Tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito

Monday, 21 May 2012

The Elder Statesman and the Seven Dwarfs

"The little men who talk about uniting Britain, the white race, Europe or whatever you prefer cannot even unite themselves. Any talk of a common fight against a common enemy is treated by them as a sinister plot to undermine their own precious private identities."

"[British nationalism] is an incohesive mass of jealously squabbling tin-pot Caesars, more concerned with the pursuance of private vendettas than with the aim of ultimate national salvation."

Thus John Tyndall in the article 'Where is the Right?' in the July 1966 issue of Spearhead.

In some ways it would appear that little has changed within nationalism in the intervening forty-six years. The bane of the movement is still the vanity, sectarianism, dogmatism, jealousy, pettiness and selfishness, of individual nationalist leaders; their purblind inabilty to see the bigger picture; their fear of the political big time and real electoral success; and their parochial determination to remain a big fish in a little pond at all costs, to the detriment of the interests of our people as a whole.

In 1966-7 negotiations between the various petty nationalist parties, conducted by John Bean, AK Chesterton and Gerald Kemp et al, finally bore fruit in the formation of the National Front, a party which presented a far more credible electoral challenge to the Establishment's status quo than any of its constituent elements could have mounted on their own.

Because of its espousal of a democratic constitution and collective leadership and its rejection of the cult of the leader and fuehrerprinzip, the National Front became, in the course of the 1970s, the most successful political party that British  nationalism had ever seen up to that time.

Its demise as an effective political entity came about, in the 1980s, as a result of forgetting the lessons which had created the impulse for its formation in the first place, namely, that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and that unity is strength.

Some may say that this is precisely what we nationalists need today: a new coalition of nationalist parties presenting a united front to our enemies, a shield wall if you will, enabling us to cease our destructive internecine conflict and turn our fire where it really belongs - onto the traitorous political Establishment.

Sadly, I believe this to be a counsel of perfection. It would be wonderful if it could be achieved but politics is about the real world, the art of the possible, as Bismarck said.

We should bear in mind that the impetus that led to the formation of the National Front followed two decades of disunion and failure within the nationalist movement. There was a real appetite for a change of strategy and for co-operation.

Those conditions do not exist today. On the contrary, the prospects for inter-party co-operation on the face of it could hardly be worse. The leaders of the various nationalist and quasi-nationalist micro-parties, that I have referred to as 'the seven dwarfs', can hardly believe their good fortune. With the good ship BNP sinking slowly beneath the waves, these parties are like little lifeboats picking up survivors. Some, like the National Front, for example, may have doubled their membership in less than a year. Of course, in absolute terms, the numbers involved are tiny, though I suspect that the majority of recruits are activists, who are worth their weight in gold to any party that really means business.

The leaders of these micro-parties take their increased membership as confirmation of the correctness of their strategy of 'going it alone', even though they have really had nothing to do with the recruitment windfall, which is entirely due to Mr Griffin's alienation of the BNP's grass roots and particularly its activists.

"Why should we join with others when we're doing better on our own than we've done for the last twenty years?" is a question that the leaders of the National Front might well be asking themselves.

This is fine if one is prepared to settle for half a loaf.

On the other hand, if, like me, you want the whole bakery, then you will support the new nationalist party that I believe Andrew Brons and his key allies will announce before the end of the year. I believe that it will have a democratic constitution and a collective leadership, of which the nationalist elder statesman and MEP, Andrew, will be the chairman and figure-head. The new party's policies should be broadly similar to those of the BNP of about five years ago, around the time of its greatest electoral popularity.

The new party should prove to be highly attractive to the very many former members of the BNP who are currently unaffiliated, as well as drawing off considerable numbers from the seven dwarfs and most of the few remaining activists of the BNP itself.

Before long the new party is likely to have superseded the floundering and discredited BNP, presenting a clean new image of competence and respectability to the electorate but with no dilution of policy. Ceteris paribus, electoral success should follow.


  1. Are you referring to this?


  2. I ticked interesting in the reactions section. i could have ticked Surprising also - surprising that the views expressed today are ones that have been held for years. Impressive in its lucidity. But why continually appeal to the old guard ? You are wasting further precious time and that is a luxury we can ill-afford

  3. Anonymous 23 May 2012 21:08 said

    Are you referring to this?


    No. This is just another ego-trip masquerading as serious politics.

    Andrew Brons has allowed any nationalist micro-party to publish articles on the Nationalist Unity web site, in the hope of creating a spirit of co-operation and unity amongst nationalists.

    However, each of the "squabbling tin-pot Caesars" to use John Tyndall's memorable phrase, thinks that they can go it alone and do not need the others.

    They are mistaken. We all need each other if nationalism is to succeed. Andrew is still trying to build a grand coalition of nationalist parties. But even if his attempt to do so is unsuccessful, which, through no fault of his own, seems likely, he and his key allies will, I believe, launch a new party before the end of the year.

    When the new party is launched you and every other thinking nationalist will be in no doubt about to which standard you should rally.

  4. Ok, thanks.
    Do you know for certain that the proposed party is a vanity project or who is behind it?
    Most of what is suggested seems very sensible to me.
    And what makes you sure that Brons will announce a new party before the end of the year when he has made it clear he wants to retire?

  5. Andrew has indicated that he does not intend to seek a second term as an MEP, but that is not the same as retiring from politics completely. In any case there is nothing to prevent him from changing his mind about a second term, perhaps being the lead candidate for the election in 2014, and then subsequently retiring before the end of his term.

    Durotrigan does have some good ideas, but his announcing his new party without revealing his identity shows a lack of flair for leadership.

    I believe I know Andrew's mind on the question of a new party. I believe that he is laying the groundwork for a new party as we speak.

    Andrew would agree with the saying "Well done is quickly done".