Below is an extract from a recent issue of the 'Final Conflict' bulletin, organ of the UK section of the International Third Position. [Background note: the ITP was co-founded in 1986/7 by Nick Griffin in association with the Italian Roberto Fiore after they had finished playing games with the National Front to the point of its destruction. Griffin was later forced to quit the ITP after a sequence of "financial maladministration" events and eventually wandered into the British National Party and the employ of its then Chairman, the late John Tyndall.]
The 'FC' extract is a posting from a person who signs himself as "Tyndallite".
He claims to be a long-standing member of the BNP and asserts that he is being subjected to pressure from Griffin to delete postings on the 'Stormfront' site which:
1) Criticise the failed "modernising" strategy of Le Pen in the recent French presidential elections and similar policies being imposed on the BNP by Griffin;and,
2) Ventilite the possibility that their might be a body of opinion within the BNP which would seek to have Griffin replaced as party Chairman and his "Modernising" policy changes reversed. One Peter Jackson is mentioned in this connection.
If anybody knows to "Tyndallite" and knows his e-mail address, could they please forard this information to me in confidence.
As to the contents of "Tyndallite's" postings:I have heard from two sources recently concerning a rumour that Chris Jackson, a BNP member based in Lancs, intends to try and set in motion an election for the post of BNP Chairman with a view to deposing Griffin.
I have been told that Mr. Jackson's purpose is to restore the core policies of the BNP which Griffin has discarded in a bid to "modernise" the party (i.e. to make it acceptable to Jewry and, hence, the media) and thereby to join the political "mainstream".I hope that Mr. Jackson and those who support him are familiar with what the BNP is pleased to call its 'constitution'.
If they study it with the necessary care they may come to realise that it is not just the policy statement of the party which needs attention, but also its constitutional structure.The party has a 'constitution' created for it by its founder, John Tyndall. The creation was to serve his convenience. It is a "führerprinzip" contrivance similar to that which Tyndall attempted in October 1980 to foist on the National Front when he was Chairman of that party. He required the support of two-thirds or more of the NF members voting to get his way. He did not get anywhere near even a simple majority.
Among those who queued up around the hall to denounce Tyndall's proposals as "a tyranny" was Nick Griffin. (How right he was! But how ready he now is to use its provisions to his own personal advantage!) It was as result of Tyndall's failure to get his 'constitution' accepted that he split from the NF and formed the BNP.
The crucial thing to bear in mind is that under the BNP 'constitution', the current Chairman can only be obliged to face an electoral challenge if he agrees to submit himself to such a challenge.
I do not know all of the details exactly, but essentially a prospective candidate has to be, at the time of seeking nomination, a member of the party with an unbroken record of at least 5 years membership AND be an officer of the party.
A nomination paper must be signed by several other members who must either have a specified membership record and/or be an officer of the party.The 'constitution' also specifies that members may only hold office, however lowly, with the consent of the party Chairman.
The Chairman may dismiss from office any party official without needing to give any reason.Thus a party Chairman can block any attempt to trigger an election for his job simply by exercising his power to dismiss from office a contender and/or dismissing from office those who sign the contender's nomination paper.Tyndall did not avail himself of these powers to protect his position when Griffin sought to trigger an election for the party Chairmanship in 1999 not because he was any democrat but because he imagined he was sufficiently popular with a majority of the membership to see off any challenge.
But as he was to discover to his cost: party members are fickle -- and party memberships lists change over time.I do not think that Griffin, faced with a similar challenge, will suffer from a similar fit of hubris. He will avail himself of all of the powers available to him under Tyndall's 'constitution' (some of which, I am advised, are inherently illegal and eminently open to challenge at the High Court) to render any prospective challenger disqualified.Since Tyndall was ousted, Griffin has systematically 'tweaked' the already tyrannous terms of the 'constitution' to yet further protect his Robert Mugabe-style "Chairman-for-Life" position. BNP bulletins during recent months have heralded the introduction of a new category of membership: "Voting Members".A Voting Member is able to vote at so-called "Annual General Meetings" (which may be 'annual', but which are far from 'general') and, presumably, also able to vote in an election for the post of party Chairman.Voting Members must pay a £20 a month subscription and also maintain a record of work for the party which is reviewed annually by local officials. These local officials -- who hold their offices by grace and favour of Griffin! -- are spared the £20 a month subscription, another venal reason for them to be grateful to Griffin.
In this regard the Voting Member set-up is rather like the Advisory Council, the senior assembly within the BNP (whenever Griffin deems to convene it). All of the members of the Advisory Council are appointed by Griffin. Most of the members of the body are also members of the full-time or part-time PAID STAFF of the party -- appointed by Griffin and who may be dismissed by him at his sole discretion, as if he owned the BNP like he might own one of his 'busines' scams such as the late unlamented "Affordable Cars".So far as the Voting Members category is concerned, one can sympathise with the regular work qualification. However, the financial subscription -- with, as I understand, no discounts available to pensioners who may have devoted their lives to working for the Nationalist cause (they may be 'backward-looking' and unhappy with "modernism"!!) -- is obviously set to restrict the size of the electoral college.
This makes it harder for an aspirant party Chairman to become qualified to challenge for that job and harder to secure a base of voting support within the electoral college.
This is a corrupt and unlawful tangle of rules which would discredit a Banana Republic and which brings disgrace upon and fosters a culture of corruption within the organisation which poses as Britain's premier 'Nationalist' party.Can we imagine any other political party of significance operating with such a 'constitution' and not earning the sustained inquisition of the media? The fact that the media has been silent in the face of this scandal (as in the face of so many other even more unsavoury scandals within the BNP) is something which should given experienced Nationalists cause for contemplation.
Mr. Jackson -- or whoever seeks to challenge Griffin and his paid clique of chancers political ignorami and enemy infiltrators -- must look into the constitutional structures of their party as well as its policies.
=========================================From: "Final Conflict"Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:39 PM
Subject: FC 2869. Freedom of Speech?ENGLAND: FREEDOM OF SPEECH?[This was posted on Stormfront. It's amusing to see those who claim tobelieve in 'Freedom and Democracy' using highly Blairite controlfreakery tactics to silence intelligent debate. When Blair or Cameronuse such tactics, the BNP leadership crow about 'British Freedom' --but Freedom cuts both ways]:---------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by "Tyndallite".I don't know if someone can help me as I'm having a spot of computerbother, and am not very computer literate.I have, essentially, two problems:(1) On page 9 of this thread I wrote a post entitled:
BETTER THE DEVIL YOU KNOW:LE PEN'S DISMAL END TO A GREAT CAREER.and on another thread, wrote a post entitled:
CHRIS JACKSON TO STAND FOR BNP LEADERSHIP?
Unfortunately, I have received this morning, a letter from BNP head officethreatening to expel me if I don't remove these two posts. The ChrisJackson post has already been removed by the S/F moderators (in collusionwith Lee Barnes, I suspect), but I can't seem to remove the Le Pen one as Idon't know how to. It seems as if the"Edit" button is not available once thepost has been up for a few days.Can anyone advise me as to how to remove this freedom of expression andfreedom of thought from this internet site?(2) Also, as freedom of expression is clearly not liked in some quarterswithin the party, can anybody give me some advice as to what to say whendealing with a hostile media concerning freedom of thought. As I had alwayspreviously assumed the moral high ground when arguing the BNP's caseagainst journalists oppressing expression concerning immigration, I am nowunsure as to who has the moral high ground now that freedom of expressionis being denied by some within the party?I can hardly argue with a journalist on the lack of expression concept if Imyself have to ban others from using that same freedom.Advice on these two issues would be much appreciated so that I can help theparty to move forward and win.---
Other examples of "Tyndallite's" posts:
BETTER THE DEVIL YOU KNOW:LE PEN'S DISMAL END TO A GREAT CAREER.* Le Pen only gets 11% (half the vote that he expected)* Trails in a dismal 4th place.* 90% of the French electorate vote (which is almost everybody), thusgiving a much truer indication of the French voters' opinions, and thusshowing that Le Pen only has about a 10% core vote of the electorate tocount on.Perhaps the reason for this dismal showing is contained in his statement toimmigrant youths living in ghettos:"You are the branches of the French tree. You are as French as can be.",and also by his watering down of his policies in general (remember theblack female on one of his election campaigns?).This should be a lesson to be learnt for the Griffin camp and their liberallimpdick 'thinkers', who constantly like to tell us how clever they arewith their "we want immigrants in the party" type claptrap (and other suchsilly 'ideas').Le Pen's watering down of his rhetoric and policies, and his arsekissing tothe immigrants, obviously didn't cut the mustard with the electorate.
Although the people are fed up with the immigrants, they have chosen toside with the equivalent of the Tories (perhaps a 'better the devil youknow' feeling), rather than go with Le Pen, who they may now see as a manwho doesn't have any clear ideals, a man who just says whatever he thinksthe electorate want to hear.This shows the danger in adopting such a mercenary tactic. Obviously,extremist type comments should not be used by Nationalists, but by tryingto be all things to all men, a party could simply be seen as 'just like theothers'. If this becomes the case, and Nationalists do appear to be justlike the rest, then why would the electorate bother taking a chance onNationalists in the first place?Better the devil you know, is a principle that should not be overlooked bythe BNP 'intellectuals' (the same 'intellectuals' you may remember who werecalling for immigrants to be let into the party).
Nationalism should always show itself as different to the opposition.The myriad opposition parties, should all be shown to be one and the sameideology, Internationalism. Nationalists should always distance themselvesfrom this Internationalist paradigm, and ALWAYS be crystal clear aboutimmigration. Le Pen muddied this clarity with his own waffle ......and paid the price.---
Originally Posted by "Tyndallite"(1) Marine is the main person responsible for Le Pen's watering down of hispolicies, so I don't personally have much faith in her 'judgment of thesituation' abilities.(2) This election reminds me of the Thatcher lies of the 79 generalelection. France seems to have regressed 30 years.(3) Sarkozy and his Tory types will not be able to solve this issue.(4) I predict a riot. I predict that the immigrants will now go on evenmore extreme burning sprees in order to humiliate Sarkozy.We should not water down our BNP policies any more. Ignore the sawdustCaesars of the BNP with their silly limpdick liberalism.
We should educate the present incoming party members.
They need to be educated to understandthat the political classes are not letting all these immigrants in out of amistake of policy (as Tory types wrongly believe). The political classes are letting them in because they wish to deliberately exterminate the whiterace.The difference between a Nationalist, and a know-nothing tory type pratt(and the majority of the British public), is the conspiracy theory that wewhites have been marked down for eradication (whether Jews are behind thisconspiracy is a secondary question, and not the important fundamentalissue).The fundamental issue is that our members understand this deliberateextermination policy, for if they don't, they may drift back into lib/lab/conif those parties begin promising to crack down on immigration etc (like thepublic did in 79 when Thatcher started peddling her bull**** about how wewere being swamped by alien cultures).The present bunch of party members seem to be airhead (although wellintentioned) naive Tory types, without a clue as to the big picture.They're easy-come-easy-go (and easy to manipulate, just how Griffin likesthem I suspect).
The present party leadership strike me as similar to the liberals in theirdenial of information to others. For example, Lib/Lab/Con politicians haveall had a grounding in Classical civilisation, but deny such knowledge toour young people (by ensuring a study of Antiquity is kept off the schoolcurriculum). By the same token, Griffin and co are well aware of the realissue of white extermination being a deliberate policy by the establishment(the conspiracy theory), but deny such knowledge to the members.
We can learn a lot from Le Pen's recent dismal performance.