Well it seems everyone else has said something on the now infamous series of articles by Jim Dowson, and a few have suggested I should do so also. So here it goes, and as usual from a different direction than many might expect.
Perhaps rather cleverly - maybe too cleverly for an online format - it seems to me that Jim Dowson has illustrated one extremely valid point*.
Whereas Paganism or atheism will attract little in the way of furore, the idea of Christianity tends to get attacked a lot by Nationalists.
I'm neither Christian or Pagan myself, but that is something I do notice from a lot of different sites and comments sections.
Say "Odin" nobody bats an eyelid, say "Jesus" and there's a storm.
If Jim's point is that we are idiots if we alienate the huge Christian base in the UK then that is indeed a fair point, we are!
My own belief just for the record is that I don't give a damn what anyone calls their God, the only question of any importance to me is whether they are a fellow patriot fighting for the cause of our nation.
Whatever my brother and sister choose to name their God, or if they have no God at all, if they fight the good fight then they are welcome at my side and I would stand or fall with them.
Christianity, Paganism, Odinism, atheism, the whole lot have a place within Nationalism. We as Nationalists should be defending them all, and defending our kin's right to believe in them and to express that belief. However, they should not be the focus of a movement. Religion has its place, but it is not the be all and end all of patriotism.
Some missionary movement based around a single religious viewpoint will fail and alienate many. A movement where we all welcome our national brothers and sisters of different faiths and defend those faiths will not.
Pagans with a vision of nationalism as a Pagan only domain doom us. So do Christians with a view of it being a Christian only preserve. Ditto with atheists who seek to rubbish the lot. We need all of us - not seeking to convert each other or rubbish each others beliefs, but to stand together and save our people and our country.
If this is Jim's point, and hopefully article 3 will enlighten us, I find myself in a minority of applauding him for actually airing it even though it may have derailed into unexepected and unwanted directions as most controversial things on the net tend to do.
We shall see; Part 3 is probably one of the most awaited articles on BR for a while at least. Whatever else, Jim certainly knows how to inspire discussion and keep an audience on tenterhooks.
*Please note I refer to just the articles themselves when writing this. Many of the comments posted on them (and not just from Jim, although his seem to have been singled out by many) I have made no secret of the fact that I consider them to be counter productive and damaging no matter what the intent behind them was.