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.

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.