Fill up the cup

Proposals for a New Political Movement

Posted by admin, on 24 August, 2011, to Andrew Brons' BNP Ideas web site 

It is highly likely that the current leadership will drive the British National Party into the ground, so that it ceases to exist as an active political party and at that point it would be legitimate to consider an alternative without incurring the wrath of those members whose default position is to remain with the Party, Andrew Brons MEP has said.

In an exclusive article written for BNP Ideas, Mr Brons deals with the increasing restlessness of activists who are concerned about the future of British Nationalism.

The full article is as follows:

“We recently published a 2005 article by John Tyndall. In that article, he said that break-away parties hardly ever succeeded: the only exception being the British National Party. He was being a little too kind to his own break-away party.

The break-away ‘party’ started as the New National Front in 1980 and became the British National Party in 1982.

At the 1983 General Election, it fielded fewer candidates than the National Front and its average votes were inferior to those of the NF. The votes of both were small compared with the (unimpressive) votes of the National Front in 1979.

The National Front remained ahead of the British National Party until 1986, when the Griffin-Harrington clique decided to split the Party with a ridiculous purge that went disastrously wrong (or did it follow the Harrington strategy?)

This split left the ‘purged’ section of the NF with the greater number of members and supporters than the ‘rump’ party but the internal damage resulted in even the (larger) ‘purged’ section party being too small to be viable. It was only this that enabled the British National Party to overtake the National Front.

Most break-away parties: the National Party 1975/6; and the Constitutional Movement (1979); disappeared without trace even though they contained significant personnel in their ranks.

This is because of an iron law that governs major political divisions within small parties. Sometimes, the largest section disappears into the political wilderness.

The largest section of the remainder will remain with the ‘parent’ party, as long as that parent party continues to operate as a party. The third section goes with the new organisation.

The circumstances in which a new party might survive would be if:

1. The ‘parent party’ were to drive itself into the ground so that it ceased to be able to operate as a party or were even to be wound up officially;

2. The ‘parent party’ were to carry out such a ‘cull’ of members – particularly of leading members and activists that a new party would be the only alternative to inactivity. This could have been the case in 1986, if the Party as a whole had not already been severely depleted by earlier splits.

3. If there were to be a merger of several smaller organisations to form this new movement.

Further to these points:

1. Whilst an unincorporated association cannot be dissolved as the result of bankruptcy, it could be immobilised and subject to damaging control by its creditors.

This could happen as a result of one of the several civil legal actions facing the Party and/or different sections of the leadership. Criminal actions that the leadership is likely to face will destroy its remaining credibility.

It is certain that the present leadership has decided against any attempt to reunify the Party by appealing to those who have left it. If it continues on its present course, it will eventually be driven into the ground.

2. The ‘Party’ (i.e. the gang that controls it) has initiated, obviously contrived, actions against those of Nick Griffin’s employees who identified themselves as my supporters in the leadership election.

There have also been party membership disciplinary actions against isolated individuals who supported me, for alleged breach of the leadership campaign rules, whilst Nick Griffin has escaped charges for the 50 point smear e-mail, written by Griffin himself, that he blamed Martin Reynolds for distributing through the Party’s official website.

Indeed, Martin Reynolds (Griffin’s willing fall guy) has also escaped disciplinary action. There is no pretence of adherence to the Rule of Law.

There is one law for the Griffinites and a different law for the rest of us. We do not know when he will bring further bogus disciplinary actions against his perceived political enemies.

2. There are no credible Nationalist organisations with which a break-away party might merge. Whilst the National Front is small even compared with ‘Britain’s fastest shrinking party’, the two versions of the British Freedom Party are microscopic.

The English Democrats Party is not a Nationalist party at all but an organisation that promotes multi-racialism. It is no better than Harrington’s National Liberal Party and neither should be regarded as a home for genuine British Nationalists, despite the fact that the former, if not the latter, contains some misguided but genuine British Nationalists.

There are members and particularly activists who are already calling for a new party and others who point to them and say that we shall ‘miss the boat’ and ‘give the initiative’ to Britain First and even the multi-racialist EDP.

In any crowd, there are people who panic and run without thought. We are supposed to be rational human beings.

It is highly likely that the current leadership will drive the Party into the ground so that it ceases to exist as an active political party.

At that point, it would be legitimate to consider an alternative without incurring the wrath of those members whose default position is to remain with the Party, come what may.

However, to take that step when the Party is still functioning — more or less — would place the initiators in the category of being part of the problem rather than part of the solution.”