Posted on July 6, 2004

BNP Leadership Meeting Warned of Danger to Party

British National Party, July 7, 2004

A highly productive BNP Leadership Conference was held over the weekend of 3rd – 4th July in mid-Wales at the home 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 BNP’s 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’ Association, etc.

Mr Barnes said that, in his opinion (backed up by the BNP’s 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 do – fight 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 stop 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 own.

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:

a) Maintain its present membership policy, be barred from contesting elections and become a powerless nostalgic sect;

b) 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;

c) 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 party’s entire membership a proposal to change the BNP’s 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 forced – or even choose – to live side by side.

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 would – if this change is adopted – include 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 wouldn’t 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. We’d all be proud to live in Britain, but we’d 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 couldn’t 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 agree – as it not uncommon among such unfortunates – that 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 BNP’s 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 now – a 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 we’ve 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

From: martin

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.

From: jhpy

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.

From: John

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.

From: Dryden

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.

From: Dave

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.

From: Brian

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.