Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

Wednesday, 15 June 2011

Many heads are better than two faces

The following article was published on the BNP sub-section of the British Democracy Forum yesterday. Its author, whose user name is Mafeking, appears to be a veteran British nationalist. The article considers the alternatives on offer in the British National Party's current leadership challenge, weighs the perceived pros and cons of the challenger against the pros and cons of the incumbent, and arrives at a reasoned conclusion and recommendation for action.

Against corruption, against sleaze - you must support Mr Brons
By Mafeking 

AS my fellow posters will know, I am not and rarely have been impressed by Mr Andrew Brons. As a representative and spokesman for the party he is adequate and not easily fazed, but his ability to perform well in the media should not be confounded with an ability to lead. This is an ability he lacks and has always lacked.

He is, for better or worse, encumbered with the impulse to compromise when difficult situations arise. When hard decisions are called for he is unable to make them, and consequently finds himself driven by events, only "doing the right thing" when left with no other choice. In the past this has proved fatal.

Mr Brons is not his own man. He is absolutely reliant upon others, and in cahoots with them - the result of allowing himself to be driven by events that could and should have been resolved twelve months ago, had those opposed to Nicholas Griffin not shamefully declined to use, and use ruthlessly, all the weapons at their disposal.

In his favour, he is at heart a racial nationalist. When he dithers and seeks compromise it is always with the best of intentions. He is fair minded, is unquestionably honest, and, despite the unsupported allegations of others, has never knowingly given aid or succour to our many, many enemies.

Mr Brons works best as part of a team. He is a committee man, not a leader. He does not have that fix of mind. Nor will his public speaking inspire and motivate.

For all that, his prospective election to the chairmanship is the last best hope the British National Party has.

Now I harbour certain concerns with regard to Edward Butler, with whom Mr Brons is so closely associated. Mr Butler is too ready to opaque the past and his part in it, too ready to forgive his own complicity, too ready to dismiss those not of his own mind for fools, too ready to cast his own very large defects of character (of which there are many) in to the shade, and always ready to dissemble - for example, his recent assault upon the efficacy of legal action in certain situations, which I do not repeat but which I charge is an utter nonsense, as those of us close to John Tyndall, including Richard Edmonds, may attest for knowing how quickly the process is set in motion and of its salutary effects upon those against whom it is aimed.

Just as concerning in regard to Mr Butler is his apparent detachment from the original racial objectives of the BNP, his implied (if not tacit) acceptance that an English "nationalist" party can be a proper home for disaffected British Nationalists (who are, by definition, clear different things), and a suspicion that Mr Butler is now little more than an agent for this outside and opposing force.

Mr Butler is of a kind who has been met many times in my near four decades of experience. Even so, there is, behind his self serving ways, a backbone at least, and he has proved the most effective and deadly rival to the pretensions of those who have usurped our movement. He has, to his credit, continually outflanked the usurpers - though to what end, I shall not inquire further.

Whatever their imperfections may be, those allied to Mr Brons should be judged against the past and current machinations of those they seek to oust - to wit, one Nicholas Griffin and one Patrick Harrington. For make no mistake of it, for all the Jeffersons and Walkers, it is this creature Harrington who ever has been and remains the most negative, disruptive and dishonest influence ever to sleaze its way in to our movement, every bit as much as his friend Nicholas Griffin.

Those of you who have never met Patrick Harrington have little comprehension of his extreme vanity, of his vaulting estimation of his own intellectual capabilities, of how well he compliments himself upon his supposed Machiavellian prowess, how little regard he has for the "small people" of nationalism.

He is, for the most part, cordially despised by the greater number who have experienced his damp handshake, for he is not so clever that they do not quickly become aware of how very "wrong" he is. Harrington is the living, sleazing embodiment of all we oppose. We require rectitude, honesty, character, the very antithesis of Harrington.

While he may be Nicholas Griffin's favoured henchman and string puller (terms in which his vanity will cause him to glory), he is also Nicholas Griffin's Achilles Heel, a person to whom even the staunchest of the Chairman's allies find the greatest difficulty in warming.

He must be attacked relentlessly, consistently, his doings brought to the light, exposed, deprecated and ridiculed. The Chairman must be forced in to an unpopular defence of his friend and ally - that is, brought to battle on terms not his own and upon ground he does not choose, to defend a position some of his own generals do not think worthy.

It is strength, cunning and ruthlessness that will defeat the usurpers, not some misguided adhesion to "rules" devised by those who fully intend to bring the same force to bear upon Mr Brons and his allies. To do anything less is to invite certain defeat.

To end, I am not minded that governance by committee is a very good way of getting things done. Our mode of party governance worked well while a man of honour held the leadership, but became a ready instrument of tyranny and corruption when it fell to a man of no honour. Had we the like of a John Tyndall available I should not be saying this, but governance by committee is what we require for the present and forseeable future. It is what Mr Brons is most fitted for, and any leadership of his will inevitably assume this character. Such governance will not run smoothly, for it is natural that committee structures inevitably become riven by factions, plots and egos, but it must happen and remain in place until a credible Chairman emerges.

I urge you all, even those who entertain the same misgivings as myself, to support Mr Andrew Brons's leadership challenge as the final eleventh hour chance to save and redeeem our party. The certain alternatives of corruption and lies are too horrible to contemplate.

(My apologies for any mistakes - I again take refuge in the fact of weak eyesight.)


  1. if andrew did get in he needs to make sure the likes of eddy butler and sadie graham do not return

  2. This article seems to take a more commonsense approach than most. Healthy scepticism at its best. I like the idea of forcing Griffin to fight off his own ground, but how to do it?