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.

John Bean and the Brent Group’s Endorsement of the British Freedom Party

The Brent Group, led by Roger Bennett, was the skeleton around which the concept of a ‘BNP Parallel Party Structure’ was taking shape, as Andrew Brons and the BNP Ideas group deliberated over how to find a way out of the impasse created by Nick Griffin’s corrupt stranglehold on the BNP. Ultimately, most supporters of the BNP Ideas faction and the Brent Group were of the opinion that a new nationalist party would be formed, but when Andrew Brons instead announced the formation of the Centre for Democratic Nationalism, this caused mixed reactions and exasperation on the part of many members who had wanted in effect a new ethnonationalist party. This week however, Roger Bennett decided to throw in his lot with one of the small nationalist parties seeking to mop up the activists and support base of the ailing BNP: the British Freedom Party. The following excerpt taken from the Brent Group’s site explains the reasoning underpinning his decision:

"We need a party for the 21st. century and not one rooted in the early 20th. century. A party promoting the principles in we believe, but in a moderate and intelligent manner. With leaders of integrity and no previous bad past history so easily used against a party by our enemies and hostile press. Leaders that can give intelligent and educated interviews, and will win media support.

The only option now is to combine with an existing party that has the policies, organisation and principles we can support. A party that is truly democratic, with officers elected and not appointed, a party run for the members in an open manner.  After closely reviewing all options, only one party fits our criterion, The British Freedom Party.

My proposal to you is to join and support the British Freedom Party."

This statement has caused some surprise, with a mixture of reactions being present in the comment thread to the article on the BNP Ideas site reporting this move. BNP Ideas itself has adopted a neutral tone, in line with the principles of the Centre for Democratic Nationalism which seeks to act as a unifying hub for nationalists in Britain:

“Speaking to BNP Ideas after his announcement yesterday, Mr Bennett said that his decision, announced in an email circular sent to thosewho had specifically joined the Brent Group (and not to those who registered with BNP Ideas through this site’s contact form) was a recommendation based on his personal decision and should not be ipso facto taken as official endorsement from BNP Ideas.”

How many supporters of the Brent Group will take Roger Bennett’s advice? It is clear that some certainly will follow him into the British Freedom Party, but a comment left by veteran British Nationalist John Bean struck me as very interesting, and potentially portending a significant announcement:

“It is a pity that the Brent Group could not have waited another two weeks before deciding to wind down the organisation. As I see it the problem with the miniature parties trawling for new members, including former BNP members, is that their policies are ultra-nationalist. Despite a few passing expressions of support to fellow nationalists on the Continent (certainly from British Freedom) they want no connections with the European mainland whether through trade agreements or military pacts to increase the effectiveness of our common defence.

My views have previously been aired on this site for replacing the EU with a European Confederation of sovereign states in order to guarantee our present major export markets, AND to tackle the biological threat of the eventual elimination of the heart of the white world. Any so-called nationalist party will not get my support on the latter unless it can say that it aims to halt all further Afro-Asian immigration. To talk of “strict controls” or “welcoming a few non-European members” is only playing for time and not solving the disaster that faces our grandchildren. Having read some of his blogs I suspect that Paul Weston is aware of the significance of this.”

It is the opening line of Bean’s comment that struck me: “It is a pity that the Brent Group could not have waited another two weeks before deciding to wind down the organisation.” Why, unless a significant announcement is to be made with respect to the organisation – or proposed organisation - of nationalist politics in Britain today, would he have written this? It suggests that whatever is to be revealed within the next fortnight will prove to be a good political fit with the principles and ideology underpinning the Brent Group; a better fit indeed, than the British Freedom Party.  

Bean’s views with respect to our European neighbours are, in my opinion, worthy of serious consideration, and represent a saner response to contemporary geopolitical realities than Atlanticism. To an extent, they overlap with Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturist vision of a Euro-Siberian Confederation comprised of ethno-cultural units which in many instances – such as in the cases of Brittany and Padania – would be smaller than our existing nation-states. This model of ethno-cultural devolution within a wider confederation of sovereign states, collaborating in key areas of trade, defence and hi-tech manufacturing and research on behalf of the interests of the native peoples of Europe, possesses a certain appeal, particularly when considering the nature of our external threats, actual and potential. I support Bean’s reservations with respect to the British Freedom Party on this matter. 

John Bean: European Confederation of Sovereign States

Looking further out into cyberspace, peering into the reactions within the nationalist blogosphere that used to be united behind the BNP, responses to Bennett’s BFP endorsement have been mixed, ranging from the equivocal (Northants Patriot) to outright opposition (New Leadership). Other notable nationalist sites have so far failed to pass comment. These include: Sarah Maid of Albion; Wigan Patriot; Southwest Nationalists (however, the Southwest Nationalists blog does display banners promoting Britain First, the BNP and BNP Ideas) and Eddy Butler. Butler has of course thrown his weight fully behind the English Democrats, but his opinions on nationalist politics are often worth reading, and it strikes me as highly likely that he will write a piece on this move. As for the piece covering this issue on the Northants Patriot blog, the author made some salient points with respect to the BFP’s tie-up with the EDL:

“I am sure the BFP have the right intentions, my only doubt is with the links this party is said to have with the English Defence League. If these links are true, any trouble associated with the EDL, whether they are blameless or not, will be used to hit the fledgling BFP with. Personally, I will continue to reserve judgement on joining, but will continue to work with any party furthering the cause of both English and British Nationalism.”

Well, there are such links, and Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon does of course endorse the BFP, but the EDL rank and file are far from united behind Weston’s party, often voicing support for UKIP instead. This is despite the latter party’s unwillingness to recognise Islamisation as a problem, which is why Weston left UKIP in the first place. Although it may provide the BFP with a boost in the short term, it is true that the link between the two could backfire on the BFP in the long run should it begin to attract a couple of percentage points in the polls. UAF, Searchlight and Hope Not Hate are of course already honing their arguments against what they have termed the “fluffy fascists” of the BFP, and busy peddling the line that the EDL are the new 'blackshirts'. So, if you are a supporter of the Brent Group, what are your thoughts? Will you wait for a fortnight, or have you decided to join the British Freedom Party? Strangely, at the time of writing the British Freedom Party had not commented on this development.