The British Nationalist

Last night’s meeting of the BNP’s Croydon branch, attracted some ethnic minority pub-goers. The two men were peering through the window, wondering why the large crowd were gathering, upon being spotted, some elderly BNP veterans waved for them to come in and join the meeting.

The two men – one asian; one afro-carribean – enjoyed the talks by Richard Barnbrook AM, and had lots of questions. One being: “how can we get this country back to the way it was?”

The Asian gentleman explained that he was a British army veteran, which was greeted by a warm, respectful applause from the BNP members.

A member present at the meeting, reports:

“He also said he had a mixed race child and he does not like political correctness, they were asked to become members at a later date, i’m not sure if they will.  I think they were quite happy to a stumbled apon a BNP meeting, something to talk about with their mates. I think they were very curious and hopefully came away with the knowledge that the BNP are very different as to how they are portrayed in the MSM, on my way out I gave one of them one of my DVD’s, me and my mate make them, it is a newspaper in a DVD format, presenting news that is censored in the MSM, anyway he was happy with that and said he’d watch.

They were made very welcome, who said the BNP can’t be inclusive?”

I know some are worried about how they will manage ethnic minority members. The answer is simple, the answer is contained within the BNP’s philosophy towards ethnic minorities; treat them exactly the same as you would any other member, no condescending lovefest and certainly nothing that would constitute bad manners. Common sense stuff.

A very small minority may stop coming to meetings if ethnic minorities attend. I would question how on earth they function in a multi-racial society (you may not like it, but it’s a fact of life for most people living in large cities) if they cannot even bring themselves to sit next to an ethnic minority. Have their careers never once brought them into contact with minority customers or colleagues? If so, did they shun or run from them, rather than engage?

Some have foretold large invasions of meetings by searchlight plants. You can counter this by making all your meetings strictly members only, no card; no entry, regardless of race, ethnicity, etc.

This could all turn out to be academic as the amendments are yet to be ratified by the membership. If you wish to vote on the constitutional amendments then you must attend the Emergency General Meeting on the 30th/31st of January 2010.

Hat-tip: Political Mizz

There is confusion spread throughout the party. Some are asking why we have to amend our constitution, some are questioning their ideology and some are taking a long hard look at their political allegiance. They are right to be unsure.  We are walking a tightrope. If we falter now, the BNP will never secure parliamentary representation for the indigenous peoples of these isles.

A cocksure Tory once said that Labour would never be elected again. A few years previously James Callaghan’s Old Labour  government had fallen. It was widely believed that the party then in its present incarnation would never capture the support of middle England again. The signs were there in 1974 (and arguably decades earlier), when they had been forced to form a minority government, short of a majority by 33 seats. The belief that the public had lost faith – and many were suspicious of anything remotely resembling communism – in a socialist party was borne out over the course of the next three general elections, they failed in 83, 87, and 92.

Labour bigwigs needed to make the party more attractive to the middle-class, it was vital that they try to move away from its socialist stance to free-market policies. There was considerable opposition from the elder members and the hardcore ‘reds’. Like the BNP, Labour had constitutional issues, the infamous clause four, which detailed Labour’s commitment to Nationalisation and wealth redistribution, but it was also a stick for their own back, often attacked by their opponents.

In 1992, Labour were expected to defeat the Tories. Labour lost, and this was a wake up call for the party, it gave impetus to the architects of the New Labour project. Labour ratified Blair’s clause four constitutional amendments in 1995. This represented the final step from Old Labour to New Labour, and two years later, they won, massively.

2004 was our wake up call, it was supposed to be the year that the BNP finally broke into the big time, we were going to win several seats at the European election. Perhaps we should have realised that the media weren’t attacking us because we we didn’t pose a threat, and they were right, we were agonisingly close in Nick’s North-West region, but ultimately we failed. The party had overextended itself financially, morale was very low, and then, Nick announced the unthinkable, we were going to have to amend our membership criteria. There was big opposition from the membership, and the plan was abandoned, but not forgotten.

Five years later, high on victory, the amendments first suggested in 2004 were now being forced onto us by the establishment. The first hurdle has been navigated – the voting membership has selected a proposal from the Chairman to go to the party membership to ratify our constitutional amendments. The membership now holds in their hands the one chance we have to break away from the remnants of the old party that hold us back. For some, this may be a very bitter pill to swallow, but tell me: Is it as bitter as all the years of failure you have endured?

Remember;

We are still Ethno-Nationalists,

We still oppose mass immigration,

We are still committed to dismantling Multiculturalism,

We will leave the European Union.

The major difference between ethno-nationalism and racial-nationalism, is that the former recognises loyalty to your ethnic group before that of your race. Think of your country, culture and heritage before that of the kindred ethnicities. This may come as a surprise, but the British have been betrayed, bullied and in some cases slaughtered by those whom racial-nationalists would consider their brethren. It’s just a reconsideration, a repositioning of your world view and priorities.

From 1982 to 1999, the BNP was like a small child, uncouth, politically unpalatable, electorally toxic, too influenced by the movements that gave birth to it. We are now at the adolescence stage of our development, and it is painful. We are at the brink of passing into adulthood, political maturity, and like a youngster that has outgrown his peers, we most move on. Move on to electoral success and become a parliamentary party.

However, we must not cast aside those whom were there in the beginning, but they must accept that the tyranny we face now was allowed to manifest itself on their watch, their brand of nationalism was unacceptable to the electorate, it was a complete failure, they must accept and correct those failings, and they must adapt. Those that have done so, now lead the party.

This is our ‘clause four moment’.

Just in. The voting members have passed a resolution to amend the constitution to allow ethnic minorities to become members of the British National Party.

Amendments suggested by Party Publicity Director Mark Collet were rejected.

Amendments put forth by Party Leader Nick Griffin were passed with only 4 voting members against the proposals.

The legal team will work on the fine print within the coming weeks, up until the amendments are formerly ratified.

Basic proposal is to create sub-groups within the party. More to follow.

——————————— Update

Media reporting that the amendments will go to a full party vote. Aside from leadership contests, I can’t recall a prior occasion when non-voting members have been asked to vote, there’s no precedent of them being consulted over constitutional amendments. Unless, this was a clause written into the constitution in 2008?

Two thirds majority needed to pass the amendments, that’s a lot of people to convince. If all 12,000 (Est.) vote, they will need 8,000 yes votes.

Chairman: Nick Griffin

I said that I wouldn’t comment on this issue, but the vitriol coming from certain quarters cannot go uncontested. There are elements within nationalist circles – not even BNP members, let alone supporters – who are busily attacking the Chairman’s decision to consult the party over constitutional amendments.

Most of them are embittered followers of the jackboot fetishist John Tyndall, ‘Tyndall would have gone down in a blaze of glory rather than change the rules,’ they cry. I might remind them that, marvellous orator though he was, Tyndall never succeeded in bringing electoral success to the six parties of which he was either chair, or leading member, in a career spanning six decades.

It is their refusal to understand the game of politics that sets them apart from the BNP’s new brand of nationalists. Unwillingness to play by the establishment rules has cost many a nationalist their chance at electoral success, or power. Oswald Mosley was repeatedly asked to return to the Conservative party even as late as the 30’s, until his actions eventually made him a political pariah, this ultimately cost him the British premiership, the role he was guaranteed should be play by the rules of British politics in the 1930’s.

Some believe the BNP should fight on regardless of the cost, but where do they think the party will find £1,000,000? Our membership is only just beginning to recover from the donation fatigue symptoms of the successful European elections campaign. It is the equivalent of asking 10,000 people to donate £100 each. Unless some rich businessman popped up with a massive lump sum it’s out of our reach. Even if by some miracle we did find the money; it would merely fill the pockets of the odious barristers fighting for the CEHR and there is no guarantee of victory. In fact, we would lose.

There is the fear that the party would be swamped by new ethnic minority members, this fear can be classed as a ‘phobia’, it is irrational to think that ethnic minorities will suddenly rush to take up membership, they do not rush to take up membership in the political parties that they have been allowed to join all along. Most are as disinterested in activism and party membership as the indigenous population. However, this amendment will force the establishment to lift the ban on police and social workers being members of the party. Not an undesirable potential influx from folk who were afraid of jeopardising their careers.

One hysterical member stated that ethnic minority members will use their vote to take over. This is a shocking statement for a member to make because it shows a lack of understanding of the BNP’s organisational structure. New members DO NOT HAVE A VOTE, and I am sure the safeguards built into the constitution against malign forces will be beefed up to counter any nasty little tricks. The existing system for choosing Advisory Council members gives ultimate power to the chairman, although not ideal, it is exactly the sort of defensive safeguard that the party will need in the coming months.

This is just my opinion as a BNP member, the ultimate decision lies with the voting membership, who will gather at a mass meeting in the coming weeks to decide  whether or not to approve the constitutional amendments. They will need to be passed by a two thirds majority. If they reject these crash measures, the BNP will be bankrupted and finally vanquished, not by Trevor Phillips, not by the government, but by the voting membership themselves.