Incompetence reigns

Anyone visiting the main web site of the British National Party recently and looking at its home page will have seen, near the top of the page, what appears to be an extraordinary slur upon the unfortunate one million unemployed young people of our country.

"1 Million youth unemployed - Stop them destroying Britain", says the slide show!

Bearing in mind that most of these one million unemployed young people are our own indigenous British compatriots, one is forced to ask the question: is it really very likely that they should wish to destroy their own motherland, albeit that motherland has treated them as if they are not wanted and as if they are surplus to the requirements of society?  Even seeing an estimated three million ethnically alien illegal immigrants permitted to remain in the country and depress wages and working conditions, is not enough, I submit, to make our young unemployed workers wish to destroy their homeland.  Even seeing, every year, another estimated half a million ethnic aliens 'legally' enter our country and be given preferential, 'red carpet treatment' in terms of jobs, housing and educational opportunities, at the expense of their own opportunities for social advancement, is not enough provocation for our young Englishmen to make them wish to destroy what they still regard as their own country.

I don't see our unemployed young people as wishing to destroy Britain at all.  I see them as wishing to contribute to Britain, but being denied the opportunity to do so by the rotten anti-English Establishment.  Perhaps this too is the message that the BNP's web site wished and intended to convey, but was unable to succeed in formulating effectively as a result of the incompetence of its IT staff.  On the other hand, one must also consider the possibility of sabotage, of the calculated and insidious perversion of the BNP's ethnonationalist message by a greedy cuckoo in the nest.  A multiracialist apostate from nationalism by the name of Patrick Harrington.

Free our English Joan of Arc!

Acknowledgements to the British Resistance web site for another excellent letter from the celebrated author, courageous intellectual and patriotic Englishman, Dr Frank Ellis.


Emma West and her son: innocent victims of the anti-English system


Letter to the Home Secretary regarding Emma West

From: Dr Frank Ellis

To: Theresa May, Home Secretary

Re: The Arrest of Miss Emma West

Date: 2nd December 2011

Dear Home Secretary

I am writing to you to protest the outrageous arrest of Miss Emma West on a charge of allegedly racially abusing Poles and various non-white immigrants. I have to say that I found the video very distressing. It was yet another reminder of the kind of changes that immigrants have inflicted on England. To live in the south-east of England, to have to endure day in and day out the unwelcome presence of millions of non-white immigrants must eventually exact its toll on a member of the white indigenous population. Close and unavoidable contact with blacks is psychologically stressful, culturally repellent, disorientating and often very dangerous. There are no advantages whatsoever, just problems.

There comes a time when a person just cannot take any more. Every day on the BBC and the other monopoly stream media people are told that diversity is a wonderful gift; that immigrants enrich us and so on, ad nauseam. The reality is somewhat different. Immigration is destroying our country and in the process people like Emma West and millions of other white people are being racially, culturally and physically dispossessed and turned into a cowed minority in their own country. Emma West had enough: she speaks for millions of white people.

I cannot see anything in the video that would justify her being arrested. I conclude therefore that the arrest of Emma West was motivated by political expediency and maliciousness. The aim of her arrest was to cow other whites into silence so that they will not speak out against what is happening to England.

Jeremy Hardy (BBC) demands that people who voted for the BNP be executed; Cameron incites hatred and violence towards Nick Griffin MEP by publicly referring to him as ‘a ghastly piece of filth’ and Clarkson says that public sector workers should be executed in front of their families. Clarkson was only being ‘silly’. Is that what Cameron said? And what happens when a young mother speaks for England? You send the useless police, the same cowards who were too frightened to deal with black immigrant rioters in August, to arrest her. Meanwhile the immigrants keep swarming into England, pushing us aside, mocking us and living off the wealth of another nation. And if an Englishwoman protests in language that might be inappropriate in a university seminar (unless you are black and from the hood of course) but summarises the problem in brutally plain English, she is treated as if she is a monster.

Emma West has a son. Her son has been stolen from her. If he suffers any harm from paedophiles, perverts, blacks who hate whites, immigrant doctors who can just about walk and talk - not necessarily decent English - at the same time, you will be responsible. Emma West must be released immediately, reunited with her family and left in peace. Then you can give the order to expel the immigrants. I want my England, my Motherland back. Get on with it.

Frank Ellis

Non nobis, Domine

"Non nobis, non nobis, Domine,

"Sed nomini tuo da gloria."

This may be translated as:

Not unto us, not unto us, O Lord,

But unto thine own name give the glory.

Griffin runs the party into debt but the members pay the consequences

The following article recently appeared on the main web site of the British National Party.  According to its anonymous author, almost certainly the non-member and anti-nationalist traitor, Pat Harrington, "At our last Party Conference a full presentation of the 2010 accounts was made by the National Treasurer Clive Jefferson." 

I am not able to say definitively whether such a presentation actually took place or not, since I did not attend the annual conference this year.  I would be grateful to hear from anyone who did attend, via this blog, whether any presentation of the 2010 Accounts was actually made, or whether it is in fact a figment of the imagination of the infamous fantasist, Harrington.

It is noteworthy that no mention is made of the overdue 2010 Accounts having been submitted to the Electoral Commission, which leads one to believe that they may still not have been submitted, some five months after the statutory deadline was passed, last July.  A "sobering" thought, indeed.

It is entirely unacceptable for the leadership of the BNP to seek to make the party's grass roots pay for its own fiscal incompetence and wanton profligacy, particularly in the absence of published Accounts for 2010.  It is adding insult to injury for this announcement to have been made in an article that was probably written by a non-member of the party, a member of a rival, and 'civic' political party, and the boss of a dummy trade union.

I believe that the party is probably not a going concern, indeed, that it almost certainly remains technically insolvent.  This hike in membership subscriptions of 60%, or more, at a time when the living standards of our members, (many of whom are low paid or unemployed workers, or retired, elderly folk, living on modest fixed incomes), are being eroded, is a brutal assault on genuine British nationalists, perpetrated by venal trash.

I have, in the past and very recently, called upon members of the BNP to 'hold their nose' and renew their membership of the party.  In the light of this article, I no longer feel able to offer that advice.

"The party may be over but I'm doing very nicely, thank you."

New British National Party membership prices and payment options

In the New Year the British National Party intends to build on solid foundations. We have already brought in a professional accountant to assist our National Treasurer. At our last Party Conference a full presentation of the 2010 accounts was made by the National Treasurer Clive Jefferson. This included a detailed explanation of current cash flows and financial liabilities. The Treasury then gave detailed proposals for the long-term financial stability of the British National Party.

All the proposals put to Conference had been debated and unanimously agreed upon by the National Executive the previous day. In the subsequent Q&A session it was clear that the Voting Members appreciated being told the facts and, although sobering, the whole presentation and the suggestions put forward were well received, and a unanimous vote was passed affirming the Party’s status as a ‘going concern’. Our party is moving out of a stressful period in which serious attempts were made to starve us of funds and bankrupt us through vexatious litigation like the Equalities Commission persecution. We have withstood this storm and have learned important lessons about how we should build defences for the future.

We've also looked closely at how other non-profit organisations, including big charities, manage their finances. One thing that stood out straight away was that these successful organisations all use direct debits or standing order mandates to collect membership payments and donations. It's easy to see why. Direct debits or standing orders provide a regular, reliable income. They keep administration costs low. They also make it easy for members and supporters to make payments, spreading the costs over twelve equal payments instead of having to pay the full amount up front.

“I cannot emphasise enough the importance of moving the membership over to a monthly collection payment system,” explained Mr. Jefferson. “It will help the members by making membership affordable to all and will revolutionise the Party’s finances, allowing us the ability of long-term budgeting from a stable monthly income.

“Members will soon have the choice of setting up their payments online. Right now we are implementing our first-ever Direct Debit set-up facility over the phone. Verbally, with just a few simple questions, we can set up the Direct Debit mandates for our members with no signatures required – this will be great for the many members who do not have credit or debit cards. We are also offering the standing order mandates for members to download, fill in and return to us."

One-off annual payments can also be made but are not going to be encouraged because steady monthly income makes budgeting and management much easier, and ALL new members will have to join using the monthly payment method.

Both our AGM and National Executive voted unanimously that membership fees would go up. We have not increased our membership fees for over six years, and this increase is long overdue and fully understood and endorsed by the National Executive and the AGM.

British National Party membership fees will be going up from 1st December 2011.

Good news for current members

Although membership fees have gone up, we are offering a 21-day period from now until midnight on 21st December 2011 in which any current paid-up member of the British National Party can renew their membership at the old prices. Every member will be offered this in writing before 21st December, and any current member posting back their membership renewal before the 21st December will be allowed to renew at the old price.

This offer is open to every member regardless of when their membership is due for renewal in December, or if their membership has lapsed any time in the last three months. If any member wishes to renew their membership early, they can also renew now and beat the membership increases.

Those members wishing to rejoin (current members only) any time over the next 21 days at the old price please do so online HERE or by ringing 0844 809 4581. (The old price renewal page will be taken down at 12 midnight on 21st December 2011, so act now!)

All new members from this point on please join online HERE or by ringing 0844 809 4581. Please call again if our operators are busy, as this is a peak renewal period.

The new membership prices are:

Concessionary membership (OAP, unwaged, student) - £25 per year or 12 monthly instalments of £2.50.

Standard membership - £48 per year or 12 monthly instalments of £4.50.

Family membership - £60 per year or 12 monthly instalments of £5.58

Overseas and Gold membership - £98 per year or 12 monthly instalment of £8.75

Act now and save money

Current members have 21 days to renew at the old rate and save.

Concessionary members can save £10

Standard members can save £18

Family members can save £20

Gold members can save £38

Overseas members can save £43

You can renew now and make these savings online HERE or by ringing 0844 809 4581.

Dismantle the Anti-white system!

Let the Unjust tremble

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.

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