Party Update and forthcoming Launch

At the beginning of May it was announced here that the decision had been taken to set up a new political party and that further information would be made available six weeks later. Naturally, rather more than that length of time has subsequently elapsed, so apologies are in order on our part for the delay in writing. However, although a little behind schedule the registration process is now underway and an associated supporting account being set up. Pending approval by the Electoral Commission it is therefore our intention to formally launch in September.

In a recent article by Andrew Brons, he reiterated his belief that a new party would be doomed to near certain failure, and also revealed that the Brent Group is planning to launch a party of its own in the near future. As stated previously and as indicated by the decision of the Brent Group not to become involved in our initiative, our party will be something new and distinct with a different emphasis to that which has gone before. Clearly, something significant within our proposals was fundamentally incompatible with the core beliefs of the Brent Group, but what they may be has not been openly stated. We are therefore driven to conclude that this divide must be expressive of two broad tendencies within the nationalist movement: one, embodied within our position, which stands for a new start and thoroughgoing modernisation of nationalism with a democratic, participatory and personal libertarian emphasis, and another, which sees itself as a ‘successor’ to Griffin’s BNP and perceives little wrong with that party other than its existing leadership and constitution.

That the split above should have occurred and found expression in the coming formation of two parties strikes us as healthy rather than as a cause for lamentation. It is our intent to connect with the electorate through being in tune with their concerns rather than stopping up our ears, closing our eyes and pretending that contemporary realities do not exist, wishing that they would vanish or fall into line with a vision of what should be rather than what is. Either nationalism adapts, or it dies. We opt for adaptation, and encourage those who share our vision to join us. For those who do not, there are plenty of other options.

UKIP emerged out of nothing in just a few years to take a considerable number of seats in the EU elections, thereby demonstrating that it is possible for a new party to make a breakthrough. However, it never managed to progress beyond this limited electoral arena because of its fixation upon a single issue. It had no “parent” party, although it attracted many members and supporters who were disaffected Tories. Our new party, like UKIP, will have no “parent”, although it will attract many members and supporters who are disaffected with the BNP.

If, as Brons asserts, “all breakaway parties fail if they break away when the parent party is still in existence”, this would suggest that what the Brent Group is due to launch will fail, for it sees and portrays itself as the true “breakaway” from the “parent party” named the BNP. We see it as that too. Our party has no parent, other than necessity. We look forward to September with a grounded sense of optimism.

Will it be to your taste?

Beyond the Fringe: building a credible nationalist Politics (Part I)

Introduction

This article and a subsequent piece will endeavour to provide an outline of the reasons for the failure of nationalist politics in contemporary Britain, more specifically, in England, and suggest a means of breaking out of this impasse. In this initial instalment, the focus will be upon the weaknesses of the BNP and other aspirant nationalist parties, teasing out those factors that inhibit them from exerting popular electoral appeal. The second piece, to follow within the next week or so, will forward a concrete proposal for creating a popular credible nationalist politics in our country, outlining the policies and tactics required to realise the as yet largely untapped potential of nationalism.

The old Westminster parties are discredited, mistrusted and unpopular, offering voters nothing more than variations upon the same set of failed policies; our economy is in protracted and serious decline; our national independence is being hollowed out by the growing strength of transnational political and economic institutions and predatory transnational capitalism. Mass immigration continues apace, and the material and cultural fissures in our society grow ever wider. Against this backdrop, surveys reveal that nationalist policies are popular, but nationalist parties are not.

The time would thus appear ripe for nationalist politics to make a breakthrough, and yet nationalism in our country lies fractured and weak, beset with internal feuding and held back by excessive egotism. A myriad of small parties and groupuscules each pronounce their own way forward, and whilst the BNP continues its long and painful death under Nick Griffin, almost all bar the BNP remain unknown and invisible to the public at large; a near-eccentric irrelevance. In this context, it is understandable that a concept such as the Centre for Democratic Nationalism (CDN) should have arisen. However, from the perspective of the author, the CDN has made a strategic error, for it is clear from what has occurred thus far that it runs the risk of becoming a forum for the concerns of the small parties of the nationalist fringe, rather than serving as an incubator for a coherent and credible nationalist programme. Moreover, it needs to foster not an alliance of the obscure and the unknown, but the development of a professional and publicly palatable party. It is the contention of the author that no political breakthrough can be secured by pandering to the preoccupations of those on the margins, but that instead, nationalists should address themselves to the central concerns of the general public, and fashion their policies and strategies accordingly.

The Failure of the BNP

A few years ago, the BNP looked as if it held out the promise of breaking into the mainstream of British politics and becoming a credible nationalist party. This is certainly what its opponents feared. Looking back, 2009 marked its high watermark, with its first MEPs being elected in the June of that year, and party membership reputedly peaking at some 14,000. At that time, it possessed an opportunity of cultivating for itself not only a better public image, but also a strong base of public support. It could have, had it chosen the right tack, transformed itself into a significant political force with the potential for real mass growth and appeal. History however, was to determine otherwise.

Despite the protestations of its Chairman – Nick Griffin – and his apologists, the subsequent collapse in the BNP’s fortunes was not primarily due to concerted media and political opposition, but to problems within the party itself. These included a lack of internal party democracy; bad strategic decisions; the adoption of a number of outlandish policies peripheral to nationalist concerns, and the presence of some equally outlandish individuals with an inexplicable fetish for German National Socialism. This latter fact provided opponents of the BNP a very large stick with which to beat the party and its members repeatedly. Nick Griffin’s own failure to distance the BNP from Holocaust denial and his attempt to defend David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan on the BBC’s Question Time were both gratuitously unnecessary and disastrous for the image of the party. Then there were the avoidable and expensive court cases brought by Marmite and the EHRC, together with the repeated failure to submit party accounts on time, leading to the BNP’s contemporary indebtedness to the tune of somewhere between £850,000 and £1,000,000.

As a direct consequence of the excessive concentration of power in Griffin’s hands, the party was (and still is) bedevilled by clientelism, with promotion to the higher reaches of the party predicated more upon a slavish devotion to the person of the Chairman, than upon talent. The consequence of such a system has been that talent has not been recognised and utilised to best effect to forward party fortunes. Instead, mediocrities and oddballs have often been promoted to Griffin’s inner circle, Griffin himself seemingly being mistrustful and fearful of building a capable, talented and dedicated team of nationalists. Indeed, the situation is now such that a non-party member – Patrick Harrington – wields an undue degree of influence. Quite clearly, as pointed out by Andrew Brons and many others, Griffin has no intent of going anywhere. Providing that he can make a living out of his chairmanship of the party, it matters not to him whether it prospers electorally or otherwise.

A New Party

Having ascertained that neither Griffin nor Harrington are interested in necessarily either promoting the growth of the BNP or its electoral viability, it is clear that there is no point in simply waiting for Griffin to leave of his own volition. We do not have the luxury of time. Although Andrew Brons has forwarded a credible case against the formation of yet another nationalist party, it is the view of the author that this is in fact precisely what is required, whether or not our venerable MEP for Yorkshire and Humber would wish to assume the mantle of leadership himself. One thing however is clear: it would stand a much greater chance of success were he to provide it with his blessing. There are many good and dedicated nationalists who remain within the BNP or its penumbra, whose skills and enthusiasm should be put to positive and productive use in forwarding our cause. Without a practical goal to work towards, the risk is that they will leave nationalist politics altogether, or select a party that is not a good fit for their beliefs and principles. Besides these people, there are also those who have joined other parties who could be tempted back were a suitable vehicle to emerge.

Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to provide a straightforward definition of our cause. It is this: to gain recognition of the existence of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles, and in accordance with such recognition, to assert our right to national self-determination as set out in the UN Charter. Sovereignty inheres not within the person of the monarch or in parliament, but in the body of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles themselves, whether they should so choose to define themselves collectively as British, or separately as English, Scots, Welsh and Irish. Our purpose is to defend and forward the interests of our people, with a view to securing their social, political and economic well-being.

To join a new party it should only be necessary for the prospective member to pledge to forward the cause of establishing recognition of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles, and their right to political self-determination. This would constitute the sine qua non for admission. As such, the party should be open to all citizens of the United Kingdom irrespective of their background. Upon this one principle, all nationalist politics are predicated. Irrespective of differences in other spheres of policy, this is the one principle around which all nationalists can surely unite.

There has been much discussion concerning the toxicity or otherwise of the BNP brand. Certainly, Nick Griffin is as politically toxic as a politician can be, and under his leadership the BNP will never be anything other than a pariah party that people lend their vote to as a protest, holding their noses whilst they do so. As he will not relinquish control of the party, there is no alternative but to form another. The question therefore as to whether or not the BNP brand is permanently tarnished is not a relevant one. It is at this point, that many readers will cry “but what of other existing parties?! Might not they provide us with the vehicle that we require?” My answer to this is a categorical “no”.

Recently, the leadership of the Brent Group announced its decampment to the British Freedom Party, and others, as Brons has enumerated, have left at various times over the past 18 months to join the English Democrats and the National Front. Some have also managed to gain membership of UKIP, despite a formal ban on ex-BNP members, and others have joined smaller parties that realistically nobody outside of nationalist politics or those who closely observe it, such as its fervent opponents and a few academic specialists, has ever heard of. Moreover, the micro-parties on the fringe of the fringe would not attract public support if they were to be known, for after all, how much genuine appeal would a party that displays an SS Death’s Head on its homepage exert? Does an answer really need to be provided to that question? If it does, the proposal that will be outlined in the article subsequent to this one will not be to your liking, and it would be better for all concerned if you were to remain pursuing your current specialist personal interests at a far remove from the political fray.

The Weaknesses of existing Parties

Returning to the question of why none of the existing parties constitute suitable vehicles for our purpose, the reasons are numerous, yet each of the candidate parties possesses a distinctive weakness rooted in its core ideology which means that it will either never reach out beyond a certain level of support to gain electoral success at Westminster, or contains values at variance with our core principle: the recognition of the right of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles to political self-determination.

UKIP is the largest of the parties popularly perceived as to some extent possessing a nationalist, or at least patriotic, orientation. However, it proves to be unsuitable for our cause for many reasons. Ideologically it is nothing more nor less than a breakaway Thatcherite Atlanticist wing of the Conservative Party, and as such, can at best be considered a civic nationalist party; it is a class-based party that looks to the interests of transnational capital with a North American colouration. As such, its model of economic development is literally bankrupt. Furthermore, it does not recognise the concept of indigenous British peoples; its activist base is weak; its membership is highly aged; it is dominated by the person of its Chairman Nigel Farage; its MEPs do not serve the national interest when they have the opportunity to do so, and as mentioned earlier, ex-BNP members are banned. Most importantly, the general public see UKIP as a single-issue party standing for departure from the European Union, and thus do not consider voting UKIP other than in EU elections.

The English Democrats could to a certain extent be characterised as a little Englander version of UKIP, but with a more rounded economic policy and drawing a clear distinction between “the English” (ethnic) and “the people of England” (civic). Despite possessing a degree of public recognition in a handful of locations across the country – such as Doncaster where the Mayor is an English Democrat – they remain generally unknown, and their membership is small. Although some well-known former BNP members such as Eddy Butler and Chris Beverley have joined, the EDs have not experienced significant growth over the past year. The party appears to be treading water, and those voters who have heard of them tend to associate it with a single issue: an English parliament and a solution to the West Lothian Question. This is predictable enough, given that this is what Robin Tilbrook and most EDs seem to be most passionate about and to concentrate upon.

The British Freedom Party experienced a painful birth that led to the creation of a smaller entity without an ideological raison d’être named the Freedom Democrats. Nonetheless, the BFP attempted to formulate its own nationalist response to contemporary demographic realities through forwarding the concept of cultural nationalism, which in essence could be described as a form of beefed-up civic nationalism. Many of its other policies, good, and in some instances bad, were directly carried across from the BNP. As such, it did look as if it possessed some potential for growth and popular appeal. However, for a number of reasons this did not occur.

After almost a year in existence, BFP meetings with figures in the counter-jihad movement led to its relaunch under the chairmanship of Paul Weston last November, with caretaker leader Peter Mullins standing down. This shift however seems to have created an even greater ideological muddle, with the BFP issuing a seemingly random melange of ‘policies’ in its 20 Point Programme, a number of which were mutually incompatible. In addition, this ‘programme’ appeared to be an unnatural graft onto underlying BFP policies, and must therefore be assumed to have sprung from the imagination of the new Chairman. Owing to Weston’s personal preoccupation with Islamism and Islamisation, the BFP has fallen into the trap of fixating upon Islam, with little attention being paid to other policy issues. Whilst this focus has lent itself to a natural yet awkward tactical tie-up with the EDL, such a narrow focus will not yield general electoral success.

Weston too has acknowledged that his new model BFP is essentially “UKIP but we will talk about Islam”. That, primarily, is why Weston left UKIP: other than Lord Pearson it did not take a clear position against Islamisation. Were it to do so, my opinion is that Weston would fold the BFP tomorrow and return to UKIP. If the Tories were to ever become anti-Islamisation and pro-EU withdrawal, he would in an instant join the Conservative Party. The BFP is thus driving itself into a cul-de-sac. There remains room for party growth, but ultimately it will stall and fail, stunted by its narrow vision. It does not represent the way forward for nationalism, for although the concerns of the counter-jihad movement and nationalism overlap to a certain extent, they each represent a distinct position. The BFP is at risk of becoming a small British Neocon party.

The BFP, if people have heard of it, has thus come to be thought of as “the anti-Islam party”, just as UKIP is known as the “anti-EU party” and the EDs “the English parliament party”. All three overly fixate upon a single issue which hamstrings their electoral prospects. As for the National Front, its brand is more toxic than that of the BNP, and in public perception is simply known as “the racist party”, thus signifying electoral suicide. Any further discussion of the NF is superfluous.

Conclusion

Having thus surveyed the field of existing contenders for the nationalist vote in Britain and England, it is time to draw this piece to a close. The true conclusion to this article will be provided in the next two instalments, in which the focus will shift to providing a positive proposal that it is hoped readers will find both appealing and practicable. Part II will deal with policy, whereas Part III will deal with practical matters relating to strategy, tactics and tone. After a period of dispiriting setbacks, there is a basis for cautious optimism grounded in a realistic analysis of the challenges that we face. Success yet lies within reach.

Launch of the Centre for Democratic Nationalism

Saturday 4^th February proved to be a chilly day as snow fell over much of England, including over the Salthorn Working Men’s Club in Oakenshaw. Nonetheless, this modest venue was to serve as the location for a meeting of delegates from as far afield as Liverpool, Lincolnshire and Wales. By all accounts, the nationalists located within generated much heat, but was there much light?

Undeterred by the adverse weather, upwards of 40 individuals from a number of nationalist political parties and organisations had gathered for the inaugural meeting of Andrew Brons’s Centre for Democratic Nationalism, billed as a “a catalyst for nationalist unity” with its declared aim being “to facilitate the emergence of a united British Nationalist Movement.” Speakers included Andrew Brons, Peter Rushton and Jim Lewthwaite, who are reported to have delivered “great speeches without actually managing to offer any solutions”, with the focus being very much upon enumerating all of the things that are wrong with our country.

The meeting lasted some four hours, with 90 minutes being given over to the main speakers and the rest of the time being left open for debate arising from the speeches and questions from the audience. Capably overseeing proceedings was Ivan Winters of the Democratic Nationalists. As ever, it would seem that there were almost as many perspectives as there were nationalists, with the 5% of views not common to all possibly assuming an undue significance, leading to much heated argument. Presumably, this should be expected given that delegates hailed from organisations as diverse as UKIP, the BNP, the British People’s Party and the British Movement. One or two of the ideas forwarded proved to raise a few eyebrows. To the best of my knowledge, nobody from either the English Democrats or the British Freedom Party was present.

Given that this was the initial meeting of the CDN, it is not that surprising that nothing of major substance was agreed, but evidently if it is to succeed in the longer term it needs to move beyond such gatherings, and to offer something positive and concrete. Without a focus it is likely that the nationalist scene will continue to fragment, and activists will drift to the English Democrats or the British Freedom Party for the want of anything better. The CDN should certainly function as a think tank, but as events with the Brent Group have recently shown, this alone is unlikely to be sufficient to maintain its long-term viability. A common vision with respect to the future of nationalist politics is lacking; of that there can be little doubt. Although a well-organised event, there was still an absence of clarity as to the future purpose of the CDN at its close. 

Should the CDN not also seek to launch or to endorse a new party? Although Andrew Brons himself has ruled out this option and has provided some pertinent reasons for not following such a course, some of us are of another opinion. The existing parties contending for the nationalist vote all possess significant flaws in both their policy and approach, which not only limit their appeal to the general public, but also prove to be an imperfect fit for many of a nationalist inclination. What should we do to remedy this? For the answers to that question, you shall have to wait, but not for long. 

CDN Founder Andrew Brons

Andrew Brons – a Man of Integrity

Quite justifiably, Andrew Brons yesterday responded to his critics in the form of a short piece sarcastically entitled ‘Sorry for Working so Hard; I’ll Try to Do Less Well’. Apparently, fulfilling his duties as an exemplary MEP has been adjudged by some rather less successful and carping figures who term themselves nationalists, to be a dereliction of his duty, and to contravene the cause of advancing British nationalism. This criticism is of course without merit. 

What is also notable, following the recent recommendation by Roger Bennett of the Brent Group that supporters of the BNP Ideas camp should move to the British Freedom Party, is that Brons is now being courted by both the BFP and, as of this evening, Paul Golding of Britain First. Both the BFP and Britain First are in my opinion being precipitate, but their eagerness to court Brons indicates the respect and influence that he rightly commands amongst British nationalist activists. Brons should hold firm to the course that he has set, and allow his plans to be revealed in the coming week. There exists, clearly, an apprehension within the leaderships of both the BFP and Britain First, that Brons may not endorse them, and will instead favour their primary rival, or something else altogether.

The scramble for BNP Ideas activists appears rather undignified. Golding’s piece is particularly ill humoured, and betrays the peculiar obsession of Britain First with what it terms “militant homosexuality” and “Zionism”. “Yes”, I hear you say by way of assent, “the British public has been crying out for these issues to be addressed! Oh, if only there were a party that made dealing with “militant homosexuality” and “Zionism” a central plank of its policy platform we’d go out and vote for it tomorrow!” There’d be a landslide victory, wouldn’t there?! Well, quantum physics does posit the existence of multiple universes, so I daresay that this tack might work in one of them, but it’s certainly not this one. Anyway, I shall serve up a few nuggets (more akin to the chicken than the golden variety) taken from Golding’s ‘message’ this evening:

“We now see the final machinations by the euro gravy-train blood-suckers that surround the well-meaning Andrew Brons, as they prepare him for their departure into the internet-only, miniature British Freedom Party (BFP).

Most have already stabbed Andrew in the back and departed, and some are getting ready to go.”

“Andrew is a good man who bravely took on the Griffin/Harrington gang but has now, sadly, lost the momentum that so many good people were relying on.

With the departure of the Brent Group into what can only be described as a homosexual-ridden, multicultural, Zionist micro-party, this tells us, and many other nationalists, including you, Mr Brons, what a lucky escape we all just had.

Imagine if your calls for unity had come to fruition when the recently departed political whores were still in with you Andrew?

We would all have been duped and open to contracting the disease of multicultural, “inclusive nationalism”, compounded with aserious dose of Zionism and militant homosexuality.”

Strangely, perhaps tellingly, when I last looked at Golding's article on the British Resistance site it had attracted 22 comments. Precisely what these comments were I couldn't say, for unlike those attached to all other articles, they could not be accessed. Something tells me that the feedback contained in these comments is thus in all likelihood not complimentary and was neither to his liking nor to that of the site's host 'Green Arrow' (Paul Morris). If you left a comment there that can no longer be accessed, please feel free to post it here, as I will not delete it [since this was written the comments section has once again become accessible and those that have been published are not altogether supportive of Golding, which is notable given that only selected comments are published. How many, if any, were rejected?] .

Whilst gratifying to see that Brons is honoured by Golding, it does strike me as rather rich that he describes the BFP as a “micro-party”. If that is the case, should Britain First and its offshoot the National People’s Party not be termed a “nano-party”, for just as three weeks ago, Britain First’s website remains ranked behind that of the BFP, with their positions in the UK today being 13,240^th and 10,914^th  respectively? Both have slipped in the rankings since 9^th January and, more importantly, still lag behind the popularity of BNP Ideas, which irrespective of a recent hiatus in posting comes in as the 9,084^th most popular site in the UK. Andrew Brons, despite not currently leading a party of his own, should thus rightly be adjudged to be more influential than either the BFP or Britain First. Brons is effectively in a position akin to that of kingmaker, which accounts for the attention that he is being paid by the two would-be successors to the BNP.

Turning to the BFP, Peter Stafford has of late been attempting to curry favour in the comments section of the BNP Ideas website, whereas George Whale has here donned a somewhat ‘regal’ (denoting royalty or a brand of cigarettes?) demeanour in his rubbishing of ‘Jurassic swamp’ nationalism as he believes is exemplified by the person of John Bean. Well, the Whale may well have swum out of the swamp, but the being that taps away at this keyboard lives firmly in the age of mammals, and has a singular aversion to both fully and semi-aquatic environments. I prefer to keep my feet upon terra firma. Who then, would the Jonah be upon the good ship of the BFP?  

 Jonah and the Whale (Gustave Dore) 

Whale’s decision to comment upon my piece on John Bean and the Brent Group and the forthcoming development to which it alludes, reveals a sense of unease and a desperate wish to get those at BNP Ideas to jump ship before the news is revealed. I will not pretend that I am privy to what this development will be, but I recommend that people be circumspect, and reserve judgement upon their most appropriate option for affiliation until at least next week. If something should not be forthcoming, then there are some of us who are already giving consideration to what will need to come next, for I can see - which means that any member of the public will be able to see – a number of significant flaws with the course being set by the BFP.

Now, given that nationalism is in a state of flux, we have an ideal opportunity to ensure that whatever objectives, strategy and tactics are forged, are best adapted to our current situation and what is to come in the next few years. This provides us with a chance to make a breakthrough. If we set off down the wrong track now, diverted from our central course by certain overlapping issues and interests, our cause is more or less finished. Contrary to the beliefs of a certain Dr Whale, this Dr knows that the solution lies not only outside of the Jurassic, but outside of the Cretaceous too.

Cycling enthusiasts ought to take rather more care when trying to keep their appointments.

British Nationalism on the Web: Who's up and Who's down

As mainstream media outlets are intrinsically inimical towards nationalism it is not surprising that the Internet has become the medium through which nationalists have in recent years sought to propagate their message and to establish channels of communication with others of a similar outlook. To members of the public at large who do not take it upon themselves to investigate this area of politics beyond reading what is printed in the press or broadcast on the airwaves, ‘nationalism’ in the contemporary United Kingdom is associated with two parties only: the BNP and UKIP, although the latter would not primarily define itself as a nationalist party. At the level of local media, the English Democrats have received minimal and fleeting coverage, but the other micro-parties that would seek to assume the mantle of nationalism are practically invisible. The British Freedom Party evinced momentary media interest when Tommy Robinson announced the EDL’s tie-up with the former, but since then, it has slipped from public purview back into the nationalist mists.

Nick Griffin’s catastrophic mismanagement of the BNP has reduced the party from a position in which it was on the verge of achieving an electoral breakthrough, to one in which it is caught in a terminal tailspin. This is well-known both in nationalist and anti-nationalist circles, but not to the general public, which is why opinion polls keep citing a residual 2% of respondents as intending to vote BNP at the next election. This of course does not in reality represent support for Griffin’s corrupt machine, but for the idea of a democratic British ethno-nationalist party. Nonetheless, it is to the world of British and English nationalism that I turn my attention in this piece, and to the relative visibility and strengths of the different contenders for the nationalist crown. The BNP is dead, long live . . . which party exactly?

Before looking at the statistics associated with the smaller contenders for the nationalist crown (taken from Alexa Rankings on 9th January 2012), it is worth bearing in mind that despite its many troubles the BNP website commands a very respectable amount of traffic allowing it to clock in as the 2023rd most popular in the UK. Likewise, it has a considerable Facebook following, with some 78,437 followers. Although far more successful electorally and possessing much greater media coverage and financial muscle than the BNP, UKIP’s presence on the internet is by contrast rather modest, with its party site clocking in as the 17,345th most popular in the UK and its Facebook page commanding a paltry 2,111 followers. Given the high average age of UKIP supporters though, this shouldn’t perhaps be such a great surprise.

Although not a political party, the EDL has been rightly trumpeted as the most successful nationalistically-inclined grassroots movement to have emerged in recent decades. It therefore seems fitting to include statistics relating to its web presence given this popularity and its wider influence on the nationalist scene. Its website attracts a significant amount of traffic, more than UKIP’s in fact, clocking in at number 12,064 in the UK and 234,946 globally, whilst its Facebook page has 27,111 followers. However, when considering the EDL’s presence on Facebook, it should be borne in mind that previous pages have been hacked and rendered defunct on more than one occasion, so it is possible that had this not happened the total would now be considerably higher. Clearly though, as with all nationalist sites, it will also be attracting visits from its opponents as well as from its supporters. Its high hit rate could thus also be an indication of the EDL’s unpopularity. There are also a number of Facebook pages associated with the EDL’s divisional structure which are in themselves popular, such as Leicester that boasted 3,123 followers when I last checked the statistics.

Another significant factor to consider when looking at the popularity of the EDL is Tommy Robinson’s recent endorsement of the British Freedom Party. Although both he and the BFP leadership anticipated that this would lead to a sizeable segment of the EDL’s membership lending its support to the party, debate on the EDL Forum indicates that opinion on this alliance is far from united, with a majority of those expressing their views on this subject backing UKIP rather than the BFP. It would take something significant on the part of the BFP to change this preference. Nonetheless, since the party’s relaunch last November its web traffic has received a noteworthy fillip, edging slightly ahead of the EDL clocking in at 9,666th in the UK and 223,423rd globally.

In contrast, traffic to the BNP Ideas site – attracting contributions and support from the thoughtful and democratic members (or recent ex-members) of the party outside of the Griffin clique – is higher in the UK at 7,645 but lower globally coming in at 239,166th position. Nonetheless, it strikes me as preferable for a British nationalist site to seek to attract most of its traffic from within the UK rather than from without. Quite what will happen to BNP Ideas now that Andrew Brons has announced the formation of the Centre for Democratic Nationalism and the abandonment of the idea of setting up another ethnonationalist party remains to be seen. According to Brons “The primary aimof the Centre for Democratic Nationalism will be to facilitate the emergence of a united British Nationalist Movement.” The only party to have affiliated to it thus far is The Democratic Nationalists, and it is clear that this recent announcement has driven traffic to the party’s rather basic website taking it to 74,025th position in the UK. 

Another party to have emerged from a BNP breakaway is the Freedom Democrats formed from expelled members of the BFP. Despite claims by the Freedom Democrats to be the true British equivalent of the European freedom parties and to enjoy positive relations with its continental counterparts, the figures do not seem to lend this assertion credibility. The Freedom Democrats website doesn’t possess a UK Alexa traffic ranking, but clocks in at 24,336,810th globally, and its Facebook page features 16 ‘friends’. Evidently, the party is a non-starter and has less political clout than my blog, which isn’t saying much. Its members, if they wish to be involved in politics, would be advised to stand as independents or to join another party. Despite what some disaffected BNP members may mutter, the National Front is effectively dead, commanding no UK traffic ranking and a global position of 3,006,831. Its Facebook page boasts 457 friends.

Although having some electoral representation – including the Mayor of Doncaster – the English Democrats possess a modest web presence, despite their recent website revamp which has left it looking far more appealing and professional. At the time of writing, the EDs’ website ranked at 1,540,656th globally, a little behind my blog which enjoyed a ranking of 1,508,640th globally and 85,579th in the UK. The EDs are certainly ahead of Durotrigan on Facebook though, for Durotrigan has no Facebook presence; in fact, they score relatively well with 6,149 ‘friends’, coming in ahead both of UKIP and the BFP.

Lastly, turning to Britain First (I couldn’t find a site for its spinoff National People’s Party) championed by the Green Arrow, I was surprised to see that despite the trumpeting their internet presence appears to be weaker than the BFP, BNP Ideas and the EDL. UKIP manages to outstrip them on Facebook, but not in terms of its British traffic. The figures for the Britain First website are 13,524th in the UK and 352,736th globally; Facebook – 1,170 followers.


Conclusions
What does all of this say about the different nationalist parties, factions and movements operating in Britain today? Evidently, it serves to underscore the seriously fragmented nature of the nationalist scene, and the possibility that any one of a number of what could be termed “post-BNP parties”could emerge to eclipse the BNP. Will it be whatever might emerge from the Brons plan with his Centre for Democratic Nationalism? Will it be Paul Weston’s BFP, or the English Democrats or Britain First/National People’s Party? What implications could Scottish independence have for the whole of the nationalist spectrum?

Evidently, UKIP will for the foreseeable future continue to be the most publicly visible and least pilloried of the parties and movements mentioned above, but it remains an Atlanticist Tory party rather than a nationalist party, and thus whilst a UKIP administration would be less damaging than any put in place by the current big three in British politics, it is not what we need in the long run to turn our country around. We need a single credible and viable party to emerge in the very near future and for nationalists to agree to unite around whichever vehicle it may be. Time is growing short. Websites, blogs and general internet activism will have their role to play, but this is only part of the story if a viable nationalist politics is to be born in our country. Some bloggers/website contributors have already taken their views to the comment threads on major national newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph so as to attempt to sneak nationalist views past the moderators, and in some instances, this appears to be enjoying some success. Will it work? If we don’t try, we won’t know.

A later post will look at the internet presence of the major campaigning foes of nationalist parties and politics, and I am sure that you’ll be pleasantly surprised to learn that in terms of traffic, the nationalists appear to be winning. However, given that the web is the only place where a nationalist position is freely articulated this should not be a surprise, for those of a multiculturalist pro-mass immigration bent have plenty of mainstream media organs, as well as political parties, advocating and pushing their message in every sphere of life. 

Andrew Brons to form ‘new’ political party?

So suggests a discussion on the British Democracy Forum posted yesterday; or, more accurately, it claims that he is to effectively ‘takeover’ a small existing one: the Democratic Nationalists. Could there be an element of truth in this? Before turning to this specific question, it is worth setting the scene with respect to the state of Andrew Brons’s current political home: the BNP.

Andrew Brons

The Rise and Demise of the BNP
A few years ago, the BNP looked as if it might hold out the promise of breaking into the mainstream of British politics and becoming a credible moderate nationalist party. Its membership peaked at circa 14,000, but has been on a downward trajectory ever since; now, the party is estimated as possessing between 2,000-3,000 members. Despite the protestations of its leader – Nick Griffin – and his apologists, the subsequent collapse in the BNP’s fortunes has not primarily been due to concerted media and political opposition, but to problems within the party itself. These include a lack of internal party democracy; bad strategic decisions; the adoption of some frankly outlandish policies, and the presence of some equally outlandish individuals with an inexplicable fetish for German National Socialism. This latter fact has of course given opponents of the BNP a very large stick with which to beat the party and its members again and again. Nick Griffin’s own failure to distance the BNP from Holocaust denial and his attempt to defend David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan on the BBC’s Question Time were both gratuitously unnecessary and disastrous for the party.

The failure of mainstream political parties in the UK to do anything other than vigorously advocate and facilitate globalisation, mass immigration and multiculturalism over the past couple of decades, meant that many people who joined and voted for the BNP did so not because they were ‘Nazis’ or ‘fascists’ as the party’s detractors liked to claim, but because they saw in it a potential vehicle for the articulation of their concerns. Unfortunately, this vehicle proved not to be roadworthy owing to its reckless owner and driver – Nick Griffin – a man whom time has revealed to be interested not in the salvation of his country, but in the salvation of his bank balance. He grew the party to a size at which he could make a decent living from its membership, and having done so, appeared to be content to tithe the party faithful and to purge the party of its more talented high profile members whilst promoting incompetents to senior positions. This, in essence, is why the BNP has been a manifest failure in terms of practical politics.

A Leadership Challenge and a ‘parallel party Structure’
Despite the aforementioned, some people of talent have remained within the BNP, and Andrew Brons, elected as MEP for Yorkshire and Humber at the party’s high watermark in June 2009, must surely rank as foremost amongst their number. He unsuccessfully challenged for the BNP leadership earlier this year, losing to Griffin by a mere eight votes. Some within the party blamed those who had left to set up the British Freedom Party or to join the English Democrats for Griffin managing to maintain his grip on power, and a degree of bitterness amongst some party members with respect to those who left – particularly towards Eddy Butler and his endorsement of the English Democrats – has been evident on this score.

Following Brons’s defeat, Griffin’s mismanagement of the BNP has continued with the consequence that the party has remained split down the middle, with the Brons faction last month making moves to establish a “parallel party structure” within the BNP in the hope that should Griffin finally bankrupt the party and be compelled to relinquish the leadership, an effective replacement would be waiting in the wings. Unfortunately for those advocating this approach, there is no sign that Griffin has any intention of going anywhere, which means that the parallel party strategy could prove to be futile. It is thus likely that Brons’s realisation of this reality has prompted his decision – should the rumours prove to be true – to join the Democratic Nationalists, a small nationalist party registered by breakaway members of the BNP in March 2008. The primary motivating factor for its formation was dissatisfaction amongst many members at the failure of the BNP leadership to address their legitimate concerns regarding the absence of effective democratic procedures within the party, as articulated on the ‘Enough is Enough’ blog.

The Democratic Nationalists: a suitable Vehicle?
Dr James Lewthwaite is currently the most publicly well-known member of the Democratic Nationalists. Unlike Nick Griffin, Dr Lewthwaite can be counted as amongst those who place their political principles ahead of personal interests, and for this he has paid a heavy personal price insofar as his academic career was cut short by the University of Sheffield because of his involvement with the BNP. He now works as a security guard.

Since its foundation however, the Democratic Nationalists have not fired the public imagination, and have polled consistently poorly where they have stood. One of the reasons is the party’s near invisibility and the modest scale of its resources. It is currently reckoned to possess somewhere in the region of 50-75 members, with its strongest base being in Bradford where it has previously fielded candidates at ward elections. Its website is in desperate need of a revamp, both in terms of its presentation and content. Its sketchy outline of policy needs to be fleshed out and content needs to be regularly augmented by topical articles, for it can appear at first glance to be essentially a ‘dead’ site dating from the early days of the internet. Alternatively, should Brons join the party, it could make more sense for the BNP Ideas site to be rebranded as that of the Democratic Nationalists, for BNP Ideas is far easier upon the eye and features a regular stream of articles that are of superior quality to those posted on the shoddy official BNP site.

The question is: why would Brons wish to join the Democratic Nationalists, and why would the Democratic Nationalists wish to have Brons? If he did join, what role would he assume? As a sitting MEP capable of bringing a significant number of members to the Democratic Nationalists and of removing the cloak of invisibility which currently masks the micro-party, one would assume that he would be given a senior if not the most senior role in the party. If so, one could perhaps draw a parallel with the recent experience of the British Freedom Party, which after its launch in November 2010 experienced a fractious first year witnessing an early split followed by many months in the doldrums, until last month its founding Executive Council members stood down in favour of the Chairmanship of ex-UKIP member Paul Weston who is now seeking to relaunch the BFP as a ‘new’ party. Might not Brons attempt something similar? It would after all, be a quicker option than launching an entirely new party from scratch, and represent a far more rational approach than the current wait and see ‘parallel party structure’ one.

If Brons moves across to the Democratic Nationalists no time should be wasted in setting out the party’s ideology and vision which must be tempered by electoral pragmatism: the aim of party politics first and foremost should be winning elections backed with a solid popular mandate. This necessitates focusing on a few key issues of concern to the public, first and foremost of which should be economic policy based upon sound nationalist principles: anti-globalist, protectionist and technologically innovative. Few people voted for Blair in 1997 or in subsequent elections because they wanted mass immigration, multiculturalism and the imposition of the attendant ideology of ‘diversity’ backed by stiff legal measures, but this is what they got; they voted for him because they were convinced that Labour could handle the economy more effectively than the Tories. It is primarily upon the question of the economy that elections are won and lost, and true nationalists have better solutions to the current structural crisis in which we find ourselves than the globalist free marketeers. The British Freedom Party had hitherto adopted an unambiguous anti-globalist economic policy, but since Paul Weston assumed the helm, I have a sinking feeling that it is rapidly shifting in the direction of advocating Atlanticist Thatcherite economic policies, as suggested by the following recent comment that he made in an interview published on the Vlad Tepes blog: “UKIP I think are good, and we are essentially UKIP but we will talk about Islam.”

Winning Elections
Today, the key to winning elections lies in effective communications and finely honing and disseminating messages that resonate with the public. Nationalists possess many messages that the public would wish to hear, but for too long the voices of cranks have drowned these out and caused the public to stop up their ears and refuse to listen. The cranks who have held back nationalism in this country for so many years must not be permitted to wreck nationalism’s prospects in the years ahead. A serious nationalist party must have nothing to do with them.

Another trap that should be avoided is that of becoming fixated upon a single issue with which the party becomes irrevocably associated in the public mind, as in the cases of UKIP and EU withdrawal; the English Democrats and an English Parliament; the British Freedom Party and anti-Islamism. A successful nationalist party will address all of these concerns, but should not make any one of them the central plank of its electoral campaign, for should it do so, it will undoubtedly fail. Yes, do air these issues, but keep pushing the nationalist position on the economy over and over again to demonstrate that nationalism offers our people the prospect of a better future than any of the alternatives. The conditions are right for nationalism to make a breakthrough, the only real things holding it back being poor strategy and fragmentation between different nationalist factions.

If Brons decides to switch parties, this will have a serious impact upon the BNP which could easily lose half of its existing membership as a consequence. However, it is likely that a small rump BNP would continue under Nick Griffin's leadership as a zombie party, offering a refuge for the hard of thinking and those predisposed towards the cult of (a deeply flawed) personality. This would continue to be a hindrance to nationalist politics in the UK insofar as it would siphon off the votes of that proportion of the nationalistically inclined electorate that is unaware of the reality of the party. 

One other question that naturally suggests itself should Brons join the Democratic Nationalists is: how will his employees Eddy Butler and Chris Beverley, both members of the English Democrats, react?

Nationalism and the Counterjihad: a new Party?

In February this year there were rumours that the English Defence League (EDL) was about to ‘go political’ and to field candidates for election. This rumour, largely the product of a fleeting flirtation between the Daily Star and the EDL, was denied by Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon at the time, but following a low-key gathering in London late last month the prospect of a ‘new’ political force incorporating some form of EDL involvement has once again emerged.

Over the years, a number of ‘Counterjihad Summits’ have been held in various locations across Europe including Zurich and Copenhagen, but this September it was London’s turn to play host. A report written by ‘Baron Bodissey’ of the Gates of Vienna blog presents us with an interesting account of this gathering, and a tantalising allusion to discussions concerning 'the possible formation of a new political party in Britain.'

Earlier this year I cautioned against the EDL entering the realm of electoral politics, and nothing has happened since then to change my mind. It is a single-issue protest movement and as such could hope to garner no more than a tiny percentage of the vote. That is not to say of course that the concerns of the EDL are irrelevant, for that is far from the case, but it should instead seek to hone its message and to endorse a particular political party rather than seek to become one. The question then naturally arises as to which political party should receive its backing?

In February, I suggested that the best ideological fit with the EDL seemed to be the recently formed British Freedom Party (BFP), but after making such a suggestion on the Gates of Vienna blog, it was made clear to me that the Counterjihad movement could not take the BFP seriously because of the oft-recorded rants of leading founder BFP member Lee Barnes. Although Barnes sometimes forwards some excellent ideas, he is unfortunately prone to posting some frankly bizarre material on his 21st Century British Nationalism blog pertaining to conspiracy theories (Zionist NWO being the most-frequently commented upon) and syncretistic ‘spirituality’ encompassing a wide range of pagan and New Age elements, including the Mayan Calendar 2012 Doomsday ‘prophecy’. This latter-day champion of an anti-Zionist Blakeian mysticism, it was suggested, should continue to commune with the angels in the trees at the bottom of his garden rather than become a leading figure in a viable nationalist party.

A work by William Blake, not by Lee Barnes

 

I had high expectations of the BFP when it was founded, hoping that it would become the British equivalent of the PVV, but the rapidity with which a schism occurred within this BNP splinter party and the ill-humour and lack of grace that occasioned the formation of the even-smaller Freedom Democrats, led me to draw back from support and potential membership.

Returning to the recent Counterjihad Summit, 'Baron Bodissey' was shown around Luton by Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon before heading to London, where longstanding leading members of the European Counterjihad movement met on Saturday 24 September. It is worth quoting Bodissey at length:

On the morning of Saturday September 24, a Counterjihad leadership meeting convened in central London. A number of people associated with ICLA were present, including Paul Weston, Aeneas, Gaia, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, KGS of Tundra Tabloids, Henrik Ræder Clausen of Europe News (English), Liz of Europe News (Deutsch), and other activists from North America and Western Europe. There were representatives from Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Sweden, the UK, and the USA.

The importance of the meeting was underscored by the presence of several leaders of the English Defence League. Tommy Robinson, Kevin Carroll, and Jack Smith were among those who conferred for the first time with a cross-section of the European Counterjihad.

The most important topic of discussion concerned the current political situation in Britain. The unprecedented repression directed at the EDL and other dissidents demonstrates that the authorities are frightened by mass opposition to Islamization and sharia, and are determined to use any means to suppress dissent.

The violation of the civil liberties of ordinary Britons seems to be a matter of supreme indifference to the oligarchs who rule in Westminster. When dealing with the opponents of Multiculturalism, all three major parties seem to be in complete agreement: dissidents must be squashed at any cost.

Participants from the Continent gave their own perspective, relating the struggle against repression in Britain to the larger European struggle against the illiberal regime in Brussels. Opposition to the European Union goes hand-in-hand with resistance to Islamization, because the immigration regime that is destroying European nations is guided and encouraged by the EU.

Everyone agreed that we are now at a hinge of history. What happens in the next few months or years is crucial to the future of liberty, democracy, and European culture. Prompt action is required, because the worldwide financial crisis will soon reach a climax and limit our choices.

It is interesting to note that participants in this gathering agreed upon a common position opposing EU membership and multiculturalism which fits neatly into a nationalist political paradigm. In recent months in particular, there have been some confused messages emanating from the EDL with respect to ‘multiculturalism’, with the movement at times opposing it and at others endorsing it. The EDL needs to take an unequivocal stand that firmly condemns multiculturalism, for if it does not, it will have misunderstood what is enabling the Islamisation of Britain and will not therefore be able to combat it.

Whereas only one (so far as I am aware) representative of a political party was present at the morning meeting of the Counterjihad Leadership – Paul Weston of UKIP – that afternoon they were joined by ‘several members of the British Freedom Party’ for ‘free-form discussions’ which ‘continued until late in the evening.’ The BFP attendees were not named, but according to a post on the British Democracy Forum, Lee Barnes, Peter Mullins and Simon Bennett were the representatives in question. It would be interesting to learn what passed between the participants, for so far as I am aware, initial approaches by the BFP to the PVV were met rather coolly, whereas the even smaller Freedom Democrats managed to send a delegation to the recent Die Freiheit Conference in Berlin at which Oskar Freysinger made his impassioned speech. Which of these two parties – the BFP or the Freedom Democrats – have been recognised as partners by the Counterjihad movement? What Bodissey writes seems to suggest that he believes that there is much common ground with the former:

The BFP shares a major common interest with ICLA and the EDL: we all believe that mass immigration and Islamization will destroy our countries. This was the issue that preoccupied us over drinks and food in one of Central London’s innumerable multicultural districts.

Bodissey concludes his report of the weekend gathering by stating:

The following day (Sunday September 25) the same group met in a different location in London. This was a broader meeting, attended by a number of additional British participants, including another member of the BFP and a representative from UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party). We elaborated on the previous day’s topics in informal discussions, some of which took place in sub-groups over food and drink.

The meeting adjourned early in the evening so that those who had travelled long distances could make their way home.

This is all very interesting and raises many more questions than it answers. The nationalist political scene in Britain, and in England in particular, is becoming increasingly fragmented with numerous micro-parties, campaigns and movements springing up as the BNP continues its slow-motion implosion under Nick Griffin’s disastrous stewardship. However, many decent nationalists outside of the Griffin clique remain within the BNP as attested to by the contributions to the BNP Ideas website set up by MEP Andrew Brons. Indeed, on Saturday 22 October the BNP Ideas Conference will be held at an as yet to be disclosed location in the East Midlands. Recent articles by veteran nationalist John Bean make it clear that he and many others now believe that the BNP is effectively finished, and that a new nationalist political party is required. Could this link in with the party proposal mentioned by Bodissey? 

The coming weekend should therefore bear witness to lively debate that will hopefully draw a line under nationalism’s decline in this country and contribute to its rapid and much-needed revival. New approaches are required, for more of the same will not do. As Einstein once remarked, insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It is time for nationalists to awaken to contemporary reality, and to seize the many opportunities that it presents.

Keighley: BNP Target Seat Number Three

Andrew Brons was recently selected as the BNP candidate for Keighley. Having acquited himself well since he became the party's MEP for Yorkshire last June, Brons is fighting for the seat contested by Nick Griffin himself in 2005. This time around, veteran Labour MP Anne Cryer is standing down, with the Labour candidature falling instead to Jane Thomas. To be fair to Cryer, she did at least acknowledge that there were problems specific to some elements of the Muslim population in Keighley, but unfortunately, she and the local Labour Party at first claimed that the BNP were lying when the latter drew attention to the serious issue of Muslim males grooming local native schoolgirls; plying them with drugs (heroin in particular), and sexually abusing them amongst their family networks. It took the BNP's honesty to force the issue of this Islamic paedophile pimping into the open, but sadly, as more recent cases in Rotherham and other northern towns attest, this is a problem which has yet to be eradicated.

Keighley is a demographically diverse constituency which includes not only working-class Keighley and its outlying Pennine villages, but also the wealthy town of Ilkley in neighbouring Wharfedale which is natural Conservative territory. Keighley itself contains a significant Muslim population comprised of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (officially circa 15% in 2001 but now higher, yielding an estimated total of 7,000 voters in 2005 according to Muslim News). The seat has thus swung from Conservative to Labour and back again.

Anne Cryer took the seat for Labour in the 1997 General Election with 50.6% of the vote. However, in the subsequent elections of 2001 and 2005 her share shrank first to 48.2% then 44.7%. With Cryer's departure and Labour's general malaise in the polls, it is likely that Jane Thomas, a career politician very much in the New Labour mould (studied Politics at Swansea University, worked briefly for Sheffield Newspapers then spent 16 years as a university lecturer teaching Politics and Public Policy Management) will secure no more than 35% of the vote at best. The seat is likely to turn Tory and fall to Kris Hopkins.

Although Andrew Brons is an excellent candidate, like other BNP members he has a hard task on his hands trying to make significant inroads in the constituency in the face of bitter opposition. When Nick Griffin stood there in 2005 the national media were up in arms and Searchlight and Hope Not Hate ran an intensive operation in Keighley barraging its voters with anti-BNP propaganda. This is probably being repeated today. The other Nick ('Saint' Clegg) recently chose to vent his morally indignant spleen upon the BNP whilst pandering to the Muslim bloc vote on the BBC Asian Network stating "I feel really strongly about this. The BNP is an evil, vile, fascist organisation." Strangely, this generic rant agains the BNP was reported by Keighley News. The Liberal Democrats are once again standing Nader Fekri as their candidate, and it is my guess that he could lure a goodly proportion of the Muslim bloc vote away from Labour. Although Fekri secured only 11.8% in 2005, I would anticipate something in the region of 16% next month.

Nick Griffin managed to poll 4240 votes, some 9.2% of the total. He did this in competition with only the three main parties, but this time around both UKIP and, bizarrely, the National Front (an historical throwback) are also fielding Paul Latham and Steven Smith respectively. If anything, UKIP will take as many if not more votes from Eurosceptic Tories as from the BNP, whereas the National Front is more or less an irrelevance which is unlikely to secure more than 1% of the vote. Given that Brons will be subject to a significant black propaganda effort and will not receive favourable coverage in the local print and electronic media, I would be surprised if he was able to better Griffin's share of the vote. Although I think Brons deserves to win, and has been given odds of 20/1 by Paddypower.com to take the seat, my guess is that the final result will look something akin to the following: Conservative 36%; Labour 33%; Liberal Democrat 16%; BNP 9%; UKIP 5%; National Front 1%.  If Andrew Brons is able to secure more than 15% of the votes cast he will have done extremely well.

Watch the following clip of Andrew delivering a recent speech in the EU Parliament. This man speaks sense, and gives the lie to the false media claim that the BNP is comprised of illiterate knuckle draggers.



Brons is one of the most eloquent members of the BNP and can be seen in the following interview providing his perspective on the June 2009 EU elections.

BNP 'Top 10' General Election Targets

On 5 April it was announced that the BNP would be fielding a record 326 candidates in the forthcoming General Election. It is likely that this total would have been even higher had it not been for the financial strain placed upon the party by the recent EHRC court case which was quite clearly brought in an attempt to destroy the BNP following its electoral success in the EU elections last June. Thankfully, this attempt has failed, but it means that the BNP will be fighting to secure representation at Westminster on a very tight budget.

In 2005 certain Labour candidates used the alleged BNP ‘threat’ in a cynical attempt to mobilise disillusioned Labour voters, persuading them to vote for a party that they no longer believed in and which long ago had abandoned them. Paradoxically, many who then cast their votes for Labour will have voted against a party – the BNP – whose policies they would have benefited from and approved of had they had been properly informed of the content of the BNP manifesto. Then, as now, the mass media were united in their hostility to the BNP, but unlike in 2005 the dissemination of information this time around has been democratised. Thanks to the growth in public internet access and the burgeoning of political blogs and online social media, the stranglehold of the National Union of Journalists and its explicit guidelines enforcing distorted reporting has to a certain extent been circumvented. Nonetheless, those of us of a nationalist bent who are favourably disposed towards the BNP constitute a very modest force when pitted against the power and wealth of the mass media. It is very much a David versus Goliath scenario.

What then, are the prospects for the BNP in 2010? Can we realistically expect to see the party secure its first Westminster MPs? If so, which constituencies offer the most likely prospects, and which candidates should we be following with the keenest interest? Over the coming week I shall be writing a series of articles dealing with those constituencies in which I think the BNP will perform strongly. Whether or not this translates into elected MPs or a number of second and third places we will not know until 7 May, but if the odds at Paddypower.com are anything to go by, some seats should yield some very interesting results indeed.

In the 2005 General Election the BNP fielded 119 candidates and won a total of 192,746 votes. This represented 0.7% of the total with each candidate winning an average of 1620 votes. In last June’s EU elections the BNP won a total of 943,598 votes representing 6.26% of the vote which was a 1.3% increase on their 2004 figure of 808,200. The mass media have often deliberately lied about this most recent result, claiming that the BNP vote had fallen in numerical terms since the 2004 EU elections, but as the figures demonstrate, this was not the case.

Recent opinion polls tend to place the national level of support for the BNP at anywhere between 2 and 4%. This however masks considerable regional variations with the party scoring consistently better in England, for it barely registers in Scotland and Wales. It is probable that the reported level is lower than the actual level of support, for it has been observed that people are often reluctant to state that they are considering voting for the BNP, particularly when questioned over the telephone.

Taking into account the aforementioned figures, what might we expect in terms of a likely overall result for the BNP in May 2010? General elections are not EU elections and thus parties that appeal specifically to nationalism and anti-EU sentiment tend to do better in the latter than in the former. I will therefore start with the most conservative estimate of the BNP vote, projecting a repeat performance of 2005 with an average of 1620 votes per candidate which would yield 528,120 votes. If we assume (simply for the sake of direct comparison, for the situation will not repeat itself) that the total number of votes cast for all parties nationally came to the same sum for 2005, this would give the BNP a 1.9% share of the vote.

As the party would have achieved this result by standing in only circa half of the available Westminster seats, this would equate to a rough national share of 3.8% which would match the party’s position in many polls. Although the sum total would thus be far more impressive than 2005’s tally of 192,746, it would mean that the BNP would have been treading water. It therefore needs to achieve substantially more votes and a correspondingly higher share of the national total to indicate that it has achieved a significant breakthrough. When considering the current combination of toxic factors - mass immigration, economic crisis, Islamisation, the war in Afghanistan, the expenses scandal, multiculturalism and the loss of sovereignty to the EU - which have made large swathes of the electorate either hostile towards the mainstream political parties or apathetic about politics in general, and the lack of willingness on the part of the said parties to discuss any of these issues other than the economy, the threshold of success, I would suggest, needs to be set at a minimum of 970,000 votes. This would equate to roughly 7% of the vote. If the BNP manages to garner in the region of 1.5 million votes or above, it will truly have emerged as a political force with serious prospects.

I have no doubt that the vote received by the BNP in a number of constituencies will be in excess of 15%, but it is likely that its prospective impact in many instances will unfortunately be blunted by the presence of other candidates who are likely to dilute the nationalist vote (i.e. UKIP and the English Democrats). This will be a great pity, for it may deny the prospects of office to a number of BNP candidates. Such a situation, I hope, will not arise at future parliamentary elections, for we cannot afford for the nationalist vote to remain split any longer. Our very survival as a nation depends upon a unified British nationalist party which can fight for office against its globalist dhimmi opponents.

Over the coming week or so I will therefore be writing about my BNP ‘Top 10’ target constituencies. This is simply a personal selection, but I do believe that the best prospects for the party lie amongst their number, and I shall be avidly glued to the screen waiting for these results on election night. These are (in no particular order): Barking (Nick Griffin); Stoke-on-Trent Central (Simon Darby); Thurrock (Emma Colgate); Keighley (Andrew Brons); Salford and Eccles (Tina Wingfield); Stoke-on-Trent South (Mike Coleman); Burnley (Sharon Wilkinson); Dagenham and Rainham (Michael Barnbrook); Dewsbury (Roger Roberts); Dudley North (Ken Griffiths).