‘Russian Revolution? They nailed him to the floor of the church. He remained alive for a long time. Red-hot ramrods were slowly driven into his body until one pierced his heart… This is how Bishop Sylvester (Olshevsky) of Omsk died in February 1920. Bishop Tikhon (Nikanorov) of Voronezh was crucified on the Royal Doors of the iconostasis. Bishop Andronik of Perm was buried alive in a pit which he had been forced to dig himself. Bishop Hermogenes of Tobolsk was tied to a ship’s wheel and drowned. Bishop Seraphim (Chichagov) was carried on a stretcher to be executed at the Butovo firing range, as the nearly 90-year-old elder could no longer walk. Grand Duchess Elizabeth & the nun Barbara were thrown alive into a deep mineshaft in Alapaevsk. Bishop Benjamin of Petrograd, along with several laymen, was shot after a show trial based on false charges related to the confiscation of church valuables. Priest Peter Skipetrov was shot in the face in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra. Archbishop Nikon Rozhdestvesnky (accused of ‘antisemitism’) was stabbed & maimed to death outside of his monastery (Trinity Sergius Lavra), his body was disfigured beyond recognition. The Bolsheviks also beheaded him. Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) of Kiev was dragged outside the walls of the Kiev Lavra, shot, and bayoneted while he gave his blessing to his executioners. The elderly ascetic, Bishop John (Pommer) of Latvia, was tied to a door torn from its hinges, laid on a workbench, brutally tortured, and then set on fire while still alive. Bishop Thaddeus of Tver was drowned in human waste. Father Alexey Merkuryev of the Urals was murdered in front of his congregation, daughter, and son. Bishop Theophan of Solikamsk was stripped, his hair braided, a pole threaded through it, & he was slowly lowered into an icy hole in the Kama River. His body became encased in ice. But the hierarch was still alive - and then he was drowned. Some priests and laymen had their hands tied behind their backs, their eyes blindfolded, and were ordered to walk across the ice until they fell into a hole. The torturers mockingly called them ‘divers.’ The holy prisoners of the Solovki labor camp had their beards and mustaches ripped out and were starved to death… No number of pages or tears can recount all that our land endured so recently - just yesterday. This is only a drop in the ocean of blood shed by the Holy New Martyrs, whose memory we commemorate each year. Hundreds of thousands of priests and millions of laypeople were killed and torn apart for their faithfulness to Christ. More than 2,000 have been canonized as confessors and martyrs - and how many more are known only to God? And this was not some mere political struggle. It was hell itself unleashed. Only demons devoid of all conscience could torture people in such ways. The scale, ferocity, and mercilessness of Soviet persecution of the Church is encapsulated in a single figure: out of 80,000 churches and monasteries at the beginning of the 20th century, by 1939, barely a hundred parishes remained across the vast Russian land. Not a single monastery. Not a single seminary. Not a single bishop at liberty. Just a scattered handful of monks.

An Open Letter to Rupert Lowe MP

 

An Open Letter to Rupert Lowe

Stop the Charge of the Stupid Brigade!

By Nick Griffin
rupert_lowe_commons

Dear Mr Lowe

I, and many patriotic Brits like me, admire a great deal of your work, both within Parliament and more broadly in your constituency and beyond.

I refer here not only to your principled stand on the obvious issues - the grooming gangs, halal and kosher ritual slaughter, your long-standing opposition to the EU and your willingness to say that mass immigration is an issue of ethnicity as well as economics or culture.

I think also of your common sense, practical and traditionalist work on subjects such as the grave injustices done to men in family courts, the importance of apprenticeships, and the threat to our freedoms from government moves towards digital ID and the abolition of jury trials.

Needless to say, while we agree broadly on some very important issues, we also disagree on others, particularly over some economic ideas and some aspects of foreign policy. This letter is therefore not be read, or misrepresented, as a proposal for some sort of alliance.

Money and Energy

Rather, I take the liberty of writing purely with regards to a single issue: your proposal that a large number of patriots should contest the next General Election. Whether this would be on behalf of Restore Britain or as independent nationalists seems unclear at present but, in either case, it would be an act of electoral suicide and, far worse, a grotesque waste of money and energy which could and should be put to far better use.

I write in the hope of helping you to avoid this error and, instead, to become the truly significant and decisive figure in the development of the indigenous British resistance which you undoubtedly have the potential to be.

In a moment I will explain why this electoral diversion would be such a grave mistake, before going on to outline the very much more realistic, effective and constructive strategy which the times and realities of our situation demand.

The Only Exception

Before doing so, I will set out very briefly the one potentially very good justification for Restore to prepare to stand well-funded candidates in a strictly limited number of seats.

In the event that Reform actually win the contest, it would become even more important that you are returned in Great Yarmouth. We both know Farage, and how he will inevitably betray much of the trust put in him by the British people. Our country needs you in Parliament to hold his feet to the fire and to act as the rallying point within the House around whom MPs who incur his disfavour can regroup.

This would create both a genuinely nationalist lobby within the Commons, and potentially also in the Lords, given Reform’s presumed future need to create large numbers of peers to push legislation through. By the end of the term, this grouping could easily be the nucleus of a serious electoral challenge from the ‘real right’.

While I do not believe that there is any parliamentary solution to be convergence of catastrophes bearing down on the ‘old normal’, I am confident that such a new force could play a crucial part in marshalling our people for the Long March back. But it will not come by your people contesting seats in 2029.

Potential Block in Parliament

If you are able to hold your seat in the next election, all the past history of UKIP and Reform tells us for sure that, within a couple of years, it is perfectly possible that up to half of Farage’s MPs and peers will be expelled or will resign. You could quite conceivably become leader of one of the largest blocks in Parliament without standing in a single seat other than your own.

The question is whether this patriotic block would be a sort of waiting room for single-term MPs facing the axe at the following election, or whether they could immediately connect with a really effective grass-roots movement and thus become a permanent and vitally important feature of the British political landscape.

Thus, while I am very aware that you and I are not, as per Kipling, “of one blood” politically, I regard it as a matter of national interest for you to be re-elected to serve another term representing the good people of Great Yarmouth (where, incidentally, my eldest daughter was born).

farage_lowe

It may be that you and Farage can reach a private agreement on this matter but, judging by his bitterly factional record, it is more likely that he will stand a Reform candidate against you, in order to split the vote and ensure that his post-election dissidents do not have an experienced and stalwart figure around whom to rally.

That being the case, you will need to have a pretty sturdy electoral stick of your own with which to encourage him to do the right thing and keep out of your way in the one seat that really matters.

While I am about to counsel you in the strongest possible terms to avoid launching an electoral Charge of the Stupid Brigade in the country as a whole, I do therefore believe that you should pick a dozen seats, in addition to your own, in which you make very serious preparations to stand. These should be the seats of Reform’s sitting MPs and most important candidates, with particular vulnerability to even a small split in the vote also playing a big part in their selection.

Clearly, you need to be able to apply real pressure to Farage in order to leave him no option but to give you a free run in your own seat. If losing you your seat would cost him nothing, he will at least be tempted to get you out of the way. If splitting your vote (probably in half) will lead to a dozen of his key figures having theirs split in turn – even if only by a few hundred – then he would look mad, as well as bad, to reject the deal.

That apart, however, you should not be encouraging anyone, anywhere, to do anything other than leave the field to Reform and put their money and energy into better things.

There are both minor and major reasons for this. The minor one is that contesting any number of no-hope seats would interrupt the laser focus you need to apply to holding Great Yarmouth. To stand a realistic chance of doing that you need not only to spend every last penny of the maximum campaign expenditure, but also to mobilise literally thousands of your members and supporters to travel from all over and campaign for you in your constituency.

It isn’t just a matter of them turning up and being given some leaflets and a few doors to knock. The childishly amateur tactics and campaigns rolled out by Reform (in Caerphilly, to give the latest gruesome example) have absolutely no place if you are to have the serious political future which is there for the taking.

You need to be signing up committed campaigners and bring them together in regional training hubs all over Britain. That way, when they turn up in Yarmouth in 2029 or whenever, they’ll be of real use, rather than waste their time and throw away your seat by running around like Reform headless chickens. If you continue to promote the “candidates everywhere” line, you will automatically scatter all that energy into penny packets and waste it.

Please bear with me while we do a little bit of maths, to establish the purely financial loss awaiting the “broad electoral road” approach.

As you know, there is a maximum amount that any single candidate or party can spend in a parliamentary constituency. While this differs according to number of electors and whether the seat is primarily urban or rural, the basic figure is £54,010 per seat.

As you also know, all the main parties spend that sort of money in all the seats in which they are serious contenders and for which there is real competition. Since money buys slick campaigns, it’s well-nigh impossible to win without matching them. That’s why Nigel overspent in Clacton; he knew it was risky but had no choice.

There are 650 seats. To form a majority government a party must therefore win at least 326 of them. Since a win is never guaranteed these days, let’s say that any party which was seriously in with a chance of forming the next government would fight at least 400 seats. And fight them properly.

That would cost a staggering £21,604,000. Well over £21 million! With, let us remember, absolutely no guarantee of winning a single seat because, in every case, there will be at least one other party spending roughly the same amount in the hope of winning.

Now let us come back down to reality. Clearly, only a tiny fraction of that fortune would be raised and spent by Restore, independent nationalists, Advance or anybody else. What would be a realistic figure? £5,000 per seat? Even that would be a massive strain on local organisations, though it is theoretically possible, especially as you do have some very well-heeled donors who could subsidise them.

Do the maths again: 400 times £5,000 is a much more reasonable £2 million. But when you’re spending one tenth of what is available to the actual front runners, you automatically all but guarantee that you are going to lose. So that’s two million quid down the drain, for nothing other than having the Post Office deliver your main leaflets for free.

charge_light_brigade

I return the the Charge of the Light Brigade analogy. “C’est magnifique. Mais c’est ne pas la guerre,” said the French commander watching the heroic carnage from a safe distance. In this case, it would neither be politics nor magnificent, but a criminally stupid waste of hope, money, time and morale.

Let’s come even further down the scale. With just £2,500, a group of good-hearted amateurs will be able to lose their £500 deposit, run around with a speaker car, put up some posters and (with a very significant amount of preparation work) get the Post Office to deliver.

It won’t, of course, achieve anything. The only thing they will have left to show for it will be their rosettes and the loud-speaker.

In the old days, before the Internet and social media, it was very different. The Free Post leaflet drop and the party political broadcast on the main TV channels were literally the only practical way to push a new or minor party into the public consciousness. The election of 1979, for example, in which Margaret Thatcher stole perhaps a million votes from the National Front, nonetheless gave the NF a haul of 10,000 enquiry forms and letters through the post.

Elections back then weren’t about votes, but about the best way to build an organisation. With social media, websites and search engines all that is long in the past.

So what are the maths with that £2,500 figure? Well, it’s still a million pounds. Everything I’ve already said about waste still applies. But now those who engage in such suicidal charges are also throwing away all credibility in the eyes of anyone with a brain. To switch metaphors, it’s like entering Grand Prix in a Robin Reliant with a blown head gasket and claiming you can win.

I’ve said that these antics achieve nothing. Actually, it’s even worse than that. While none of these candidates can possible win, it is quite likely that the few hundred each one may just scrape in will split the Reform vote just enough to hand a few seats to Labour or the Tories. They probably won’t cost Farage or his most obnoxious Tory retreads their seats, but they will keep out a few decent men and women who, if elected, would probably have left Reform within a year or two in any case.

Nick_Griffin_Parliament

You’ll be pleased to hear that we’ve now done with the tragic bit. It’s time to look briefly at what that million pounds and the energy of your thousands of members could do if applied sensibly.

The money could be poured into organising and building in our communities. It could train and match-fund twenty experimental anti-grooming teams, and twenty Community Observation Patrols. It could equip and fund a starter wave of mobile soup kitchens for homeless veterans and youngsters on the streets.

It could fund an experimental community charity shop, advice centre and youth training facility in Great Yarmouth, and training events to establish the same sort of thing in other towns.

sinn_fein_community_centre

Community advice centres were central to Sinn Fein’s eventual political victory over the moderate nationalist SDLP in working-class areas. They had the advantage of being able to fund theirs with the proceeds of bank robberies. Since we’re not going down that road, we need British nationalists to stop wasting money losing elections and get serious.

The money could fund a Judicial Review of anti-indigenous bias by councils, police and courts. It could finance civil actions for damages against rape gang ringleaders. It could seed-fund a lawfare campaign to secure the right of English and other indigenous British people to establish our own charities, for our own people – a right already enjoyed by every other ethnic, cultural and religious group, but not by us. That’s a discrimination domino just waiting to fall – but only if we push it.

Mr. Lowe, this isn’t a matter of “could fund one of these things”; it would fund ALL of them. As for the energy of your members and your even larger army of online sympathisers, seeing those things happening would energise them to the extent that a thousand and one other local initiatives would start to happen as well.

It would be the kick-start for the physical organisation which now needs to follow on from the psychological tribalisation of our people which was both illustrated and further encouraged by the Raise The Colours phenomenon.

In conclusion, I am not asking to be involved in any way, though I would be happy to meet to discuss these ideas further, either strictly privately or in public. I am not asking to be part of the movement I am proposing you create, though I am willing to serve in any capacity for the common good.

I am not even asking for recognition or credit for these ideas. The courtesy of a reply would be appreciated, just so I and others can rest assured that you have seen this in person. Even better, however, would be for us to see you taking note and doing things which can make a real difference for good.

As you yourself have said and written on a number of occasions, time is running out for this country and its people. Even if you believe that you or a movement your efforts help to create could win a General Election in 2034 or 2039, we know for absolute certain that there is not the faintest possibility of any remotely patriotic party winning in 2029 other than – for all their faults – Reform.

Accordingly, I urge you to make a official declaration that you and the true patriots of Britain have much better things to do – and to start doing them.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Griffin MA (Hons) Cantab.

Former Chairman of the British National Party,

North West of England MEP 2009-2014.

As I believe you will agree, this is a very important issue. Please help to spread aswareness of this Open Letter by Restacking and by sharing on other social media feeds as well. Thank you one and all.

Share

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy Nick Griffin Beyond the Pale, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

 
Share