|
|
|
The Chairman, a keen sense of self-preservation, and a block vote From a comment by the redoubtable Papa Luigi on the BNP section of British Democracy Forums. The subject: yesterday’s General Members Meeting (also a Founding Members Meeting) of the British National Party held in Liverpool. The meeting was a confrontation of “the big beasts” of the BNP and proceeded as follows: Arthur Kemp fired the opening salvos as the meeting started, asserting that there had been no consultation process with the members regarding the constitutional reforms agreed at the last party conference and that the premise for the GMM was therefore invalid and unconstitutional. He asserted further that the motions put forward were substantially different to those agreed at the party conference and that Nick Griffin had broken his promise to the members. Geoff Dickens then informed the meeting that under the current BNP constitution, Nick Griffin has the power to make unilateral changes without reference to anyone else and that therefore, irrespective of the rights or wrongs of Arthur’s assertions, the meeting was constitutional and would proceed as planned. In the voting that followed, the members present at the meeting, who represented the hard core of the party’s activists from across the country, were split roughly 60:40, with the majority in opposition to the motions proposed by Nick Griffin. The 200 activists present were however, dismayed to find that the proxy voting system introduced by Nick Griffin as a new and novel feature to BNP meetings gave Nick Griffin a block vote of 500+ votes that he proceeded to use to negate the majority against him at the meeting. Despite this, the reformers continued to argue their case, with significant contributions to the debates by Arthur Kemp and the other ‘big beasts’ of the BNP; Andrew Brons; Richard Edmonds; John Walker; and Kevin Scott, all of whom voiced opposition to the constitutional validity of the meeting and the motions proposed. Speaking in favour of the motions were Clive Jefferson, Adam Walker and some other of the ‘novice’ Regional Organisers, appointed recently by Nick Griffin after high profile sackings during the recent ructions within the party. As the day drew to a close however, and despite his overwhelming block vote, which could have been used to push through all of the motions with impunity had he wished to be completely intransigent, Nick Griffin realised that to do this would secure for him the constitutional vicory he sought, but would be a pyrrhic victory, in that it would leave the reformers with little option but to split the party, taking the majority of the activists with them to form a new party. Therefore, following a particularly spirited denunciation of the days proceedings by Arthur Kemp, Nick Griffin agreed that the substantive part of Motion 2 dealing with the composition and character of the new National Executive would afterall be changed to bring it largely into line with the constitutional reforms proposed by Arthur and endorsed by the party conference. This revised Motion 2 was therefore carried with the overwhelming support of all of those present and therefore while there is some justification for supporters to claim that Nick Griffin with his proxy block vote carried the day, the reality is that the crucial factor incorporated into Arthur Kemp’s proposed constitutional reforms was passed, resulting in a significant shift of power within the party, away from the chairman and towards the party’s activists. The most significant and ironic factor of the day however was the zeal with which Nick Griffin positioned himself as the ‘democratic’ champion of the less active, ‘armchair’ nationalists of the party, thereby providing the pretext for his unilateral introduction of a sytem of proxy block voting that would enable him to ride roughshod over the wishes of the majority of the the party’s activists. I can remember just a few short years ago, during a period when the party was making great strides electorally, that Nick Griffin recognised the disproportionate contribution to the party’s success that came from the activists and proposed the ‘Voting Members’ system in order to ensure that the party could never be derailed by a less well informed and half-heartedly committed, armchair membership. It appears that in light of the party’s flagging performance under his leadership recently, and the consequent decline in his popularity among the party’s activists, Nick Griffin has undergone a complete volte face on this issue. Papa Luigi also informs me: The meeting was open to all party members with greater than two years unbroken membership. It began at 11.00am and closed around 6.00pm. There were three substantive motions plus about 10 amendments debated. Motion 1 dealt with the leadership election process; Motion 2 with the composition of and powers of the National Executive; and Motion 3 with the contractual relationship between the Party and our elected public officials. Despite the threats of intimidation from Griffin supporters, nothing of the sort transpired, although some of the debating did at times become very heated and on one occasion, the Chairman of the meeting Geoff Dickens called a time-out for people to cool down. Despite the proxy block vote that Griffin used and the ruling that this and the basis of the meeting was constitutional, it is clear that support amongst the party’s activist base is weak and the incorporation of Arthur Kemp’s proposal that the majority of the National Executive be elected by the party’s activists, means that Nick Griffin’s powers as Party Chairman will be significantly constrained even if he is re-elected in the forthcoming leadership election. The National Executive is to be composed of: 1. The Chairman, plus between four and six other individuals appointed by him; the National Treasurer; the Head of Administration; the National Nominating Officer; the National Organiser; plus a maximum of two others; and 2. Eleven Regional Organisers elected by the activists comprising the branches. The National Executive will therefore be composed of between 16 and 18 individuals, eleven of which will be elected by the activist base and a two thirds majority of which will be required to call an EGM at which a vote of no confidence in the Chairman carried by 2/3rds of the members attending will be sufficient to force a new leadership election. While 11 out of 18 will not be enough to remove Griffin from office, 12 out of 18 will, and it means that Griffin cannot risk losing the support of even one of the National Executive officers appointed by him. My thanks to Papa Luigi for his permission to reproduce his comment and his subsequent clarifications. Comments:2
Posted by Leon Haller on Tue, 28 Jun 2011 04:09 | # Not being British, I have nothing to say about this party minutiae. Good luck, and all that. However, as a dispassionate, foreign well-wisher, it seems obvious to me that neither the BP, nor perhaps any nationalist party, is ever going to attain the prime ministership, at least under civilly peaceful conditions, and for the indefinitely foreseeable future. The sole hope to save (not necessarily to restore) Britain at this historical moment lay in stiffening the spines of the Tories on immigration, and issues related to multiculturalism. The BNP, to be politically useful, ought to drop all extremist baggage, and any pretense to being any sort of potential governing party, especially at the national level, and instead re-envisage its role as being a single issue, anti-immigration protest party, at least until all immigration has been halted, and all illegal aliens deported. The point is to be a clear protest vote, so that the Tories (and, perhaps in a few places, Labour) can be made to understand the political consequences of failing to stop the invasion. A party stripped of all lengthy manifestoes and ideological positions, solely cast as anti-immigration, will offer a clear choice to neglected voters, many of whom might oppose immigration, but are otherwise filled with reservations about the rest of the Far Right agenda. Such a party can also act as a tremendous educational force. This is a matter of national survival. People’s minds must be made to be as focused as possible on that fact. 3
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:44 | # I think the BNP is a hand at the table. But lets face it - little can be accomplished under the present system at this time…I think even a master politician would be feeling things out slowly for now. The BNP is a doorstop keeping the door ajar…for now. I wish I knew if Griffin is as bad as you say he is, or if he is just a poor politician. 5
Posted by Papa Luigi on Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:39 | # The General Members Meeting As an addition to the above report: Apparently the new National Executive will be composed of one additional person not mentioned in my origional report, a Councillor Representative, i.e. an individual elected to the National Executive by those BNP representatives holding public office as local government councillors. Therefore, between 12 out of 17 and 12 out of 19 individuals on the National Executive will be elected by the activists. Furthermore, it appears the final wording agreed was that merely a 2/3rds majority of the National Executive passing a motion of no condifence in the Party Chairman will be suffient to force a leadership election, without recourse to an Extra-ordinary General Meeting of members. Regarding the matter of single issue campaigning: There already exists a single issue pressure group on immigration in the UK, called ‘Migration Watch’ and there have in the past been a number of single issue political groups of the kind suggested by Leon. These have never experienced any great political success however as they become easily dismissed by establishment politicians as ‘fanatics’ with extreme views, obsessing over a single issue that it is impractical to address in isolation. Is Griffin as bad as they say?: It is difficult to say with any degree of certainty, however his abrasive and intransigent leadership style has led to the expulsions and/or resignations of many, many excellent people over the years and it appears that no-one can work closely with him for any length of time without becoming a victim of this. This constant hemorrhaging of the most articulate and able from amongst the party’s activist base, is in my view the primary reason for our limited/diminishing electoral success. Furthermore, it is evident that the UK political establishment and the mass media are not interested in exposing/exploiting this aspect of Griffin’s personality. There is almost a deafening silence regarding the misappropriation of party funds and the financial mismanagement within the party. It is as though our enemies are quite happy to let Griffin remain at the head of the BNP. The party now has c. 8,000 members, but must have turned over nearly 200,000 people in order to get there, and less than half of the current membership have been with the party for more than two years and probably less than 200 have been members for more than 10 years. The BNP has over the years acted as a machine sucking in passionate and highly motivated individuals who are keen to engage in political activism, while simultaneously spewing out dispirited, cynical and disillusioned people at the other end. Truly ironic is it not, that Britain’s foremost White nationalist organisation is the primary institution responsible for destroying the zeal and enthusiasm of our best activists and for negating the efforts of those of our people who wish to fight to save our nation? 6
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:32 | # Leon, The action of political nationalism at this point is threefold: 1. To give a focus to existing discontents. 2. To create discontent (ie, to raise consciousness by explaining the present, warning of the future, and apportioning responsibility). 3. To balkanise the population along pure indigenous/non-indigenous lines. In the latter respect, the BNP does not need to win a political majority to move the game in its direction. It need only obtain a majority among the pure indigenous. That will be enough to begin making demands on system politicians that they cannot meet. This is the “joy” scenario for nationalists, when the long sleep of the people is at an end and the movement’s energy can flow into extra-parliamentary activity. Nationalism will not break the mold without extra-parliamentary activity. Blood cannot destin by politics alone. Politics is not a sufficiently wide and tangible thing. You, Leon, want respectability and a narrow approach based on immigration alone. But immigration is not the issue. Race-replacement is the issue, and, even then, only an issue. Debt and finance oligarchy is the deeper issue. What the party really requires to do, and what Papa Luigi is implying, is to professionalise and develop as a full-spectrum, idealistic machine with good intellectual as well as activist and financial resources. Such professionalism is the key to finance, and finance is the key to competing effectively. It certainly appears that Griffin, for whatever reason, is striving constantly to de-professionalise. I do not belong to the BNP, btw. I would be interested in participating if and when the reform element makes the required changes. 7
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:30 | # Wow that is an awful ‘churn rate’ even for a political party. It must be an awful experience being a party member. If Griffin’s leadership ‘style’ is part of the issue then that is another excellent reason to dump him. As GW mentions the educated/professional middle class will not go near the BNP and it does look to outsiders like a bunch of weirdos and losers. It seemingly is in its own ghetto and quite happy to be so. There are many intelligent ways to present ethnocentric political ideas but nothing like that is being done in England. For one idea is to go green. Sustainability is a neutral concept and can be shaped to mean lots of different things (environment, culture etc.) and can be used both for practical and ideological arguments, but it sounds quite warm and fuzzy with Mr & Mrs Average. But even this seems beyond the BNP - no instead let’s drone on about how global warming is not happening etc. - a topic which is very much a secondary issue and is an ideology hobby-horse for a tiny minority. Attack the slippery notions of ‘human rights’ and international law from both a classically liberal position (individual equality before the law - no special ‘group’ rights/hate laws et al.) and a ‘left-wing’ position (international law is empty utopian rhetoric that masks nothing but cynical realpolitik etc.) as a when appropriate. Does anyone in the BNP even know such excellent ‘secondary’ arguments exist and could be deployed, I think, with some effectiveness? One could even say third-world immigration is an ‘injustice’ against the nations from which they come. Why should a rich nation import the ‘best’ people from such places; it’s unfair on their home societies - we should train our own nurses etc. You know rhetoric one step above the obvious “I don’t like darkies” stuff that instantly raises the psychological price for people to agree with you, and loses you huge moral and political capital. With just a little more nous and some political skills an intelligent non-liberal ethnocentric party could make a big impact. Large numbers of people are seriously pissed off with all the main parties. 8
Posted by Graham_Lister on Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:35 | # GW I think it’s obvious that Griffin does not want high-quality professional type people around as they might hold him to account and/or be threats to his own self-interest which seems to be getting as much as he personally can from his position. It is obvious the man is a huckster. Personally I think that the whole ‘brand’ is so toxic it need to be dumped, not just him. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:11 | # Graham, The difficulty with dumping the brand and launching a new party is not just trying to get it off the ground (which is mighty tough - there are several micro-parties already) but all Griffin would have to do to kill off development is to stand a candidate wherever the new party does, and split the vote. He has done this successfully in the past. I still incline to the reformation of the BNP rather than its replacement. But we cannot go on like this, obviously. There has to be movement soon, and the people who can judge this best are those like Papa Luigi who have remained within the party and who are watching the Griffin clique very closely. A very great deal rests in their hands. 10
Posted by Lee John Barnes on Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:23 | # Its all just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The BNP ship is sinking too fast to be saved. The captain of the ship is now so desperate, he has recruited the rats as officers on the bridge. The problem with the ‘stay behinds’ in the BNP who think that Griffin can be constrained / changed / learn is that Griffin thinks he is the party. The new AC will be a pathetic joke, filled with Griffin lickspittles who will continue to rubber stamp every decision made by Griffin. Just as a dead fish rots from the head down, so does the BNP. The BNP is now a pathetic joke. Those that support it, fund it, work for it, assist it etc are doing nothing but damaging nationalism itself. The BNP as it exists today is a party of window licking morons who deserve as much respect as the fawning catamites of an oriental nabob. The party merely proves to the public that nationalists are moronic cult of personality lick spittles. I want the BNP to carry on though as a rump for Griffinites to lurk amidst. That way those morons wont go and sully any other party with their stupidity if the BNP sunk forever. The BNP is a home for all those that have ensured the image of nationalism corresponds with the caricatures and sterotypes of nationalists. The real nationalists should regard it as a toxic landfill for the unwanted rubbish of the nationalist movement. 12
Posted by Dave on Wed, 29 Jun 2011 06:23 | # It doesn’t matter who heads these nationalist parties, until they begin to publicly address the anglo-elite’s program of White Genocide that they have been perpetrating upon the White children of the countries of Anglosphere. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 29 Jun 2011 08:51 | # It kind of matters if the leader is, intentionally or not, running political nationalism in his country as a false opposition. 14
Posted by Graham_Lister on Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:16 | # http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/29/child-exploitation-survey-26-asian In the UK child sex survey finds 26% of abusers Asian When such items are in ‘The Guardian’ then you know the real situation must be terrible. 15
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:40 | # Since the police “service” has historically shied away from the crime of Moslem grooming - mustn’t spoil the CC’s chances of a knighthood on his retirement - the figure of 26% Asian offending in the overall figures for grooming is doubtless very low. The regulation warning against looking too closely at ethnicity just demonstrates that the authorities prefer English girls to be raped and addicted to heroin than have the full vileness and racist hate of these colonisers known to the English public. I would like to know the ethnicities of all grooming offenders and of their victims. That would tell us the extent of Moslem Asian participation in the crime and also the extent of simple anti-English racial hatred, Moslem or otherwise, that expresses through it. 16
Posted by Papa Luigi on Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:38 | # The Guardian article states that of the 2,379 cases of child sex grooming, race was only noted in 940. Of those 940 cases in which race was recorded, the offenders were recoded as Asian in 248 of them, and “The data also showed 38% of offenders were white ...” 38% of 940 is 357 and this means that a further (940-(248+357)) = 335 were non-Whites of non-Asian race, presumably African or Chinese etc. However the Guardian article goes on to state, “and a small number were black or Chinese.” Now, I would not describe 335 out of 940 as “a small number”, and so either the Guardian is attempting to downplay these 335 cases in which the offenders were “black or Chinese”, or there must be some other racial groups involved, which does not appear likely. I would be very surprised to find that American Indians or Innuit or Australian Aborigines were significantly involved in child sex grooming in the UK, and so I think we must assume that the 335 cases in question must be the “small number” committed by “Blacks” or “Chinese”. If this is the case, then it means that out of 940 cases of child sex grooming in which the race of the offender was recorded, the offender was non-White in 62% of those cases. It would appear that this is the statistic that the Guardian have been attempting to hide. 17
Posted by Revolution Harry on Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:22 | #
18
Posted by Guest on Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:25 | # Arthur Kemp Nicky, SF‘s favorite, let’s just say in a radioactive world that is darkening by the moment in “Western” nations, that there is little place for half-way Harrys like Nicky and Arthur et al. Extreme times call for EXTREMISTS. 19
Posted by Leon Haller on Wed, 06 Jul 2011 20:28 | # Having re-read the comments, including those directed to me, I remain unpersuaded as to the plausibility of any approach beyond my own. If nationalists cannot rally the True People to stop an unclamored for and ostensibly unpopular foreign colonization by visibly distinct, culturally hostile, and often truculent and ill-behaved aliens, at a time of manifold and extensive economic anxieties and wrenching budgetary modifications, then exactly what can they do? —————————————————————————————————— There already exists a single issue pressure group on immigration in the UK, called ‘Migration Watch’ and there have in the past been a number of single issue political groups of the kind suggested by Leon. These have never experienced any great political success however as they become easily dismissed by establishment politicians as ‘fanatics’ with extreme views, obsessing over a single issue that it is impractical to address in isolation. (Papa Luigi) Whereas the BNP is now seen as the soul of reason and Establishment respectability?! Is this a joke? Regardless of any political toxicity attached to the BNP ‘brand’, nationalists in Britain, absent exogenous catastrophe and/or civil ‘warre’, as Hobbes fulminated against, are not going to attain power, at least not in the indefinitely foreseeable future, or through political (democratic) means. Issue manifestoes, form shadow cabinets, pretend that a Parliamentary majority beckons, deceive yourselves. In the end, Britain (at least England) seems to be moving closer to a US-style party duopoly. Any ideological concern which becomes sufficiently broad-based will get absorbed (and, yes, to some extent tamed) by the Tories or Labour long before its political standard-bearer can attain the PM. Think I’m wrong? History is on my side, the burden of proof on yours. It is my impression that race-replacement is being driven by immigration (unless earlier nonwhite colonizers are fantastically fecund), and yet that True Britons have no say in the matter. How will you get a say? Through pressure groups like Migration Watch (which are important, and have their place), or through “pressure parties” like UKIP? There has to be an institutional place for anti-immigrationists to make themselves heard. This will only have an effect in the real world of legislation if a major party, in this case the Tories, experience a realistic fear of losing votes which could tip close districts to Labour. And time is running out. ———————————————————————————————————————— 3. To balkanise the population along pure indigenous/non-indigenous lines. In the latter respect, the BNP does not need to win a political majority to move the game in its direction. It need only obtain a majority among the pure indigenous. That will be enough to begin making demands on system politicians that they cannot meet. This is the “joy” scenario for nationalists, when the long sleep of the people is at an end and the movement’s energy can flow into extra-parliamentary activity. (GW)
What do I keep saying, wrt the whole European world: “ripening harvest, encroaching jungle”? As we painstakingly persuade our idiot race of its impending demise, and moral right to secure its future, the numbers of Them keep rising - which is the real problem, not the melodrama of whites agonizing over what constitutes permissible patriotism as against impermissible ‘racism’. Think always as I do, in strategic/military terms. I like that phrase from Guillaume Faye - “avant la guerre” (I’d thought of this idea decades ago, but he published, so credit goes to him). Pre-war: that is our true condition. You, Leon, want respectability and a narrow approach based on immigration alone. But immigration is not the issue. Race-replacement is the issue, and, even then, only an issue. Debt and finance oligarchy is the deeper issue.(GW)
I wonder if the English Defense League isn’t the entity to place one’s hopes in. Remember: success breeds more success. The way to achieve the larger agenda is to start having small successes. If nationalists cannot end (unpopular) immigration, they can’t do anything. 20
Posted by You Can't Borrow Debt Away on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:42 | # Talk too loudly about “finance oligarchy” and what a lot of people hear is “socialism” and “the government’s going to take my money”. Given the ideo-psychological correlation between the Right and racism, and the Right and capitalism (at least, support for private property), it is vastly easier to rally conservatives around patriotic immigration reform, than attacking corporations or business. I should have thought this was obvious. Does the BNP talk about the “finance oligarchy”? Guessedworker isn’t even in the BNP, so I don’t think you can infer the BNP’s views off of this site. I wonder if the English Defense League isn’t the entity to place one’s hopes in. What’s their immigration policy? 21
Posted by anoon on Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:46 | #
Grooming is slow. Rape is quick. Rape is the preferred mechanism for hatred. This is true among all immigrant groups in proportion to how much anti-English (or whatever else) hatred they have (and to be fair some groups don’t have much at all). The big difference with grooming is it’s more to do with forced or at least coerced prostitution than rape. Africans who want to run child-prostitutes will go home and buy a kid. There’s a standard welfare scam where immigrants buy kids from their home country off of poor parents and use them to gain welfare payments - very high rate of return. So the child-pimps do this to get prostitutes they can sell out (as well as claim welfare on). (The demand for cheap coerced prostitutes in the west is being driven by illegal immigrants sending most of their wages home. This means the prostitutes have to be cheap. This means they generally have to be tricked at first and at least semi-coerced afterwards. This means it’s better if they’re very young and from broken homes as it’s easier to coerce / trick them.) The big difference between muslims and other groups and why they dominate the more visible type of this crime and why it is more visible is because they target non-muslim girls from outside their community instead of girls from inside. In America where the bulk of illegals are coming from the south the pimps supplying girls to hispanic illegals with little money will get their supply of girls from the south also. The whole thing is supremely evil and the people responsible for covering it up should all be crucified. Post a comment:
Next entry: Greece: the international finance system versus us all
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Sam Davidson on Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:27 | #
“The BNP is, currently, the only hope that our people will survive their present crisis.”
And yet I recall from an earlier interview you did (with Linder?) you admitted to not belonging to any political party or organization. Odd.