This is a guest article by Temeraire.

I’m not normally one for posting things, but I have been looking at this forum – and the debates taking place here – and I feel certain things need to be said. As I am a patriot who is not a member of any political party I think I am able to view things a little more dispassionately and clearly than those whose judgement is clouded by ties and loyalty to a particularly party.
This was a unique election, in that no party emerged satisfied with the result. Labour obviously lost power, the Conservatives failed to achieve a parliamentary majority and the Liberals, far from gaining seats as they had expected, actually lost some. The Greens won an MP, ‘tis true, but their share of the vote other than in Brighton was pathetic. Neither the Scottish nor Welsh nationalists advanced and neither the BNP nor UKIP gained parliamentary seats – nor even came second anywhere.

Although the election result doesn’t really affect me personally, as a patriot I do take an interest in the BNP and UKIP (as well as the Conservatives), so let’s look at these two in more detail. Both parties can take a few crumbs of comfort from the election. Both parties saw an increase in their vote, with UKIP standing in more seats but the BNP showing more growth and beating UKIP in a majority of their head to heads. Where the BNP had stood before, they saw their vote increase (including in places like Barking where they gained around 1,500 more votes) and their average vote across the UK increased fractionally despite standing in so many new (and hence, weaker) areas. Their overall progress was, however, very small and areas like Barking demonstrate that where they are strong they cannot increase faster than their (white) supporters are being ethnically cleansed.

Organisationally, both UKIP and the BNP are disaster areas. Lord Pearson has neither the will nor ability to lead UKIP, Farage is utterly self-obsessed and Griffin has no man-management ability whatsoever. Just look at the Simon Bennett fiasco, where the BNP lost its most able and hard-working webmaster. Yes, Simon completely overreacted to what was never a serious problem (I refer to the Marmite joke), but a good man-manager understands when staff need to be reassured, helped and motivated. Similarly, look at the way Bailey, Noble, Butler, Witherspoon or a host of other able personnel have been lost to the party. These are not the actions of a good party chairman.

And here is the BNP’s first problem. It is an utter nonsense, a mountainous imbecility, a monstrous idiocy to have one person – Nick Griffin – being both party leader and party chairman. What other serious party combines these two roles? It simply cannot be done. The work is too much for any one man and the concentration of power in one pair of hands is wholly unhealthy.

The first thing the BNP needs to do is separate these two roles. A good manager – and someone who has no desire to be party leader – needs to be appointed or elected to the role of party chairman, responsible for all administrative, managerial and financial issues. This would leave the party leader free to concentrate on purely political issues, such as policies, tactics and representing the party in the media.

The second thing that needs to happen for patriotic policies to prosper in Britain is that UKIP and the BNP need to merge. Of course that cannot and will not happen under their current leaderships, but if new men were chosen then I see no real reason why this should be considered unrealistic. After all, what are their policy differences? There are no serious ones. Given the huge overlap in their policies, and the fact that neither can be successful while the other one is competing against them, and the fact that every election shows that neither party can ‘knock out’ the other one, the conclusion is inescapable.

To summarise therefore: the BNP needs to begin by separating the roles of party leader and party chairman. A good manager (a proven regional organiser, perhaps) needs to be appointed as party chairman. This will stop the haemorrhaging of good people and the concerns over party finances which are corroding party morale. This is urgent and should be done before the end of this year.

Secondly, the BNP needs to elect a new party leader within the next couple of years. Nick Griffin has immeasurably improved the BNP from the days of John Tyndall, and the party manifesto is now one which no reasonable patriot could possibly object to. The public does not, however, fully trust Nick Griffin himself, and he needs to accept that he has taken the party as far as he can and now is the time to hand the reins on to another man. He has done a very good job in the past but he needs to accept that the party now needs someone who has no baggage that can be abused by the media. If someone like Michael Barnbrook, for instance, was elected leader, then it would be impossible for the BNP’s opponents to indulge in ad hominem attacks and they would have to focus on the BNP’s policies – which most British people support.

Finally, in the longer term, only a merger between the BNP and UKIP will see these parties achieve serious political success. If that doesn’t happen, well so be it. It is not, after all, the BNP that loses elections – it is the British people. The BNP will always continue and be there for those that want it. If the British people are too stupid to vote for the only party that cares about them and will look after their interests then more fools them. They will continue to suffer and will deserve to do so – after all, they have voted for parties that hate them. When they can’t get a job, or a home, or their taxes go up, or they are the victims of crime, they will complain, but they have voted for the parties whose policies encourage all these things so it is the British people who have lost, not the only party that offered them a better future.

Please bear in mind that this is a discussion piece only. Many relevant points are raised in this piece, even if the suggestion of a merger is quite ‘out there’.

na·tion·al·ism

–noun

1. national spirit or aspirations.
2.devotion and loyalty to one’s own nation; patriotism.
3.the desire for national advancement or independence.
4. the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations.

Looking at those descriptions, there is not one negative aspect to TRUE nationalism. It also describes the majority of people in this country. Do you seriously believe that the people of this nation do not wish for us to advance? Aspire to a greater and more prosperous position? Our people make the nation, without them, there is no nation. This we need to focus on, so, why didn’t we win the election? Why did we lose seats? Because people honestly fear the intentions/agendas inside of the BNP. I spoken to so many that want this country to reform. They all had the same thoughts as myself,  but come that election day, I found they all voted for UKIP and other parties such as Labour… Because they felt there wasn’t a real other option. The past of the party is what they feared. And now, even in the present, we have had skeletons coming out from the closet.

There is so much crap that we need to fix, to get to TRUE nationalism.

I am a territorial nationalist, so for some, I am sure you will not like what I have to say. I respect that. I found it hard being under the BNP banner to listen and debate about this crap that I speak of that needs to be fixed. Amateur and pathetic ways need to cease. For example, the “Whites only membership policy,” what a waste of time. Taking something as petty and pathetic and drawing it out many times in court, Black, browns, whatever. I don’t see colour. Colour isn’t an issue, what is an issue is the preservation of the nation.

(The BNP already believe this!!) Well, I’d disagree, why would it be so drawn out? Other crap that needs to cease. Protecting/standing up for the corrupt. If you are here to spread a different agenda than true patriotism you should be removed not stood up for. You want to line your own pockets or move things to a personal agenda instead of a national one, then there is no room for you. That is surely some form of treason.

So True Nationalism, would be the intentions at the very top of the page, these should be our goal. Combine them then with the people who are the nation.

We are all moving off into small splinter cells. Look around at all these small factions; they need to unite together. “United we stand, divided we fall.” Do we really fail to see the Maxims philosophy of ‘divid et impera’ ? (divide and conquer).

I feel we need to escape the shackles of the past and restore the term “Nationalism” to where it belongs instead of having it tagged to corruption, hatred and evil.

Article submitted by: XVII