Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

Sunday, 27 November 2011

Don't mention race - I did, but I think I got away with it

The article which follows was written in March 1995 by the late Dr William Pierce. Though it was written primarily for an American audience, its message is equally apposite for a British readership.  Dr Pierce's words are at least as relevant today, as they were on the day they were first written, some sixteen years ago.

Acknowledgements to the web site of the British Democracy Forum, on which this excellent article was recently re-published.

What is Racism?

Today let’s talk about racism and related matters. There’s hardly a subject the average White person is more uptight about, hardly a subject that makes him more uncomfortable. Fifty or 60 years ago, people were really uptight about sex. Very few people could talk about it honestly and openly and comfortably. It embarrassed them. Whenever the subject came up people used all sorts of euphemisms and evasions to avoid having to mention things or use words that made them squirm and blush, things that they just couldn’t deal with straightforwardly. In polite conversation one could not even use the word leg in talking about a woman, for example. It was too risqué, bordering on the pornographic, because of the mental associations it evoked.

Why was that? Why did talking about sex make us uncomfortable? Well, of course, it was because sex was a taboo subject. There were a lot of social and religious prohibitions and restrictions associated with sex, and these prohibitions conflicted with our natural urges. We were taught that following these natural urges was sinful, and that terrible things would happen to us if we did. The result was that we felt guilty about our natural urges. To avoid the very unpleasant feeling of guilt, we tried to avoid the subject of sex. We swept it under the rug and tried not to think about it.

That’s the way it is with the subject of race today. Just as we were conditioned by religious teachings 50 or 60 years ago to feel guilty about our natural sexual inclinations, today we are conditioned — primarily by the controlled mass media — to feel guilty about our natural racial inclinations. We are conditioned to believe that they are sinful.

And what are our natural racial inclinations? We can get a pretty good answer by looking at the way we behaved and wrote and talked back in the era before race became a taboo subject, back in the time when we could still talk about it without feeling any pangs of guilt or embarrassment — back in the early part of this century, say.

At that time we accepted the fact that people of a particular race preferred to live and work and play with other people like themselves. We certainly preferred the company of people of our own race, and that also was true of other races. We were often curious about or interested in the racial characteristics, the behavior, the lifestyles, the culture, and the histories of other races. We admired Japanese samurai swords and Chinese ceramic art, the Eskimo kayak, Hindu mythology, Mexican temples. In youth organizations like the Boy Scouts we studied the lore of the American Indians and tried to emulate their superb skills as stone-age hunters and woodsmen. Wherever another race had some real accomplishment, we were ready to study that accomplishment and to give credit where credit was due.

But at the same time we retained our feeling of separateness and exclusiveness and a pride in our own European culture, our own racial characteristics, our own history. We did not feel it necessary to apologize for teaching the history of our own race in our schools — that is, European history — and for not teaching Japanese history, say, or Tibetan history, except, of course, to those scholars in our universities who were studying exotic cultures. Especially, we did not feel the slightest inclination to invent a false Black history in order to magnify the self-esteem of young Blacks or to persuade young Whites that Blacks were their cultural equals.

Did we feel that our race is superior to other races? In general, yes — but we weren’t uptight about it, just realistic. That is, we acknowledged without the slightest feeling of envy or resentment that other races could do some things better than we could: Blacks, for example, could do work in a hot, humid environment that would kill a White man. And their peculiar skeletal and muscular structure made them better sprinters and jumpers, on the average, while their relatively thick skulls and long arms gave them an advantage at boxing.

But we knew what we were especially good at, and we tended to value those things most highly. Someone recruiting for a basketball team, of course, would have different standards and might very well look at Blacks as a superior race. That didn’t bother us. We were confident in our role as the pacesetters for everyone else, as the planet’s preeminent problem solvers and civilization builders, as the best thinkers and doers. And, of course, we liked our poetry, our art, our music, and our literature best. In that sense we believed that we had a superior culture and we were a superior race. Superior by our own standards, of course.

Because of that — because of our feelings about ourselves and our preference for our own kind and our own culture — we were all racists by today’s standards, of course. We were all White supremacists. But those terms were never used then. Racism was never an issue. We just thought and behaved in a way that was natural for us. As long as other races didn’t get in our way, we felt no hostility toward them. But if they did get in our way, they usually regretted it pretty quickly.

And, of course, other races had pretty much the same attitude we did. They judged things by their standards. The Chinese believed — actually still believe — that they are superior to any foreign devils. Did that offend us in any way? Of course not. We didn’t agree with the Chinese, of course, but as long as everyone stayed on his own turf, we were able to get along reasonably well. The only time there was conflict between the races was when they were forced to occupy the same turf. When that happened there always was conflict and hostility.

When greedy businessmen brought shiploads of Chinese coolies to this country to provide cheap labor for building railroads, so they wouldn’t have to pay the prevailing wage rate to White workers, there was hostility between Whites and Chinese.

A much greater conflict was caused by importing African slaves to America. Profit-hungry slave merchants brought millions of them into this country and gave plantation owners an offer they couldn’t refuse. The economic conditions of the 18th century made the use of slave labor very profitable. But the use of Black slaves by wealthy White landowners left small White farmers and craftsmen in the southern United States at a great disadvantage, with resultant hostility and conflict. After the slaves were freed and turned loose in White society, the conflict between Blacks and Whites became much, much worse, of course.

The conflict between the races eventually was limited by the practices of segregation, which established, in essence, separate societies in the United States for Whites and for Blacks. Whites lived in one part of town; Blacks in another. Whites went to White schools; Blacks to Black schools. There were White recreational areas and Black recreational areas, White restaurants and Black restaurants. The races mixed as little as they could, and each race was able to maintain its own standards and its own culture, more or less. In most cases the institutions of segregation were sanctified by law. Wherever there was a sizable population of Blacks, for example, there were laws against miscegenation.

Segregation was not really an ideal solution for the long term, for either race, but in the short term it was infinitely better than racial mixing. The only good long term solution would have been complete geographical separation, in this case by repatriating freed slaves back to Africa and Chinese coolies back to China. But economic considerations — plus the regrettable shortsightedness which characterizes public policy in a democracy — resulted in repatriation being put on the back burner.

And so we lived with segregation as best we could, despite its shortcomings. We still had our turf and our society, and Blacks had theirs. In our society most of us could still talk about our own race and about other races without becoming embarrassed or feeling guilty. There was, of course, a great difference between the cultural and economic levels of White society and those of Black society. Standards in Black schools were far below those in White schools; Black incomes were lower; Black neighborhoods were poorer, dirtier, and more violent. A few Blacks overcame these conditions and prospered, but most lived rather squalidly.

A few Whites — and others — with extra time on their hands patronized the Blacks, even in those days before racism became a cause célèbre, and attributed Black ignorance and poverty to White oppression. Of course, it was nothing of the sort. The great majority of Whites did not concern themselves at all with Blacks and certainly wasted no time in trying to oppress them. Most Whites did not care what Blacks did, so long as they did it among themselves and did not threaten Whites. One merely had to look at the vastly greater difference which existed between the levels of civilization in Europe and in Black Africa to understand that the difference between the levels of White and Black society in America was merely a reflection of the difference in racial quality, and that Blacks in America would be living at an even lower level were it not for the benefits bestowed on them by their proximity to White society.

Nevertheless, the do-gooders persisted in blaming White society for the shortcomings of Black society, though without making much of an impact on White society. During the 1920s and 1930s the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — the NAACP — lobbied for an end to segregation. Interestingly enough, all the presidents of the NAACP during this period were Jews, not Blacks, and the organization also received nearly all its financing from Jews.

It was really the Second World War that changed things. The enormous buildup of wartime industry in America changed the composition of the U.S. work force radically. With millions of White males in uniform, Blacks were recruited into the factory work force in unprecedented numbers. The war had the net effect of moving large numbers of Blacks from rural areas into the cities and giving them more money than they had ever had before. Much more important was the psychological impact of the war. The war propagandists in America painted the war as a crusade for democracy and equality. We were told that the Germans believed themselves a master race. It was very wicked for any one group of people to believe that they were superior to any other group, we were told, over and over again. Well, after we had killed millions of our fellow Europeans and had lost 300,000 of our own soldiers proving that the Germans were not a master race after all, it was much easier for the propagandists of the controlled media to persuade us that Whites and Blacks were innately equal, and that the lower socioeconomic level of Blacks therefore must be our fault. If Blacks were ignorant and poor, we had made them that way. It was segregation that was holding them down. The result was White guilt: it first began to take hold in the White consciousness in the 1950s.

Television became a powerful, new weapon in the hands of the guilt-mongers. We were treated to television spectacles of inoffensive, well-dressed Blacks sitting quietly in White cafes, while White waitresses refused to serve them and White patrons jeered them. We saw Blacks being pulled off buses and beaten with baseball bats by White Klansmen. We saw police dogs and club-swinging White policemen attacking Black so-called freedom marchers in Alabama. I don’t mean to say that scenes such as these were typical of the so-called civil rights demonstrations of the 1950s and 1960s. But they did happen occasionally. White working-class people, who were least able to protect themselves from the Black assault on White jobs, White neighborhoods, and White schools during the 1950s and 1960s, sometimes reacted in an intemperate and undignified way. Sometimes they even reacted violently. Whenever they did, the cameras of the controlled media were there to record it. And these few scenes were cleverly edited, put in a context carefully selected to appeal to the innate White sense of propriety and fairness, and then broadcast over and over and over again. The result was more White guilt — as intended.

By skilfully using selected scenes of White resistance to racial integration which were embarrassing to most White viewers, the controllers of the media were gradually able to make the whole idea of resistance to racial integration embarrassing to most White people. And then the media gave a name to White resistance to integration: racism. And by repeatedly invoking this name in conjunction with scenes and actions and ideas which already had been made embarrassing, the name itself, the word itself, acquired the power to cause pangs of embarrassment and guilt — exactly as the sound of the dinner bell by itself caused Pavlov’s dogs to salivate.

The media had established a conditioned reflexive reaction to the word racism. The very word itself now is sufficient to cause the trendiest among us to turn pale and run for cover, while it makes even fairly rugged individualists uncomfortable.

Now, this brief history of racism really is a gross over-simplification. The actual process was much more complicated and involved many details which we have insufficient time to describe today. The schools, for example, were recruited into the conditioning program. The content of school curricula was falsified in order to prevent White students from understanding the rationale for segregation in America — or more generally, for the separation of races anywhere in the world. At the same time, history courses were de-Europeanized and larded with all sorts of imaginary accomplishments of non-Whites. The aim of all of this was to make it seem to White students that any effort to maintain a White society was not only irrational but also unfair.

The only thing which has helped a few White students resist this teaching has been the actual, physical presence of real Blacks in their schools, so that they could see the glaring contradiction between the theory of racial equality and reality.

One of the consequences of this generally very successful program of conditioning by the controlled media, this program of brainwashing, has been to make it very difficult to discuss racial matters rationally. It’s like it must have been trying to discuss sex rationally among Presbyterians a century ago.

When I’m on television talk shows and I talk about race, I receive really hysterical calls from some people, who just can’t deal with it. And calls from the haters, too — people who tell me I ought to be killed for being in favor of separation of the races or for being opposed to miscegenation. And these people who scream out hatred and obscenities at me for daring to have Politically Incorrect opinions on race are White people — White people who have been conditioned by the controlled media to react that way.

But ordinary people used to get just as upset about sex a hundred years ago. They used to hate, despise, and even want to kill people who had unconventional ideas about sex — and I’m not talking about child molesters or homosexuals; I’m talking about healthy heterosexuals who simply weren’t as rigidly conventional in their ideas or practices as the rest of the population. Margaret Sanger, the pioneer of birth-control education in America, was thrown into prison for her views in 1917. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, scandalized conventional Christians by taking a number of wives, and he was lynched — murdered — by a mob in Illinois in 1844.

Nevertheless, race is something we must think about and talk about rationally and honestly. We must not be embarrassed by it. We must not feel guilty about it. We must understand that wanting to live and work with people of our own kind is a natural, healthy feeling that we are born with. Nature gave us this feeling so that we could evolve as a race, so that we could develop special characteristics and abilities, which set us apart from every other race. This feeling, this preference for our own kind, is essential for our continued survival. What is unnatural and destructive and truly hateful is enforced multiculturalism, as it’s called, enforced diversity.

I will conclude today by pointing out that our natural feeling about race isn’t the only thing the brainwashers of the controlled media have worked hard to develop into a conditioned, reflexive guilt-and-fear mechanism. They’ve worked nearly as hard to confuse our natural understanding of the differences between men and women. When I say in public, as I often do, that the natural role for a man is that of provider and protector, and the natural role for a woman is that of a nurturer, I am subjected to the same kind of hysterical and hate-filled attacks as when I talk about race.

The media, the Jews, the egalitarians are intent on obscuring all distinctions, all structure in our society, all standards. We must resist their whole campaign of enforced Political Correctness. But most of all we must resist their effort to condition our thinking about race. We can survive feminism, no matter how neurotic and unhappy it may make us. We can survive other forms of egalitarianism, no matter how socially destructive they are.

But we cannot survive much longer unless we return to honesty in dealing with race.

Wednesday, 23 November 2011

Word magic

The following is an article, supposedly written by Mr Clive Jefferson, the national treasurer of the British National Party and recently published on the party's main web site, http://www.bnp.org.uk/.

As readers may observe, it is titled "Conference 2011 financial overview".  Astonishingly, however, this title is grossly misleading.  A casual glance at the article's title would tend to create the impression in the mind of a visitor to the web site that this article was concerned with the state of the party's finances: its income, its expenditure and its balance sheet.  Upon actually reading the article, however, it becomes clear that its title is a mere play on words and that nowhere in the article are our party's overdue 2010 Accounts, let alone its 2011 Accounts, even mentioned.

Only four figures are cited and these relate exclusively to the conference itself, as an event!

Now, having spoken to the Electoral Commission, I know that the BNP's 2010 Accounts are more than four months overdue.  I know that the Electoral Commission is conducting a case review of the BNP's failure to comply with its statutory requirements.  I know that the BNP has already incurred substantial fines in respect of its failure to submit the 2010 Accounts to the Commission by the statutory deadline. 

The financial penalties are set to increase unless the Accounts are submitted by 7 January 2012.  These fines will need to be paid with moneys which BNP members have provided the party in the form of their annual membership subscriptions and donations to either head office or the party's local groups and branches.  What an unforgivable waste of members' hard earned money!  And what inexcusable incompetence on the part of our party's leadership!

The penalties imposed on the party by the Electoral Commission may not be restricted to fines.  It is difficult to predict the precise nature of the sanctions which could, in theory, be imposed on the BNP, because we are in uncharted waters.  There has never before been a case of a political party with a substantial revenue, such as the BNP, neglecting its statutory reporting obligations quite so flagrantly, in the Electoral Commission's institutional history.

In view of the gravity of the situation, one would have thought that an article entitled "Conference 2011 financial overview" would have addressed these matters.  But no.  Instead we have the news that the conference itself, as an event, was profitable.  Well, should we be thankful for small mercies?  The party as a whole may be technically insolvent and operating at a loss, but at least the party's conference, at which delegates should have been informed about the party's financial state, was run at a profit!  Just how dumb does the Griffin clique believe BNP members to be?

Only in Griffin's BNP.  Actually, similar failures could have occurred in any organization, such as the National Front or the International Third Position, for example, in which Griffin was allowed anywhere near the money.

Notwithstanding the unacceptable maladministration of the BNP by its current leadership, members should not despair of the party.  There is a very real prospect of ousting the failed leadership, within the next six to nine months.  Members should maintain their membership of the BNP and by doing so, their right to vote in any leadership election or General Members' Meeting (GMM) which an unforeseen emergency may necessitate.

It is childish to place blind faith in any one man, as too many BNP members have in Mr Griffin.  It is equally unwise to write off a political party of several thousand members, merely because its leader has passed his 'sell by' date but refuses to do the honourable thing and stand down.  But Mr Griffin would have BNP members believe that these are the only two options open to them: either unquestioningly accept his cultic leadership or leave the party.  Well, there is a third option: to remain a member of the party, to remain loyal to the party, while reserving the right publicly to criticize its leadership in a principled and constructive way. 

In a truly democratic political party, such as the BNP would wish to be regarded, public criticism of the leadership by the grass roots is regarded as entirely normal and unexceptionable - as healthy even.  This is the third position and it is one to which Mr Griffin has no effective answer.  It is the position that I adopted some eighteen months ago and have held consistently ever since.  It is the position that I respectfully recommend to every thinking member of our BNP.

I shall be renewing my own membership of the party.  I entreat others to renew theirs.  Whatever else you may, or may not, choose to do for the party under the current circumstances, you should at least do this.

Conference 2011 financial overview

By Clive Jefferson, National Treasurer – This year saw a highly successful British National Party Conference that was well attended, different and exciting. Held in the North West of England, just outside of Liverpool, Conference 2011 was a great success. Historically, we have lost money on our conferences. This year, with our renewed efforts at providing good services for affordable prices in this period of austerity and cuts, we feel that the membership will be delighted to know that this year’s conference was not only well attended, but also made a profit for the Party.

With 215 people signed in as attending over the course of the weekend, plus staff and security, everyone was well fed, watered and housed, and I take great delight in publishing our figures below:

The total cost of Conference this year was £2,643.00 (derived mainly from food, hotel and the catered full hog roast on Saturday night).

The total income from Conference this year was £4,915.00 (derived from attendees’ fees and stalls at Conference).

Therefore, the total profit from Conference 2011 was £2,272.00.

A collection for the staff of the venue (which was supplied free of charge to us) was taken, and £280 was raised as thanks for the excellent and friendly service in the face of intimidation by the local Labour Council.

I would also like to pay tribute to our security team, all volunteers, for keeping us safe, as they always do, 24 hours a day over the duration of the three days. A special thanks to Mike Whitby, North West Regional Organiser and his good lady wife and, of course, to my favourites, the lovely “Liverpool ladies”, who put on one of their legendary spreads and fed us over the weekend and kept everyone supplied with tea and coffee.

I would also like to pay tribute to all the staff for a very professional event, to all the volunteers, without whom this party could not exist, to everyone who attended – it wouldn’t be a conference without you – and last but not least to our Chairman, who closed the event with a televised address, one of the best I have seen him make.

The 'deep philosophers' series

Monday, 21 November 2011

The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Win by appearing to lose?

Acknowledgements to the Heretical.com web site, from which the following extract of an article first published in January 2008 is taken.

BNP Religion: The Psychology of False Messiahs...

By Simon Sheppard

Is Griffin a Psychopath?

I now know from personal experience that Nick Griffin is a liar and a charlatan. This is no great revelation, but the evidence is now so blatant that it demands comment. The following is from Griffin’s New Year’s Message on the BNP website:

"A small clique (relentlessly backed by the far-left) has been plotting behind the scenes to use lies, character assassination and deceit to hijack the BNP and drag it back into an ugly past of mythical ‘Jewish conspiracies’, juvenile cross-burnings and crude race hate.

"Meanwhile, someone within the same clique has now provided (sold?) the addresses of an unknown number of BNP members to an openly neo-Nazi outfit to send them advertising material for clearly illegal and deeply disgusting extremist propaganda. To those decent BNP members who have in the last couple of days received unsolicited mailshots from one Simon Shepherd I can only apologise and urge them to consign the filth to the bin. Shepherd is the hardcore and unreconstructed extremist who set up and ran John Tyndall’s Spearhead website, and will no doubt have taken malicious delight at the thought of disturbing decent people’s New Year’s Eve with his political pornography. Greater proof of the bad faith of the Smith/Graham/Blake gang, and – apart from our former web editor’s hacking of the private email accounts of national and local BNP officials – a greater betrayal of the trust that was placed in them, it is hard to imagine."  [Emphasis mine].

Due to disaffection within the BNP I was given a list of addresses (how it came to me I will not say), who were among the people mailed around 40,000 free copies of the Don’t Be Sheeple newspaper. I did indeed set up the Spearhead website. Everything else however is pure fantasy, wrong both in substance and in fact. I will further point out the misspelling of my name and that the Don’t Be Sheeple was cleared by lawyers. These are not innocent errors: Griffin has a law degree and such misspelling is a Searchlight trick.  [Emphases mine].

Rather than being drawn into a point-by-point refutation of the above and the other personal attacks and false accusations Griffin has made against me, I would like to discuss the nature of the psychopath. The term is used here in its more general sense to describe someone with a mental disorder: the common-or-garden variety of psychopath, not the extreme case who has already found his way to a secure hospital. I am sure I have met several in my time, but the most memorable, providing the model for my working definition, is an individual with a grudge who broke into my flat in Hull and stole a computer I had spent weeks building. His grudge concerned that computer and a possible working arrangement which had been floated as an idea but never came to fruition.

The syndrome was that this individual simply had to feel that he had come out on top. This could have been due to subconscious inadequacy, or an overly inflated ego (due perhaps to absorbing too much adulation). The key point is that if you engage in battle with someone who will stop at nothing, where laws, respect, honesty and decency will be cast aside as secondary to winning at all costs, when with the power of obsession they simply have to get the better of you, it is better to retire gracefully and ‘lose.’ One can readily imagine where such an ongoing vendetta might lead.

Griffin’s attacks against me appear not to have been tempered in any way by the fact, evident to all, that the Don't Be Sheeple contained no criticism of him or the BNP whatever. It has been stated twice to my knowledge that "Griffin will destroy the BNP rather than relinquish control of it." These observations are consistent with my working definition of a psychopath.  [Emphasis mine].

Finally, interesting comparisons might be made between Nick Griffin and the late L. Ron Hubbard. [See Bare Faced Messiah].

Concluding Thoughts and Tentative Predictions

A seasoned political observer (somewhat surprisingly, still a BNP member) has ventured that the situation will not change until the establishment has lost faith in itself. This may be near at hand, with what appears to be a coming economic meltdown. Gordon Brown’s habitual indecision does not indicate confidence, and few even in his own party continue to have confidence in him.

It must now be obvious to anyone not in a thrall to quasi-religious dogma that Griffin’s strategy has failed. According to that strategy, membership and electoral gains will increase; the BNP’s financial strategy relies on the former. However BNP membership must certainly now be falling and what electoral gains have been achieved have been modest. In my view skirting around the problem by negating core policies, playing clever with the electorate, and trying to play the opposition at its own game, adopting its language ("We’re not racist") was always doomed to fail.

If by failing the BNP succeeded in exposing the corrupt system for what it is (e.g. by making the government ban the BNP as a political party, thus forcing it to show its true, anti-democratic colours) that in itself would be an achievement. However the BNP in its current form could not even achieve that.

If ideology is divorced from reality, reality will always ultimately prevail. Unless the BNP can be restored to a truly nationalist party it will be, ideologically and politically-speaking, in the wrong place at the wrong time when the denouement comes.

Trotters Independent Traders

Friday, 18 November 2011

Why no witness statement from Griffin?

Sacked BNP worker awarded damages for wrongful dismissal

A former British National Party worker has been awarded over £2,500 for wrongful dismissal by the right-wing party last year. Marion Thomas worked in the party's east Belfast office for over a year.

BNP leader Nick Griffin was named as the respondent in the case as the employment panel unanimously decided to award the damages. The ruling said that both the BNP and Mrs Thomas provided evidence that was "not credible" to the tribunal.

The 49-year-old Comber woman was dismissed by the party when the call centre she worked in closed in December 2010.

Mr Griffin and his daughter, Jennifer Matthys, who jointly managed the call centre, were criticised for not giving evidence to the tribunal.

The settlement Mrs Thomas received was made up of four week's pay, one week's notice pay, postage expenses incurred taking the case and £760 for the failure of Mr Griffin to provide a witness statement to the panel. [Emphasis mine, AE].

Mrs Thomas' claims for overtime, holiday pay and mobile phone expenses were dismissed.

The tribunal did hear evidence from five other members of the BNP during the three-day hearing. The three-strong panel heard how the call centre, which was leased to the BNP by Belfast businessman Jim Dowson, closed at the end of 2010 when the party found itself in serious debt.

In its decision the panel referred to some of the colourful testimony during the hearing.

"The tribunal heard allegations of blackmail, threats, cars being forced off the road, information being sought about political rivals, electoral malpractice, paramilitary involvement and that staple of Irish political life, the passing of money-filled envelopes in strange locations and in even stranger circumstances.

"However, this was, in truth, a banal and ordinary employment tribunal claim alleging unfair dismissal and non-payment of holiday pay, overtime, expenses and notice pay."

The tribunal concluded that Mrs Thomas was "automatically unfairly dismissed for non-compliance with the statutory dismissal procedure".


Wednesday, 16 November 2011

Butler is 'Griffin Lite'

The following is a copy of an official British National Party e-mail which was sent out to the party's members by Mr Butler, in his capacity as Griffin's obedient stooge.  The letter disparages a BNP councillor, Colin Auty, and his supporters, who were attempting to collect the required number of one hundred nominating signatures, from 'eligible to vote' members, for a leadership challenge in 2008. 

It was an absolute disgrace for Butler to abuse his senior position within the BNP in order to attempt to head off a constitutional challenge to Griffin's leadership in this way.  It was obviously done with Griffin's connivance, if not on his explicit instructions, but in any political party with the slightest pretensions to internal democracy it would have resulted in Butler's immediate dismissal from his positions within the party.

Butler should not have been surprised (though he was) when the Frankenstein's Monster, Griffin, whom he did more than most to help create, finally turned on him as well.

In a sense there is a certain poetic justice about what happened to Butler.  This political illiterate was largely the author of his own misfortune.  However, far more serious for nationalism: Butler helped to bring about the tragedy that was Griffin's exploitation of a party of more than ten thousand members for purely personal aggrandizement.  How does Butler sleep at night?  As well as Griffin, no doubt.

Statement on the so-called Leadership challenge

FROM: Edward. Butler. TO: elections@bnp.org.uk  Monday, 12 May 2008, 18:09

Anyone in the Party who has more than five years continuous membership has the Right to stand for the leadership of the Party. The only limit to the exercising of this Right is that in the case of officers ten nomination signatures of members of two years standing must be obtained and for non officers a hundred signatures are required. This is to ensure that frivolous candidates do not stand.

Q:  And who is to decide who is to be classified as a "frivolous" candidate?  A:  The incumbent, or one of his creatures, like Butler.

As I said this is a Right that members have. And it is an important Right – it is a declaration of our Parties [sic] openness and commitment to democracy.  This is priceless!  What hypocrisy!  However with Rights come responsibilities and duties. A Right without a duty is an abomination in any society. It is a recipe for chaos. Indeed in our modern society it is the incessant claiming of Rights by groups that shown [sic] no sense of duty or responsibility that is one of the key components of the undermining of the civic order of our country.

So in the instance of standing for leadership of the Party, the Party as a whole should expect anyone who has the temerity to wish to stand for leadership only to uphold their Right to do so after that person had carefully weighed their duty to the cause and the Party and their fellow members. We as members should expect that a candidate would only put themselves forward if they were of sufficient stature and ability to potentially be able to lead the Party if they were to win. Otherwise why would someone wish to challenge for the leadership? To expose wrongdoing at the top of the party, perhaps. It is a duty of other members not to sign the nomination papers of any potential candidate unless they seriously think that that person is a viable and serious leadership contender. That is the whole point of the requirement for signatories.  With which you are illegitimately tampering.

A leadership challenge is not an excuse to air grievances. Grievances like being sacked from one's senior positions in the party in disgrace, perhaps. It is not there for disgruntled people to act out their personal bitterness about things – no matter how ‘justified’ they may think their grievances are. It is an abuse of the process to misuse it in that way. It is an abuse of their Constitutional Right.

And that is precisely what we are seeing this year. We are seeing a candidate pushed forward by people who themselves admit, has absolutely no chance of winning, and admit would never be up to the job of chairman anyway and they admit that the sole reason they are doing it is to air their own personal grievances. Can this be true? In other words their sole aim is to raise issues which have already been fully aired and which could be raised at a variety of different forums (Mr Griffin's door is always open, isn't it Eddy?) such as the Summer School (where there is always a session for all participants where they can bring up matters they are unhappy about) or the Annual Conference.  At which one may expect to receive a fair hearing - I don't think.

What is the likely outcome of this leadership challenge? The challengers (there may in fact be two!) will be comprehensively defeated.  What is Griffin frightened of then, Eddy?  The leadership challenge process as it currently stands in the Constitution will be brought into disrepute. There will be pressure, perhaps unstoppable pressure, to change the rules so that leadership challenges can only take place every four years.

I would not normally comment on a leadership election. It should normally be up to the membership to make their own minds up without non-participants trying to influence the process. Influence it in favour of the incumbent: your master, Griffin.

But the backers of this ridiculous bid should reconsider their aimless tactic. People should refuse to sign the nomination papers. It is a distraction and a waste of time and effort and it will end up almost certainly with the constitution changed in a way that destroys the important Right of the possibility of a yearly election. Standing a no-hoper is stupid, mindless and fatally undermines our Constitution.  No, it is a letter such as this that is fatally undermining our constitution.  It is a pitiful and moronic – a bankrupt tactic by people who can only be described as having gone giddy to the extent that they are now without the imagination to think how they can raise issues in a legitimate way. [Emphasis mine, AE].

This election, if it goes ahead, should be carried out in the most rapid manner possible with zero publicity allowed for the joke candidate ('free and fair' then, in the finest Soviet tradition) (who may in other circumstances be described as a decent and 'nice' bloke etc) and the least disruption to our continued efforts. That is the best way to minimise the harmful effects. [Emphasis mine, AE].

Eddy Butler
National Elections Officer
Eastern Regional Organiser


No leadership election was actually held in 2008.  Cllr Auty and his team, who were trying to collect the one hundred nominations, failed to collect the required number, though not by many.  Their failure was largely due to Butler's unconstitutional, unfair and undemocratic interference in the nominations' process, creating a climate of fear within the party, on behalf of the increasingly tyrannical Griffin.

It was this climate of fear of repercussions that subsequently, two years later, in 2010, helped to prevent Butler and his team from collecting the very much larger number of nominations (viz, 840) that was then needed for Butler's own leadership challenge.  As they say, "What goes around, comes around".

Despite the fact that Griffin had not faced a leadership election in 2008, he nevertheless still sought to alter the BNP constitution in his own favour, as the incumbent, by attempting to persuade an Emergency General Meeting (EGM), held in the latter half of 2008, to abolish the members' theoretical right of annual challenge.  This was exactly what Butler had warned might happen, if there were to have been a leadership election in 2008.    

Meeting stiff opposition, principally organized by Richard Edmonds, Mike Easter and Chris Jackson, to his proposed power grab, Griffin withdrew at the EGM itself his proposal for the abolition of the members' annual right of challenge for the leadership.  However, the nominations' threshold for triggering a leadership election was converted into a requirement for the nominating signatures of five per cent of members with at least two years' continuous membership of the party.  This change, from an absolute number (viz, 100) to a relative number, (ie, a percentage), in theory would permit a corrupt leadership to pluck from thin air any figure they chose as the nominations' threshold for a future leadership election.

This repressive measure was misrepresented to the unsuspecting members in attendance at the EGM as a practicable compromise with Griffin's burgeoning megalomania.  It was proposed by Arthur Kemp, following consultation with Griffin and supported by Eddy Butler and a greater than two-thirds' majority at the meeting.  It was one more milestone on the long road to the BNP's very own Munich.  It was one more doomed attempt to appease the appetite for power of a voracious beast.

I now quote from an article by Butler entitled The Blame Game, which was published on his blog in the latter half of 2010, in which Butler confesses to his complicity in the creation of the Griffin tyranny that has wrecked and ruined our BNP.

"This whole series of events is even more despicable since, just a month before, (on 14 February 2010) I had helped steer his (ie, Griffin's) dictator’s charter of a constitution through an EGM.  Being purged was your reward.  I will freely admit I was one of the handful of people who were fully aware of the more reprehensible sections which drastically increased Nick Griffin’s personal power, such as the increase in nominations required to stand as Chairman."  It's a great pity you did not draw these "reprehensible sections" of the proposed new constitution to the attention of the meeting, in that case.  As chairman of the EGM it was your duty to do so.

Tuesday, 15 November 2011

The two-handed engine is at the door


By John Milton (1608–1674) 

Yet once more, O ye laurels, and once more

Ye myrtles brown, with ivy never sere,

I come to pluck your berries harsh and crude,

And with forc'd fingers rude

Shatter your leaves before the mellowing year.

Bitter constraint and sad occasion dear

Compels me to disturb your season due;

For Lycidas is dead, dead ere his prime,

Young Lycidas, and hath not left his peer.

Who would not sing for Lycidas? he knew

Himself to sing, and build the lofty rhyme.

He must not float upon his wat'ry bier

Unwept, and welter to the parching wind,

Without the meed of some melodious tear.

Begin then, Sisters of the sacred well

That from beneath the seat of Jove doth spring;

Begin, and somewhat loudly sweep the string.

Hence with denial vain and coy excuse!

So may some gentle muse

With lucky words favour my destin'd urn,

And as he passes turn

And bid fair peace be to my sable shroud!

For we were nurs'd upon the self-same hill,

Fed the same flock, by fountain, shade, and rill;

Together both, ere the high lawns appear'd

Under the opening eyelids of the morn,

We drove afield, and both together heard

What time the gray-fly winds her sultry horn,

Batt'ning our flocks with the fresh dews of night,

Oft till the star that rose at ev'ning bright

Toward heav'n's descent had slop'd his westering wheel.

Meanwhile the rural ditties were not mute,

Temper'd to th'oaten flute;

Rough Satyrs danc'd, and Fauns with clov'n heel,

From the glad sound would not be absent long;

And old Damætas lov'd to hear our song.

But O the heavy change now thou art gone,

Now thou art gone, and never must return!

Thee, Shepherd, thee the woods and desert caves,

With wild thyme and the gadding vine o'ergrown,

And all their echoes mourn.

The willows and the hazel copses green

Shall now no more be seen

Fanning their joyous leaves to thy soft lays.

As killing as the canker to the rose,

Or taint-worm to the weanling herds that graze,

Or frost to flowers that their gay wardrobe wear

When first the white thorn blows:

Such, Lycidas, thy loss to shepherd's ear.

Where were ye, Nymphs, when the remorseless deep

Clos'd o'er the head of your lov'd Lycidas?

For neither were ye playing on the steep

Where your old bards, the famous Druids, lie,

Nor on the shaggy top of Mona high,

Nor yet where Deva spreads her wisard stream.

Ay me! I fondly dream

Had ye bin there'—for what could that have done?

What could the Muse herself that Orpheus bore,

The Muse herself, for her enchanting son,

Whom universal nature did lament,

When by the rout that made the hideous roar

His gory visage down the stream was sent,

Down the swift Hebrus to the Lesbian shore?

Alas! what boots it with incessant care

To tend the homely, slighted shepherd's trade,

And strictly meditate the thankless Muse?

Were it not better done, as others use,

To sport with Amaryllis in the shade,

Or with the tangles of Neæra's hair?

Fame is the spur that the clear spirit doth raise

(That last infirmity of noble mind)

To scorn delights and live laborious days;

But the fair guerdon when we hope to find,

And think to burst out into sudden blaze,

Comes the blind Fury with th'abhorred shears,

And slits the thin-spun life. "But not the praise,"

Phoebus replied, and touch'd my trembling ears;

"Fame is no plant that grows on mortal soil,

Nor in the glistering foil

Set off to th'world, nor in broad rumour lies,

But lives and spreads aloft by those pure eyes

And perfect witness of all-judging Jove;

As he pronounces lastly on each deed,

Of so much fame in Heav'n expect thy meed."

O fountain Arethuse, and thou honour'd flood,

Smooth-sliding Mincius, crown'd with vocal reeds,

That strain I heard was of a higher mood.

But now my oat proceeds,

And listens to the Herald of the Sea,

That came in Neptune's plea.

He ask'd the waves, and ask'd the felon winds,

"What hard mishap hath doom'd this gentle swain?"

And question'd every gust of rugged wings

That blows from off each beaked promontory.

They knew not of his story;

And sage Hippotades their answer brings,

That not a blast was from his dungeon stray'd;

The air was calm, and on the level brine

Sleek Panope with all her sisters play'd.

It was that fatal and perfidious bark,

Built in th'eclipse, and rigg'd with curses dark,

That sunk so low that sacred head of thine.

Next Camus, reverend sire, went footing slow,

His mantle hairy, and his bonnet sedge,

Inwrought with figures dim, and on the edge

Like to that sanguine flower inscrib'd with woe.

"Ah! who hath reft," quoth he, "my dearest pledge?"

Last came, and last did go,

The Pilot of the Galilean lake;

Two massy keys he bore of metals twain

(The golden opes, the iron shuts amain).

He shook his mitred locks, and stern bespake:

"How well could I have spar'd for thee, young swain,

Enow of such as for their bellies' sake

Creep and intrude, and climb into the fold?

Of other care they little reck'ning make

Than how to scramble at the shearers' feast

And shove away the worthy bidden guest.

Blind mouths! that scarce themselves know how to hold

A sheep-hook, or have learn'd aught else the least

That to the faithful herdman's art belongs!

What recks it them? What need they? They are sped;

And when they list their lean and flashy songs

Grate on their scrannel pipes of wretched straw,

The hungry sheep look up, and are not fed,

But, swoll'n with wind and the rank mist they draw,

Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread;

Besides what the grim wolf with privy paw

Daily devours apace, and nothing said,

But that two-handed engine at the door

Stands ready to smite once, and smite no more".

Return, Alpheus: the dread voice is past

That shrunk thy streams; return, Sicilian Muse,

And call the vales and bid them hither cast

Their bells and flow'rets of a thousand hues.

Ye valleys low, where the mild whispers use

Of shades and wanton winds, and gushing brooks,

On whose fresh lap the swart star sparely looks,

Throw hither all your quaint enamel'd eyes,

That on the green turf suck the honied showers

And purple all the ground with vernal flowers.

Bring the rathe primrose that forsaken dies,

The tufted crow-toe, and pale jessamine,

The white pink, and the pansy freak'd with jet,

The glowing violet,

The musk-rose, and the well attir'd woodbine,

With cowslips wan that hang the pensive head,

And every flower that sad embroidery wears;

Bid amaranthus all his beauty shed,

And daffadillies fill their cups with tears,

To strew the laureate hearse where Lycid lies.

For so to interpose a little ease,

Let our frail thoughts dally with false surmise.

Ay me! Whilst thee the shores and sounding seas

Wash far away, where'er thy bones are hurl'd;

Whether beyond the stormy Hebrides,

Where thou perhaps under the whelming tide

Visit'st the bottom of the monstrous world,

Or whether thou, to our moist vows denied,

Sleep'st by the fable of Bellerus old,

Where the great vision of the guarded mount

Looks toward Namancos and Bayona's hold:

Look homeward Angel now, and melt with ruth;

And, O ye dolphins, waft the hapless youth.

Weep no more, woeful shepherds, weep no more,

For Lycidas, your sorrow, is not dead,

Sunk though he be beneath the wat'ry floor;

So sinks the day-star in the ocean bed,

And yet anon repairs his drooping head,

And tricks his beams, and with new spangled ore

Flames in the forehead of the morning sky:

So Lycidas sunk low, but mounted high

Through the dear might of him that walk'd the waves;

Where, other groves and other streams along,

With nectar pure his oozy locks he laves,

And hears the unexpressive nuptial song,

In the blest kingdoms meek of joy and love.

There entertain him all the Saints above,

In solemn troops, and sweet societies,

That sing, and singing in their glory move,

And wipe the tears for ever from his eyes.

Now, Lycidas, the shepherds weep no more:

Henceforth thou art the Genius of the shore,

In thy large recompense, and shalt be good

To all that wander in that perilous flood.

Thus sang the uncouth swain to th'oaks and rills,

While the still morn went out with sandals gray;

He touch'd the tender stops of various quills,

With eager thought warbling his Doric lay;

And now the sun had stretch'd out all the hills,

And now was dropp'd into the western bay;

At last he rose, and twitch'd his mantle blue:

To-morrow to fresh woods, and pastures new.

Wednesday, 9 November 2011

It's wise to use a long spoon

"Please, Sir, can I have some more?"

Cllr Lewis Allsebrook, the newly appointed Councillor Representative on the National Executive of the British National Party.

Whatever happened to "Security"?

"The word 'security' appears in the title because the BNP believes in the sanctity of life, limb and property. This means safe neighbourhoods with vibrant, cohesive communities; it means security of long-term employment, devoid of the fear that industry, commerce and employment will be transferred to the Third World."

The foregoing passage comes from a statement, in Mr Griffin's name, on the page entitled Manifesto, (click on the Policies link on the Home page) on the main web site of the British National Party, http://www.bnp.org.uk/

The trouble is that, contrary to the tenor of the statement and as readers may see for themselves at a glance, the word security does not appear in the title of the party's 2010 manifesto. "Security" has been replaced by the word culture.

Not only does this solecism smack of amateurishness, but, more worryingly still, it may have a sinister connotation, suggesting an insidious drift towards cultural nationalism, at the expense of the party's ethnonationalist principles.  The use of the word vibrant, so beloved of the cheerleaders of the multicult, similarly, is anything but reassuring, as is the absence of any explicit reference, in the statement quoted above in connection with security, to the need for strong armed forces and strong police and border protection forces.

The manifesto's sub-title would appear to indicate that the BNP was expecting more than one general election to have been held in 2010.  While this may denote a remarkable prescience, I would suggest that it is more likely to have been an unfortunate misprint.

We have already seen Mr Griffin's misguided determination, at any cost to the morale of activists, to foist an ethnically alien immigrant onto the BNP, in the prominent role of the party's Candidate for Mayor of London: an electorally disastrous move.

It is hardly surprising that such an immigrant should seek to subvert the party's espousal of ethnonationalism as its political philosophy, in the illusory hope of strengthening the tenuous legitimacy of their personal position within our party.  Were they to be engaged in politics in their land of ethnic origin, however, their attitude to the question of ethnically alien immigrants taking plum jobs, which should have gone to better qualified and more suitable indigenous folk, would no doubt be very different.

This is an illustration both of the kind of hypocrisy to which ethnically alien immigration typically gives rise and of the 'Griffin cringe' towards the rotten Establishment that is robbing our English people of their birthright, that we saw him perform so abjectly on Question Time two years ago.

Jaw, jaw, is better than war, war

The news of Mr Griffin's recent demarche in respect of Andrew Brons and his supporters should be welcomed by all who have the best interests of the British National Party and the cause of British Nationalism at heart.

Even if the proposed negotiations do not immediately lead to a rapprochement, which may be too much for which to hope, the very fact that they take place at all should help to create a detente between the party's two opposing factions and this can only be a good thing.

I would suggest that neither side should demand any pre-conditions for the talks' taking place.  Such a dialogue between the BNP's two most influential figures should be a matter of course and it is a sign of the dysfunctional state in which the party now finds itself that it should have been interrupted for as long as it has been.

While, as I say, no stipulated pre-conditions, on either side, should be permitted to jeopardize the renewal of communications between Mr Griffin and Mr Brons, I would hope that at the top of their informal agenda would be the party's 2010 Accounts and the current state of its finances.

Another highly placed item on the agenda should be an accurate statement of the party's current membership.

Monday, 7 November 2011

Money First

Mr Morris seems to have become somewhat agitated of late, over what he sees as a lack of action.  His nose seems to have been put out of joint by the fact that one of the organizations he continually promotes on his web site is, quite rightly, not regarded as credible by eminent nationalists, such as Andrew Brons.

This really ought not to surprise Mr Morris, though.  Mr Morris' years of service as one of Mr Griffin's internet attack dogs may have led him to believe that nationalists will believe anything - but there are limits, even to our ingenuousness.

Can Mr Morris seriously expect nationalists to repose any trust or confidence in the individuals fronting (and backing) this lightweight vehicle, bereft as it is of any serious ideology, but possessing, as it does, profoundly venal traits?

If a political party, or, for that matter, a pressure group, should be more than a platform for over-sized egos, should do more than run a web site, collect signatures (and contact details) on petitions, and field the odd candidate in the odd by-election, then it is not only the BNP that is currently failing, but Mr Morris' most favoured organization, as well.

This should not surprise us.  It is backed and run by several of the same individuals who were, until they recently fell out with him (over money, never principle), some of Mr Griffin's closest coadjutors.

Having no doubt learnt something of the dark arts of politics from Mr Griffin, just as Griffin learnt something of the tricks of the trade of fundraising from them, the man who used to remind us at meetings that he was first and foremost a businessman, rather than a nationalist, would now have us believe that his primary motivation is no longer profit, but patriotism.  What a sea-change is here.

Remember Crecy, Agincourt, the Armada, Blenheim, Trafalgar, Waterloo, the Somme, Dunkirk, and the Battle of Britain and send your most generous gift today!  Can you look your grandchildren in the eye and not donate?

Fundraising is unquestionably a necessary and important function for any serious political party.  But this is the second time in recent years that the fundraising tail has attempted to wag the nationalist dog.

Anyone who can write, as Mr Morris did, "Forget unity - there can be only one" has, unwittingly, great entertainment value for those with a proper command of the English language, but, alas, no more contribution to make to serious politics than had John Prescott.

Possess your soul in patience (Luke 21:19), Mr Morris.  After all, you know what they say: a watched lager never boils.

Acknowledgements to the British Resistance web site for the following.

Sunday, 06 November 2011

Reply to Mr. Paul Morris a.k.a Green Arrow who posted a message attacking me on British Resistance

by Andrew Brons MEP

BNP Ideas is run quite separately from my MEP office and it has no salaried staff. I have paid all of the expenses connected with the site, apart from one donation of £150 that was contributed by one of our colleagues.

Those who have followed events surrounding the Party will know that I have made myself very unpopular, in certain quarters, for refusing to pay from EU funds for items that I did not consider to be justified.

I have also made myself unpopular, in the same quarters, for going to great lengths to ensure that those receiving incomes from the European Parliament spend all of their paid time doing European Parliamentary work.

Mr. Morris wonders whether this might all be about money. The people I employ on the European Parliament’s payroll carry out essential functions.

They run my office in the UK and distribute my literature in my constituency; they report to me on the activities of the Parliamentary committees; they run my communications campaigns; they advise me how I should vote both in committee and in the plenary (full Parliamentary sessions); they advise me about written declarations and about Parliamentary questions; they brief me on areas on which I am to give speeches in the Parliament.

Many people have been involved in the financial transactions of the British National Party. Some of these have explanations to give for its current level of indebtedness. I am not one of them. I have had no involvement with the Party’s money. [Emphasis mine, AE].

It is not arrogant to suggest that if the BNP were to collapse that a successor party would have to be established. That successor party would involve as many as possible of the thousands of members and hundreds of activists who have left the Party.

It is important that the successor to the BNP should have credible people involved and should be a genuine nationalist party with an understanding of our ideology. A party that concerns itself with only part of the United Kingdom or a party with slogans but no ideological depth would simply not be a worthy successor of the BNP. [Emphasis mine, AE].

The leadership of that party would be elected and would not be within my gift.  I shall be sixty-seven at the end of my term as MEP and I have no ambitions to play a senior role after that point.

Why should it not be formed immediately? History tells us that break-away parties that are formed, without preparation and while the ‘parent party’ is still alive, always fail.

The BNP, a break-away party from the National Front, did not overtake the National Front and its successor the National Democratic Party, until about ten years afterwards - after the National Front ceased to be a serious player after two disastrous splits.

I said, when I was selected as a candidate, that I would see out my full term as an MEP but that I would not seek a second term. I have repeated that whenever the question has arisen.

I am an active MEP at the moment and I attend most things and play an active part.

However, I would be seventy-two at the end of a second term and I do not want to be one of those part-time MEPs, who turn up once a month for the plenary session but attend little else.

I hope that this has put Mr. Morris’s mind at rest.

Andrew Brons

Sunday, 6 November 2011

Boris can't hold a candle to Manuel

Your (Parallel) Party Needs You!

Creating the Parallel Party Structure

Saturday, 5 November 2011

Creating the Parallel Party Structure and Preparing for Action

Those registered with our organisation, ‘BNP Ideas’, will have recently received Andrew Brons’ personal letter, following our successful Conference held on 22nd October in Leicestershire.

That Conference was more than twice as well attended as the BNP’s Conference, held a week later, or over three times as well attended if the party Chairman’s security, family members and personal employees are to be excluded.

The immediate strategy of BNP Ideas, agreed by approximately 95% of those attending in Leicestershire, is to set up a parallel party structure. The purpose is to develop a strong base of supporters, construct a database and build a credible, motivated and intelligent leadership core.

A vital aim is to retain or recruit into the nationalist cause those who:

a) Might depart, disgusted at the untoward, unethical, incompetent and deceitful activities of the current leadership of the existing BNP.

b) Have already departed in recent years, disillusioned.

c) Have joined civic ‘nationalist parties’ like the EDP.

d) Believe the current BNP is toxic and ‘unfit for purpose’ but who support our views.

e) Belong to other nationalist organisations.

f) Belong to or have belonged to rival political parties, disillusioned because they have recently come to comprehend the extent to which the nation is imperilled by the imposition of the multicultural society, the development of the EU and the breakdown of law and order but who may, in the past, have been alienated by the BNP.

Our organisation has an extensive list of contacts and supporters, including some of the best minds, talent, expertise and ability from the patriotic cause.

It is important that we are competent and capable of taking advantage of any situation that may arise, whether it should be the collapse of Nick Griffin’s regime, its inoperability beneath a mountain of debt, the collapse of its infrastructure owing to an absence of members and credible organisers, or the burden created by the large number of legal actions against the party and its Chairman, which will undermine both the party and its standing. In any number of scenarios, we shall be in a position to form a new party, should this increasingly likely need arise.

In effect, we shall be a safety net, prepared to run the Nationalist Movement, should the existing administration fall.


1. Recipients of this statement, who have not already registered with BNP Ideas, are requested to do so by emailing their details to andrewbrons2011@gmail.com or by filling in the contact form which can be found at http://bnpideas.com/?page_id=122

2. Currently, we possess email addresses of our supporters. We urgently need to compile a data base and we therefore kindly request our supporters to advise us of their postal addresses and phone numbers, at the contact points given above.

This information will enable us to compile a register of support according to regions and counties.

3. Supporters are kindly requested to recruit ex and current members of the party into our support base and the categories listed in a) to e) above, but taking care to exclude divisive elements and trouble-makers.

4. Supporters are requested to convey this communication to colleagues and known sympathisers. Supporters are also requested to promulgate our website, BNP Ideas, at http://bnpideas.com/

In some instances, the initiative has already been seized by local activists and officials. These elements have already begun to set up local groups and contact points for supporters. We strongly encourage such activity.

Elsewhere, groups have yet to be formed by supporters.


Once the data base has been compiled, we shall approach sensible people from our ranks, upright activists and serving and former officials to request they act to set up groups in their areas.

We shall inform our support base of the contact details of such persons within their areas, as appropriate.

The purpose of these “Local Liaison Officers” will be to gather around them the categories referred to above. In due course, “Regional Liaison Officers” will be elected by the local liaison officers.

Our steering committee will open a society bank account.

Presently, it is envisaged the bank account will accept donations and voluntary registration fees of £10/head, which will assist with elementary expenses and the servicing of our internet activities. To date, BNP Ideas has been run by the generous support of individuals.

Funds will be strictly and transparently administered, with two signatures required for the drawing of cheques and a Board appointed to ensure the ethical oversight of society monies.

BNP Ideas currently functions via a steering committee. In future, Regional Liaison Officers will be elected.

BNP Ideas is keen to ensure local and regional units operate democratically and officials enjoy democratic support. However, we do not at this stage propose to prescribe any constitutional method in terms of the administration of local groups and feel such details are best overseen with the general consent of local supporters.

We shall leave it to the discretion of local units whether or not they establish their own bank accounts.

BNP Ideas will also make available regional and national speakers to attend functions and meetings of local groups.

The immediate aim of our organisation is to build a support base, nationwide, of 1500 persons at which point we believe we shall have attained ‘critical mass’.

Current members of the BNP, whether or not they believe they can support the party under its current administration, are encouraged to register with BNP Ideas. They must not drop out of the Nationalist Movement.


At its height, the BNP secured over 80 elected councillors nationwide, including those from County, District, Town levels. It also secured two MEPs.

The councillor base has collapsed, with many serving councillors no longer members of the BNP. Andrew Brons will encourage remaining councillors to form a group of mutual support, with a view to securing their continuing allegiance to the Nationalist Movement.


The Brent Group was formed in the South West, in the immediate aftermath of the BNP Ideas Conference.

It has set up a structure in the spirit of the Conference debate and its decision. It has attracted support from disillusioned Nationalists across the nation.

We shall work closely with the Brent Group to assist the formation of similar groups nationwide.

The details of the Brent Group may be found here: http://brentgroup.webs.com/


BNP Ideas intends to implement firm and effective action to do whatever is judged best, as events unfold, to rescue the Nationalist cause, restore it to a condition of prestige and once more raise it as a major political contender.

We shall form regional and local groups which are part of a nationwide network and these will continue those valued and established activities that have been so popular in the past.

The BNP Ideas website will increasingly cover the meetings and activities of local support groups and act as a focus for the parallel structure.

We have every reason to view the future with optimism and we intend to avoid the self-inflicted injuries of the current leadership clique that runs the BNP.

Andrew Moffat

(on behalf of) The Steering Committee
BNP Parallel Structure

Saturday, 5 November 2011

Unity is Strength

Supporters of our party express a great deal of outrage when the party or its representatives are in some way viciously and unjustly treated, whether this be by the imprisonment of its leaders, the denial to it of its rights of assembly or some distorted reporting on it in the media.  Of course such outrage should be felt and expressed, and whatever protest is within our means should be mounted.  But I always counsel our people to recognise that this is going to be our fate just for as long as we are small and without power.  If 50 to 100 people hold a protest demonstration against a particular injustice, no notice is likely to be taken of it.  If 10,000 to 20,000 do so, it is a very different matter.  The injustice may be equal in each case; the merits of the protest may be the same.  But in the latter instance the protest is much more likely to hit home.  We British like to indulge in a little national narcissism concerning our supposed sense of 'fair play'.  My own observation, based on much experience, is that there is little real 'fair play' in this country, or anywhere else, for the opponent of the system who does not have the muscle to defend himself and hit back.  In this world, weak political movements, like weak nations, are liable to be kicked, and assuredly will be kicked.  Only the strong can ultimately assert their right to justice.

The supreme challenge to our movement is the test of our capability to stand firm and persevere through the process of maturing from a small nucleus into a viable and nationally recognisable political force in Britain, after which the momentum of our own gathering strength will be the fuel driving us forward.  In this maturing process the most vital need of all is that our movement becomes and remains united, and that we guard against the suicidal tendency to splintering that has wrecked past opportunities.  This is the reason for my policy of ruthlessly throwing out any elements that show signs of exercising a divisive role.

Running constantly throughout this book has been the theme of an 'enemy within', contriving the destruction of British nationhood; and the manner in which that enemy has been portrayed may well convey the impression of formidable power intruding into every corner of British life.  That power should certainly not be underestimated.  We would be in grave error, however, if we fell into the trap of regarding it as omnipotent.  Evident everywhere in 'the system' is the proof of its weakness: the meagre calibre of public men that it brings to the fore, its puerile level of public debate, its terror of allowing into that debate people and ideas to which it has no answer, its manifest failure in every branch of national affairs to which its resources have been applied.

I began this chapter by saying that this system is headed for inevitable collapse, and that is indeed my conviction.  Every development in public affairs points to it.

Concomitant to this, we should not underestimate the potentially titanic strength of the forces opposed to what is being done within the system, and which belong in fact on our side.  These include many tens of thousands of ordinary members of not only the Conservative Party but the Labour and other parties too, not to forget the many active and public-spirited people in the ranks of Ulster Unionism, in its various factions.  Finally, we should not exclude the thousands of those who have been active in the nationalist movement in the past but subsequently dropped out, not because they had changed their opinions or sentiments, but because of their frustration at our failure to break through into the 'big time' of politics as quickly as they had hoped.

All these elements amount to what is potentially a gigantic army of national resistance and resurgence.  It only needs to be mobilised into a single and co-ordinated force for political action.  Somewhere a catalyst must, and will, emerge that will bring about this mobilisation.  When it comes, the force it will represent will be irresistible. 

But before this can happen a number of prerequisites are needed.  One of them I have touched upon already earlier in this chapter, and that is that a great many people must overcome this hypnosis exercised by the words 'fascist' and 'extremist'.  Apart from the considerations I have mentioned, it must be understood that Britain today is in a situation of extreme crisis, in which forces of extreme evil threaten her on all sides. 'Extremism' in the way of opposition to these forces is in no way wrong.  The way to fight the extreme of evil is by means of the extreme of good.  People must cast away their fear of this 'extremist' label and concentrate their minds on what is wrong and what is right; they must look at the issues and judge those issues on the merits of the arguments raging over them, not be led astray by mere catchwords.

Another vital need is that people, in the tens of thousands, break out of the strait jacket of the old parties, and rid themselves of the idea that only within those parties can they accomplish anything politically useful.  The fact is that the precise opposite is true.  The old parties, and the not so old Liberal Democrats, simply tie down great numbers of people in a political dead end who could otherwise be organised to bring about great national change - for these parties are so constituted, controlled and led that they are certain to do nothing to halt the slide to disaster upon which Britain is presently set.

Tyndall, J  The Eleventh Hour, Third Edition, 1998, Welling: Albion Press, pp 528-30      

Bronze Age Orientation Day

Friday, 4 November 2011

The swinish multitude

I always urge upon our various active units that getting our message across to the public is useless if it is done in such a way as to display weakness.  If public demonstrations are mounted in any area, extra members must be drafted in from other areas so as to give an impression of numbers.  This is not only necessary from the standpoint of the physical safety of our demonstrators in the face of likely attacks by our opponents; it is also important as a psychological weapon.

In our circles, the questions are often asked: "When will the British people wake up and rise against their misgovernors?  When will the big backlash come that ought to come against the appalling policies that have been imposed upon the nation for so many years?"

The very phrasing of such questions shows a misunderstanding of how great political changes really occur.  'The people' as a whole never 'wake up' or 'rise' against anything.  In the mass, they are totally inert.  There never is any 'backlash' in the sense implicit in the question quoted.

Any awakening must always be on the part of a public-spirited and politically active minority.  Any backlash is the backlash that that minority sets in motion.  For even when a political movement has attained sufficient strength to become a real national force, contending for political power, its members still comprise, along with the members of all the other political parties put together, a relatively small part of the population.

It is this reality that renders so inane the slogans currently adopted by the other parties about 'people's power' and those parties' claims that people (the mass of the people, that is to say) should "take a greater part in the decision-making process."  Such ideas are wholly contrary to the true nature of people in the mass, who want neither 'power' nor the right to make decisions, (other than at a purely personal and domestic level).  People in the mass do want a strong and purposeful national authority that will exercise power and make decisions for them, albeit that those decisions should be in accordance with their own deepest instincts of right and wrong; but that is something else entirely.

The British people in large numbers will translate their inner feelings about national affairs into support for nationalism at the polls when, and only when, a national and patriotic political force has been established which is big enough, strong enough and with a voice loud enough to make its presence felt throughout the land on a scale that puts it among the front runners in politics and gives it the image of irresistible power.  Until then, that public will shirk the decisive step needed, and cling instead to its old political habits.

Such power as I have described must of course include the capability to expose, by information and enlightenment, any attempts by political parties of 'establishment' pedigree to head off the nationalist challenge by the fraudulent adoption of what appear to be similar policies - tactics which, as I have demonstrated earlier, were widely employed by the Conservatives in the general election of 1979.

Tyndall, J  The Eleventh Hour, Third Edition, 1998, Welling: Albion Press, pp 527-8 

Thursday, 3 November 2011


If you can keep your head when all about you
    Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
    But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
    Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
     And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
    If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
    And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
    Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
    And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
    And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
    And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
    To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
    Except the will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
    Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
    If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
    With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
    And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!

Rudyard Kipling

Many began to call in doubt that which before they had held for certain verity

In the case of many people, these natural feelings are suppressed by the individual even before they can crystallise into actual thought.  A kind of 'policeman' of the mind tells him: "No, attractive though that idea may be, you are not allowed to hold it!"  With others, the process may go a stage further: the policeman is disobeyed and feelings and thought become one.  'Heretical' opinions are actually held, with no inhibitions of the 'liberal' conscience suppressing them when they stir.  But they continue to be held secretly.  Thought of social ostracism, even harm to one's business or career, is a deterrent to open profession of faith.  In some there is even the preparedness to go further than this and actually give voice to such opinions, but even here there is a widespread reluctance to think through and acknowledge their full political consequences in terms of the national changes needed to give effect to such wishes.  The end is desired, but there is a shirking of the means.

And finally, there is the 'lesser-evil' syndrome.  The politically discontented individual still has the tendency to clutch at straws.  Even when he has reached the point of recognising the desirability of an entirely new political force in the country, the fact that he cannot at the moment see one on the horizon that is likely to win power within the short time-scale of his own thinking drives him back into the arms of whomever he sees as the least undesirable among the political options currently on offer.  He votes to influence the outcome of today's election rather than create possibilities for tomorrow's.

These are in the forefront of the difficulties we face, but none of them is insurmountable; they can be overcome by an intelligent grasp of the factors of mass psychology making for them, and then a determined application of the lessons thus learned.

The first and most vital point we must understand is that millions who do not support us while we are weak will in fact support us when we are strong.

The very evidence of the growth in the strength of a movement and idea confers a corresponding growth in the respectability of it.  Just as in business money makes money, so in politics strength generates strength.

I saw evidence of this tendency in the immediate aftermath of our party's council election victory in Millwall in 1993.  For several weeks afterwards, we enjoyed an unparalleled growth in membership, but the growth declined noticeably after we had lost the council seat eight months later.  Our policies had not changed; it was only that for a short while we were perceived to be 'winners', and then the next moment looked upon as 'losers'.  It was a good lesson in the psychology of politics.

The left understands these factors very well.  By harnessing them, it has made a great number of habits, cults and ideas which in the past were not accepted now widely accepted - by the simple method of persuading people that they constitute an irreversible trend, that so many now adhere to them they have become quite normal and cannot anyway be stopped!

We, on our part, must understand that only a little way beneath the surface is a vast wave of support for what we stand for, which today is witheld due to the thought that we are small and weak, but which will burst forth as we demonstrate that we are becoming larger and stronger.

Every great reforming movement in history has begun by being built around the nucleus of a tiny minority.  It has begun by being shunned by most people, not because of the repellant nature of what it stands for, but because of its weakness.  In that situation, only a few intrepid spirits join it.

Provided that those spirits stay together and retain their inner cohesion, while determinedly fighting to promote their ideas, a few more will, bit by bit, enlist in their ranks.  Initial progress may well be tortuously slow.  Some of those who joined will be discouraged by this and will drop out.  This should not be a matter for dismay, for it only indicates a sound process of natural selection at work, weeding out the weaker elements.

At times, whatever the energy with which the cause is promoted, progress may stand still - because existing conditions do not permit growth.  But always, if the cause is right and perseverance prevails, those conditions will change: some new event will occur which will alter the situation and give a new impetus to growth.

Gradually, the tiny nucleus will expand into a somewhat more substantial force.  The movement will still be very much outside the 'mainstream', and therefore will retain the aspect of 'non-respectability' - but not quite so much so as previously.  Its growth potential will correspondingly widen.

And so on until eventually it breaks through by the sheer force of its own crusading will, combined with the pressure of the events happening around it, which will vindicate its stand.  At every stage, it will be the magnetic pull of growing strength that will provide a large part of the impetus for development.  Without that strength, neither the dedication of its adherents nor the evidence of its intrinsic rightness, would ever provide the necessary attraction to the masses to support it.

I have always therefore seen our movement as having the task of breaking through a certain credibility barrier, which we have to do by demonstrating, not just the soundness of our ideas, but the evidence of our growing strength.  In terms of membership size, the first 10,000 is the hardest to recruit, the job of turning that 10,000 into 20,000 less hard, and so on.  In terms of votes at elections, it is the first 5 per-cent of the poll in any area that is the hardest to win.  After that, people are likely to become persuaded that we may eventually have a chance to get candidates elected, and thus will our vote be increased.

Tyndall, J  The Eleventh Hour, Third Edition, 1998, Welling: Albion Press, pp 525-7

Wednesday, 2 November 2011

Today's 'extremism' is tomorrow's orthodoxy

As the old system slides ever further into anarchy and chaos, the moment for the emergence of a dynamic new force in British politics draws nearer.  Can we establish such a force and win political power in the time left to us?  In affirming that we can, I am in no doubt as to the formidable obstacles that first have to be overcome.

The first and most obvious of these is the entrenched power of the interests against which we fight.  While these enemies have shown complete ineptitude in governing and managing Britain, they are highly organised and capable when it comes to defending their own positions and institutions against any movement of real change.  Something of the workings of this system of power and corruption I have attempted to reveal in this book.

The second major obstacle is a strong indisposition on the part of many British people, not only towards political action, but towards political radicalism of any kind.  This observation is today true of white, western peoples generally but it is particularly true of our own people.

A consequence of this national temperament is that great political changes, when they occur in our country, do not occur quickly.  The first Labour government in Britain, for instance, was formed in 1924.  The idea of British Socialism, however, had been present in these islands for much longer, its development extending back into the distant mists of the 19th century.

It will be clear from what I have said earlier that British Nationalism as an idea is by no means new.  It is only new as an instrument of action, in which role it has yet to be applied.  Earlier in this book I have given accounts of its early infancy in the pre-1914 period, its coming to maturity between the wars and its revival after the Second World War.  British Nationalism, like British Socialism, has been no overnight growth.

It would be wholly wrong to draw from this, as some pessimists do, that because nationalism has not in all these years achieved political power, or even won widespread mass support, it cannot do so in the future.  Such a conclusion would be as mistaken now as it was about socialism earlier this century.

The pioneers of socialism had to wait with patience for their moment of destiny, allowing natural historical forces to make possible the advent of socialism as a power factor in Britain.  The important thing is that, when that moment arrived, socialists had ready the political machine needed to exploit it, and thus turn into a potent political force what had previously only been an idea and a vision in the minds of a comparative few.

Exactly the same rule governs the coming of the moment of destiny for our own movement.

I have emphasised earlier that all great historical changes in societies are brought about, not by masses, but by highly organised minorities.

If a particular political ideology has no mass support, it is not necessarily because there is no disposition within the mass to support it; rather is it much more likely to be because there simply is not a sufficiently strong and organised minority to provide the apparatus by which such support can be mobilised.

A very high proportion of the population may hold opinions on current issues which are in accord with the policies of a particular reforming movement; but that does not mean that that movement is certain to enjoy practical support in the same proportion.  If it does not possess the necessary organisational apparatus - and the popular confidence for it to be considered a power factor in the politics of the nation, its support will be mostly silent and passive; it will not be translated either into mass membership or large numbers of votes.

There is another factor of enormous importance.  There is a deep-rooted timidity, even cowardice, in the masses which inhibits them from supporting any cause which, while on the one hand seeming to be highly controversial and attracting strident opposition, does not on the other hand seem to have powerful forces working for it to defend it in this controversy and combat such opposition.

This is a strange and interesting phenomenon.  In times of war, large numbers of people from out of a mass of the population can be capable of displaying a high order of courage, with many men, young and not so young, willing to risk their lives in battle, and many of all ages and both sexes on the home front showing great fortitude in the face of bombing and the several privations that attend their lives in such a situation.

Yet these same people, even including men who have been fighter pilots or tank or submarine commanders, can become petrified rabbits in the face of pressures to conform to the current political orthodoxies and to avoid identification with any brand of politics deemed to be current heresy.  This paradox is particularly common among Anglo-Saxons.

I am certain that it is this factor that lies behind the customary protestation by many British people that they are against any form of political 'extremism'.

In an earlier chapter I looked a little into the question of 'extremism' and identified the term as an entirely relative one, the meaning of which is determined by those in a position to fix the central location on the map of politics and thereby decide what is to be the ruling 'orthodoxy'.  If tomorrow these masters changed, and a new 'orthodoxy' became the vogue, the masses in Britain, and probably any other Anglo-Saxon country, would find no difficulty whatever in embracing it.  That which had been yesterday's 'extremism' would today become a quite respectable viewpoint!

In fact, what we have today is the maintenance of an entirely artificial climate of opinion by means of the creation of an atmosphere of fear.  In this respect Britain has become similar to the very 'totalitarian' countries to which she is always proclaiming herself morally superior.

Lurking in the minds of many millions are feelings of discontent about present policies, deepening into disgust with the whole established order.  But these feelings are largely suppressed due to the psychological intimidation of the state machine and its various agencies, of which the mass media are by far the most important.

Tyndall, J  The Eleventh Hour, Third Edition, 1998, Welling: Albion Press, pp 523-5