.................. and the last on this particular aspect: Well, I‟ve just done the rounds of the political and news sites that I like to keep an eye on and can‟t say that I feel much in the way of hope. The sites on my „rounds‟ include these days the two sides in the BNP leadership contest. So what‟s the problem? It‟s a leadership challenge boys and girls. That‟s all it is. It happens in political parties. Let it happen, argue your case, put it to the members in a fair contest and then accept the outcome. That can’t be so difficult can it? Apparently it is difficult. It has been allowed to develop from a simple leadership contest to something that could seriously split the party. There was no need for this. Initially there was a very big chance that Nick would have won anyway, but at least questions that needed answers would have been brought into the open and he would have had renewed authority to carry on for another three years. It‟s that decision to stay on for another three years, something which I find to be a very odd decision, which sowed the seeds of doubt within me in the first place. Surly it would be best for a new leader to implement the changes and not the outgoing old leader. Since then so much has happened that my doubts, unfortunately, have been confirmed. The question is no longer the wisdom of Nick deciding to stay on for three years despite admitting that he‟s not able to lead the party through the next election. After what I‟ve seen and read it now has as much to do with the mind set and suitability of Nick and the team around him.I'll need some convincing. It‟s all well and good saying that we need to build a New Model Army, but a New Model Army needs a New Model Leader, not someone who has allowed the "old decayed serving men and tapsters” to thrive in the first place. I digress. To understand what the hell I‟m banging on about you will have to have read this. I also see that Nick is intending to write a major piece on his plans for the next three years. It‟ll be interesting to see how much of this needs Nick Griffin to implement it and how much could be done by a new leader. More on this as and when. The BNP rightly complains of the abuse that it receives at the hands of the mainstream media, of the lies and smears that are printed without any right of reply, and the stupid antidemocratic „no-platform‟ policy that the establishment would prefer. And yet when it comes to internal debate the leadership unashamedly use exactly the same tactics but at a level that would make even the most rabid tabloid editor blush. Take a look at this article “exposing” those who are supporting Eddy Butler. The article and the whole blog balances precariously between paranoia, patheticness and black comedy (your name too vil go on ze list). Their “crimes” are all twofold. One: they have decided to use their democratic right in a (supposedly) democratic party to support a challenge to the incumbent leadership in a way which conforms to the legal constitution of that party. Which clearly has
become a hanging offence. Two: they have other „issues‟ or „undesirable traits‟ which marks them down as “freaks”. Such as for example being gay. They‟ll be bringing out the coloured badges soon to stitch on your jacket. Some of the names on „ze list‟ are familiar to me others are not. One that sticks out is Tony Ward. Tony you might recall is the long term activist who put himself in harm‟s way during a fund raising event for the party and got his head smashed with a hammer by UAF thugs. The slur and unforgivable sin which is attached to Tony Ward (apart from supporting Eddy Butler) is: (he has a) “wife of Chinese extraction, has worked extensively in Israel on military jets.” While he was being feted as a BNP hero for standing up to the UAF this was widely known but was not an issue. Now, for the paranoids convenience it is. As I said: pathetic.The problem with this level of paranoia is that no one is safe. Consider this and indeed the whole way the party leadership is currently dealing with the leadership challenge when you read this from the BNP site: The British National Party is proud to be in possession of some of the most modern and progressive concepts of democracy which are firmly at odds with the other parties’ increasing totalitarianism. How can we hope to persuade the British people that we are a fair and decent party and that democracy will be safe in our hands when we don‟t practice what we preach? The concept of democracy currently being practiced is far from anything any normal person would think of as democratic. The blogosphere is also full of pro Nick Griffin tough guys, with no form of self discipline and who seem to think that politics should be performed at the lowest level possible. Could Nick call off the attack dogs? He is not responsible for every single loony on every single chat site, that has to be said. But he has enough authority to call the major ones to account, so the answer is “sure he could”. That he hasn’t speaks volumes. Politics has always been a rough and tumble world, but there are limits. The occasional rant shouldn‟t be an issue but a constant stream of shouting abuse and repeating unproven „facts‟ does not constitute reasoned debate. It‟s not the people who are talking about change that are threatening to split the party it‟s those who oppose it by the use of threats, bullying, lies and smears instead of just debating the issues that are doing that. To paraphrase JFK: those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable. The next five years offer great possibilities. Nationalism is for the good times as well as the bad, but it‟s during the bad times that support initially swells. And the bad times are with us, and are about to get even worse. We should be making hay, preferably with a new leader (but shhhh, we're not allowed to discuss that), but instead we are bogged down in a totally unnecessary scrap.
Get the leadership issue sorted one way or the other; it‟s the only way to save the BNP. The issue can no longer be ducked. If Nick wins re-election AND that election process is open and fair, I’ll accept that decision without conditions. But from what I‟ve seen on my „rounds‟ an open and fair process is the furthest from their minds. If that‟s the case I even wonder if the BNP is actually saveable, and the question in any case is slowly drifting from “has Nick taken the BNP as far as he can?” to “has the BNP taken British nationalism as far as it can?” I am personally not that far yet, my preferred option would be a revamped BNP, but it is going to be an issue unless we get some quick wins in the next 24 months. Remember, even though we tripled the vote in the 2010 election, we need to triple it again, and then triple that again and then at least double that vote to stand a chance of achieving our aims democratically (that will take us from 2% to 36% of the vote). It‟s a big ask. As I said at the start, I am not filled with much hope. There is some. Simon Darby‟s dignified actions for example. But it‟s an example not likely to be copied. Unfortunately the rest of the top bods seem to be ready to go nuclear. One last point: I estimate that in the last three years I have donated in excess of two thousand pounds to the BNP, Green Arrow and other closely associated „nationalist‟ causes, honestly thinking that I was helping support a genuine DEMOCRATIC nationalist movement which would provide a FAIR and DECENT solution to the problems that this country faces. It was not always money that I could easily miss. I'm not particularly well off but decided to contribute as much as I could anyway. Looking back I think I was stupid. How stupid? I even cancelled our summer hols one year to be able to make a large lump-sum donation. I did it with my eyes wide open so I have only myself to blame. I‟m not in the habit of blaming others for my errors or making up pathetic excuses (no job for me then in the current leadership team). What I see is a moribund party hierarchy supported by increasingly hysterical and paranoid lieutenants and I can‟t help the feeling that none of this money has been put to good use. It‟s not a mistake I‟ll be making again.