National Party, July
A highly productive BNP Leadership
Conference was held over the weekend of 3rd4th
July in mid-Wales at the of National Chairman Nick Griffin.
More than thirty key officials attended, with regional representatives
from London, the South East, the South West, West Midlands, East
Midlands, Wales, the North West, Yorkshire, the North East, Scotland
and Ulster present, along with national officials from Administration,
Treasury, Elections, IT, Cultural and Security Departments.
Starting with a critically constructive
review of the recent election campaigns, the weekend went on with
a series of debates and workshop sessions to examine a wide range
of future initiatives and improvements to our existing operations
at all levels of the party.
A key debate on the Sunday was initiated
by the head of the BNPs Legal Department, Lee Barnes, who
explained the implications of a complaint brought by an Asian individual
acting with the assistance of the Orwellian Commission for Racial
Equality, alleging discrimination on the grounds of being rejected
for membership of the party in accordance with our constitutional
requirement that all members be of British or closely kindred
native European stock.
Evidence was also presented that other
pro-minority racist ethnic groups are preparing similar legal assaults
against the right of the native peoples of the British Isles to
preserve just one organisation whose primary purpose is to stand
up for them, in a way which is perfectly normal and acceptable to
our Masters when it comes to organisations for minorities,
such as the Black Police Officers Association, Asian Lawyers
Mr Barnes said that, in his opinion
(backed up by the BNPs main solicitor), this is a potentially
fatal attack on the British National Party, potentially providing
our opponents with the means to bleed us to death with compensation
law suits , and/or to have the party deregistered by the Electoral
Commission, thereby banning us from contesting elections. Let us
repeat that: The British National Party could be banned from doing
what political parties exist to dofight and win elections.
He noted the very clear parallel between
this and the further advanced legal assault by the equally morally
bankrupt Belgian state on the Vlaams Blok, which is one last desperate
legal appeal away from being declared a racist organisation
and being banned, despite having mass electoral support and a clear
democratic mandate to speak for the people of Flanders.
This is not a theoretical risk; it
is being done to a modern, democratic, mainstream, successful nationalist
political party just a few score miles away from the east coast
of England in the heart of the European Union. After all the frauds
and fiddles pulled during the European Election, no rational British
nationalist can be in any doubt that Blair & Co would do precisely
the same thing to us if we are slow and stupid enough to give them
the opportunity and the excuse.
The aim of this strategy, he stated,
is not just to s us winning elections, but to force us down a
road towards confrontation and violence, something disastrously
counter-productive for us and our cause, but ideal for a State which
has lost all democratic legitimacy by its reliance on gerrymandered
and fraudulent elections, and which needs violence to provide it
with the justification to turn to repression and violence of its
This appears at first sight to give
the BNP just three choices of how to deal with a threat which cannot
be wished away or ignored:
Maintain its present membership policy, be barred
from contesting elections and become a powerless nostalgic sect;
Maintain its present membership policy, switch
all effort away from electioneering, accept that we will never
obtain the state power needed to reverse present trends, and move
towards becoming a Civil Rights movement and cultural association
aiming to fight a rearguard action on behalf of a native population
facing the certainty of becoming a minority in our own country;
Change its constitution and allow non-whites to
join the party as long as they say they agree with our policies.
It was unanimously agreed that Option
a) is unacceptable as it would involve certain defeat, that Option
b)has very limited appeal and that even if we became effective the
lack of a democratic mandate would make it easy for the Powers That
Be to ban us outright, and that Option c) would split the party,
leave it vulnerable to being hijacked by a determined minority
group, and constitutes a betrayal of our basic principles, hence
is just as unacceptable as Option a).
Mr Barnes and BNP leader Nick Griffin
then presented the broad outline of an alternative, far more radical,
proposal which they have worked out since the CRE threat arrived
earlier this year:
This is to put to a vote of the partys
entire membership a proposal to change the BNPs constitution
by including our a statement of our belief that human biological,
ethnic and cultural diversity is the beneficial product of the will
of either God or nature, and is at the very root of our humanity.
The statement would go on to point
out that this human diversity is under threat from both impersonal
forces of capitalist globalism and the world-shrinking impact of
modern technology, and from the integrationist model of multi-racism
and multi-culturalism. Liberal advocacy of diversity
is in fact verbal camouflage for a system which, left unchecked,
will extinguish all genuine diversity in a melting pot in which
the priceless patchwork of human variety is merged into a rootless,
coffee-coloured, culture-free herd of atomised consumers of the
products of a handful of gigantic multi-national corporations.
Being aware of the truly genocidal
implications of integrationist multi-culturalism, we must commit
the party to a strong, rational and principled statement of our
opposition to racial integration and cultural homogenisation. Furthermore,
in our technologically shrunken world, in which several other races
and cultures have mastered Western economic innovations, and overtaken
the numerical advantage which the West developed during the Industrial
Revolution, the old white supremacist model for white survival is
now obsolete. Racial separatists of all peoples and cultures must
work side-by-side to provide a conscious, worldwide resistance to
the forces which would wipe us all out by mixing us up. Genocide
by cultural homogenisation and the bedchamber rather than by cultural
oppression and the gas chamber.
In place of either hatred or liberal
surrender, we must call upon all peoples, of all races, cultures
and religions to respond to the threat to our identities posed by
capitalist globalism by agreeing to live separately even when our
communities are forcedor even chooseto live side by
Self-evidently, there are large numbers
of non-whites living in Britain who understand that this country
is full up and who, even more importantly, no more want
to see their grandchildren as mixed race, culturally rootless consumers
than we do.
There is no need to discriminate against
such people who share our basic worldview and our deepest concerns,
but nor is there any moral or legal need for us to mix with them,
either socially or politically. The solution is not to discriminate
against them by denying them the right to join our British National
Party, but to level the playing field by letting them join their
own British National Party. The BNP is for anyone who agrees with
our statement of principles, but since our principles wouldif
this change is adoptedinclude racial and cultural segregation,
they would no more want or be entitled to join our BNP than
we would want or be entitled to join theirs.
We wouldnt be discriminating
against them by not having them at our Red-White-and-Blue,
because they would have the precisely equal right to keep their
own Red-White-and-Blue for their own people. Wed all be proud
to live in Britain, but wed all agree on the need to avoid
a drift towards the destruction of our precious diversity by keeping
ourselves strictly to ourselves.
We would share a common set of aims,
and a common constitution, but they would elect their leaders, and
we would elect ours. We could change our constitution, and they
could change theirs. But we couldnt interfere in each others
business or organisations in any way, shape or form. If enough Sikhs
or Hindus or blacks or Chinese or Muslims (provided they felt able
to agree to a constitution which insists that Britain must remain
under secular democratic government, faithful to the ancient European
pagan and Christian traditions of this land) want to form their
own BNPs then we will gladly give them our model constitution and
let them get on with it. There is even scope for a mixed race operation
provided that those in it agreeas it not uncommon among such
unfortunatesthat racial integration is fundamentally bad and
often produces offspring who feel lost, confused and unease with
either community or culture.
And when our BNP is voted into power,
we would expect these other BNPs to play a very significant role
in helping us to reverse the entire genocidal model of multi-culturalism
by acting as leading forces within their own communities for peaceful
separation and massive, phased, assisted and voluntary resettlement
in their lands of ethnic origin.
The finer details of this whole proposal
are still to be worked out, but this general picture should give
all interested parties at least a starting point in the debate.
If anyone out there can provide a better solution, which provides
an even more effective way of showing that we are not unrealistic
supremacist bigots, while at the same time making clear our fundamental
opposition to genocide through integration, we will be very pleased
to adopt such a proposal.
Provided whatever final position emerges
from this debate is acceptable to a two-thirds majority of the BNPs
membership voting in a secret postal ballot, the unanimous opinion
of the Leadership Conference is that the anti-white tax-guzzlers
at the Commission for Racial Equality will have fallen well-deserved
victims of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Having set out to have us effectively
banned, all they might achieve in the end is to concentrate our
minds on finding the ideological Holy Grail that has eluded every
nationalist party up until nowa way to synthesise what is
known in nationalist short-hand as the 14 Words (We
must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children)
with a non-racist, universally applicable critique of the disastrous
impact of liberal capitalism on human diversity.
At last we see that there is another
choice other than legally and electorally fatal discrimination on
the one hand, or ideologically incoherent, short-termist civic nationalism
on the other. We can choose to agree to work side-by-side but separately
to preserve that which we all hold most dear.
The diversity-mongers will be hoist
with their own petard, helping us give reassurance to the millions
of voters who would not back a racist or supremacist BNP while at
the same time ensuring that, when we win, we will get what weve
fought for through the long years of our struggle.
One last thing: If the liberals, in
the meantime, changed the law again to outlaw our new approach,
we would not just have bought time before having to settle for something
far less satisfactory in order to continue our battle for survival.
Most important of all, we would force the liberals to drop their
mask and to admit that their integrationist multi-culturalism is
not about diversity but about deliberate, intentional
genocide. That would be a better position for us to progress from
than where we are today.
Comments from Readers
This is a make or break issue for the premier white nationalist party of the UK. They have to be flexible, and find a solution that makes the BNP stronger. And the rank and file must be loyal and patient and keep focussed on the bigger picture.
It is clearly unfair that the BNP can’t organise itself along racial lines yet there are so many organisatons which are exclusively for blacks and Asians. Yet although white people whine and moan in the pub or in the living room, they are too lazy or ignorant to go down to the polling station on election day and vote for the BNP. They will get the country they deserve.
This article is an example of the way “Liberal Democracies” control democracy. In this case it’s using civil suits to disrupt and damage a party. In the U.S., in the 2000 presidential election, legal maneuvering by the FEC delayed the Reform party from receiving the $12,000,000 in election funds. In Australia, trumpted up charges against Pauline Hanson have eliminated her from the political process. Different means achieving the same end.
Why don’t the BNP set up a fighting fund for counter-legal action against every explicitly black or Asian group? Perhaps Mutually Assured Destruction would work. It might also generate a good deal of publicity – fence-sitting Brits may not yet have understood the reality of the situation that faces them, but they instinctively dislike double standards.
As others have observed, we can bring the inconsistency of ethnic associations (for all except indigenous Brits) to public attention. But I think we should go further and call their bluff. Why not open membership of the BNP to all, but restate the constitution’s aims? For example, “We question the current orthodoxy that a nation can support many ethnic groups without problems. We reject continued immigration for this reason and to protect the wages of the poor. The multicultural experiment is failing, and we must act now to limit further harm.”
Our liberal elites secretly agree with this, as we can see from the small numbers of those who live in “vibrant” areas, or send their childrent to inner-city state schools. Once they can no longer press the racist button, the BNP can become stronger.
option a. no good
option b. no good
option c. Could work. I wish I knew more about how the leadership was chosen. It doesn’t hurt to have a “minority” group in the BNP so long as it has no leadership power. Controling the leadership makeup with sufficient barriers of entry can work. Every prowhite organization has to worry about infiltration. I think it’s best that new leadership be chosen by the old leadership behind closed doors long before the old dies out, but that’s just me.
The direction that Mr Barnes and Nick Griffin presented, if allowed, is the best way to go. All prowhite organiztions will have to work on how the white massess perceive them if they are to go “main stream”. This move would but the BNP in the best possible light in two major ways:
1. It would make it clear that it’s not about money, power, or just skin color, it’s a phoilophy to make Britin a better place by solving a racial problem. It’s hard for the media to claim that the BNP just hates to hate, or just wants to “use” minorities if the BNP opens up to them in any way.
2. It’s also hard for the media to claim that they want to kill all nonwhites if they work with nonwhites.
Tacticly there are two main benefits and one major draw back that I see. Benefits:
1. Different factions of the BNP would not compete in the same districts. thereby putting even more presure on the more popular parties.
2. All the other parties would have to tailor their message so as to reflect the increased polorization that the “NEW BNP” would bring. This polorization process is extremely important it will and must play a large roll in shifting the mindset of whites, and they must see this shift(polorization) coming from both nonwhites and whites alike.
The disadvantage is that it will divide up the land of Britain. As each new part of the “New BNP” gains a foot hold it will lay claim to a district. Asking them to give up that land can not be expected under any circumstance. You might as well ask them to leave now. To tell you the truth I don’t see a way to get out of this mess without lossing land. Perhaps the white race will learn not to use cheep nonwhite labor in the furture if land is the ultimite price we pay. Or perhaps we will be able to find a solution along the way.
The BNP may be forced by intimidation to accept ethnic membership, but they should definitely not go down this road as a matter of choice. It is pointless to try and pander to the current consensus or the swamp of the floating voter with this kind of tactic – all that happens is that you are hollowed out from within. The white masses don’t need a “moderate” alternative privileged with a few crumbs of exposure from the conventional media table, time will kick the masses into action, because the destruction of Britain like the destruction of all white countries is accelerating. There is literally nowhere left to hide. The instinct for self-preservation will take over at some point and when it does they need a party that is genuinely their champion rather than another establishment placebo.