C4 demonises Far Right for saying they are prepared to use violence to defend themselves when society breaks down under the weight and insanity of liberal policies

http://www.channel4.com/news/armed-conflict-justifiable-for-1-in-10-bnp-supporters

Apocalyptic predictions of social breakdown are not confined to the "Far Right". Should such a situation occur, why would anyone of any race say it would be wrong to fight whoever is threatening your life, loved ones and property? It is the job of government to prevent the breakdown of law and order by encouraging policies that create social cohesion. Why then is the government continuing to desecrate the institutions of Marriage and the Family? Totalitarian laws against free speech are not the way to create social and racial harmony. Why is the government creating the problem by its demented policies and then blaming what they like to call "the Far Right"?

Immigration exacerbates more divisions in an already fragmented and atomised society that has lost its pride and moral compass.

Why is immigration encouraged even as successive governments know how much it upsets the white working classes?

Because the country needs a labour force which the feminazis who are busily doing men's work badly and neglecting to do their own work - ie caring for their young and elderly - are failing to provide.

Why won't the government question feminism then?  The only way it continues to survive to wreak its destructive power is because of the existence of  the Unholy Trinity of the Matriarchy consisting of:

(1) totalitarian thoughtcrime anti-discrimination legislation that favours women in employment at the expense of men;

(2) anti-male legislation which allows wives to divorce their husbands on a whim, get half their property and deprive them of their children;

(3) the welfare state that allows women to fuck whom they like without fear of the consequences because it is the mostly the male taxpayer who picks up the tab of their child benefit and their council accommodation and the cost of their ill-bred underachieving unproductive criminal and illegitimate feral children.

Why is the liberal establishment blaming the Far Right when we already know that the lunatics and the evil and the extremists took over the asylum a long long time ago?

Let us see how long it takes Nick Griffin to respond to this on the BNP website.   Feminism is an issue he stays well clear of, because he hopes to attract the female vote.

I on the other hand prefer to attract the rational male vote, because when you do eventually get them onside they tend to be more loyal and reliable than women.   No offence to women, but I have in my past found women to be less reliable as friends than men, and  more totalitarian and censorious.  Men are far more forgiving, honest and tolerant, generally speaking.

Politicians who wish to attract the female vote are mostly dishonest, unprincipled and hoping to persuade the most parasitical and most irrational of voters to vote for them by bribing them with taxpayers' money.

Nick Griffin seems happy for nationalists to think that nationalism is about promising to give the worst and weakest and most parasitical and most gullible and the most disabled of white people exactly what they want  and expelling anyone (such as yours truly) who questions this practice of unthinking and slavish deference being exhibited to these perversely privileged but unproductive groups of people.

Should I set up a rival nationalist party the voter I would wish to attract would be the lower middle classes of any race who have the will and the ability to work, think independently and rationally.  This would include the owner of the local corner shop as well as any white working class grafter who wants fewer laws and lower taxes and effective protection from crime and chaos.   All my policies would be geared towards encouraging those who are hard-working and enterprising and discouraging those who are sexually promiscuous and irresponsible as well as the shiftless and feckless.  

I therefore argue that nationalism should perhaps be more about deferring to Truth, Reason and Reality - even if these are unpopular in a nation of people who were suckled by liberal lies - in order to promote the long-term national interest and the greater good.  I reject and denounce the kind of soft liberal nationalism that Nick Griffin has seen fit to promote, the kind that is too gutless to discuss any of the urgent problems that is affecting this nation just because it might upset someone in this easily upset and morbidly over-feminised nation.