The British (Multi-) National Party!
For the past few years, I have watched the British National Party change from a once proud and determined party of national unity to a watered-down apology of it's former self.
It is said that the party has grown in 'leaps and bounds' in recent times. The party faithful proudly point to its election successes and asks if these successes would have been possible under the leadership of the former chairman, John Tyndall. They state that the voting public would not support the kind of radical nationalist party that the BNP once was and they defend the de-naturing of its long-accepted policies.
People have asked me why the BNP has suddenly been seen to get results when, for years, it was not showing signs of making comparable progress. The answer is very simple: the electorate has, at last, begun to wake up in the light of so many problems with the vastly increased number of immigrants and asylum-seekers coming here. None of the old parties has ever offered a viable solution to these problems and the electorate has looked towards the BNP for an answer. The fact of the matter is simply one of timing. This awakening of the people would have occurred whoever happened to be the party leader.
Election results are always pleasing to those in the party who have worked hard to achieve them. All credit must surely go to those who deliver leaflets and engage in door-to-door canvassing. If the message is a good one, people will heed it. There is, however, no magic spell being cast on the electorate by the present leadership of the BNP; these results would come quite naturally in an environment where people are frightened that mass immigration is threatening their way of life. Why then, when at long last, the BNP is beginning to get results, does the leadership deliberately set out to wreak irreparable damage to the party machine?
There was the case of Luke Smith, a man who had won a seat in a local election. He was involved in an altercation with a fellow member at a social event resulting in a fight; that was most unfortunate. Instead of dealing with the matter quickly and quietly, the whole force of the leadership bore down on him forcing him to resign, while in the meantime the incident was deliberately given maximum publicity. Council seats for the BNP do not grow on trees; each one has to be wrested from the iron grip of the old parties. The party later lost the seat, in part, through this wholly unnecessary publicity.
Another case was the discovery that BNP webmaster and West Midlands regional organizer, Simon Darby, was once 'buddy-buddy' with a person, Andrew Carmichael, who later turned out to be an MI5 agent. Nice one, Simon!
There was the embarrassing incident when a candidate in the North-East was discovered to be a Moslem convert. He was selected and approved by the regional organizer, Kevin Scott, a BNP ‘moderate’ treading the Griffin-prescribed path.
There was Charlie Bickerstaffe who, in announcing his election candidature, said that he had a black Zimbabwean (sorry, Rhodesian) son-in-law. He said: "He is proud to be British and part of our family." This, coming from a man who is a member of a party that was once dedicated to preserving the white race.
Burnley member Jim Cowell, who called for ethnics to be allowed to join the party, is another embarrassing example. Then there was the Halifax (failed) candidate, who said that he only wanted immigration to be halted for twelve months! What kind of message of racial preservation is that?
There is, of course, the rumour of Griffin’s homosexual relationship with Martin Webster in the late seventies. Webster had openly declared this but no official complaint has been recorded. Griffin, for some reason, has declined to seek recompense in the courts.
Let us come back to Simon Darby. If Tony Lecomber was the hatchet-man of the Griffin regime, then Darby is certainly the Eminence Grise. He was the man who, as webmaster, closed more BNP chat-rooms and forums than I care to remember. He is said, even by his friends, to be highly ambitious and a control-freak, intent on stifling any voice of criticism. If I were Griffin, I would be wary of such a character. The words of Shakespeare’s Macbeth could be most apposite here… "Vaulting ambition which o’erleaps itself and falls on the other." One old BNP forum still exists though; it is the FSID forum, which is a haven for the exchange of comments and healthy discussion. It is, however, no longer controlled by the BNP.
Apart from these illustrations, what else have we seen in recent years under Griffin’s leadership? We have seen a recently elected BNP councillor publicly attacking other BNP councillors (for which he should have been, but has not been, permanently banished from the party); councillors failing to turn up at important council meetings; candidates clamouring to declare that they are not ‘racist’ and others apologising for their party’s ethnic policy, such as it is.
The Burnley Branch of the BNP was, without doubt, the most active and energetic one in the country. Why then, did the leadership constantly disrupt, mislead and give little guidance to these people? Quite possibly, they could produce a result far better if they were allowed to get on with the job, unfettered from the leadership’s constant interference.
There is a rumour going round the branches that the party has two very well-placed moles inside ANAL (Anti-Nazi league). This begs the question of how many moles ANAL has in the BNP?
Every month, the BNP leadership replaces seasoned campaigners with raw beginners. Old hands, who have served the party well as branch leaders, etc., find themselves taking orders from members who have little to offer other than being sycophants of Griffin and his dream of a multicultural BNP. Is there any wonder that many nationalists are feeling disillusioned with the party under the ‘New Order’?
I believe that the electorate wants a change and when they are frightened about the current trend towards more and more multi-racial nonsense, the last thing they want to vote for is a pale shadow of the Tory Party.
We must remember, however, that the British public is slow to change; they are, by and large, conservatives with a small ‘c’. It takes an awful lot of unrest before they decide to vote for a party other than the ‘Big Three’. Many of them have now decided to put their trust in the BNP; they believe it to be a party dedicated to Britons. Imagine their surprise and disappointment when they begin to discover that their idol has feet of clay.
BNP officials insist that they are not ‘racist’ and that a radical change by Griffin has ensured that there are no ‘racist’ elements within the party. Griffin has told the news media over and over again that ‘racism’ is wrong and was counter-productive. Surely, the voter who has decided to support the BNP has done so essentially because he thought that race was of the utmost importance.
I am not saying that there is no hope for the future of the BNP; there is every hope, but not under the present leadership. There is, undoubtedly, a virus at work in the machinery of the party; it is Griffinus destructus; its removal is of the most paramount priority.
In a well-ordered nationalist movement, there must be a policy that reflects its concerns for the protection of our heritage and the preservation of our culture. There must be a leader who can command the respect and win the trust of everyone; a leader who will have the courage and determination to present to the people a message of hope for the nation and salvation for our race. When such a leader is found, I shall be the first to support him!