6th January 2019
Reunification of the British National Party and the National Front
This article is written by a nationalist who has been an official of the NF and BNP continuously since 1977 and has been at the centre, or just off centre, of many of the formative events within the movement and met many of the leading personalities.
Nationalism in the UK has, in my opinion, been a mess from the start and has been led by persons more interested in self rather than the nation. In fact, this self interest could be said to go back as far as prewar and Moseley. This article is meant to start the process of sorting out the mess and to point people in the right direction so that unity becomes possible. Many of the remarks are generalisations.
Some of the suggestions may appear harsh and require major changes in outlook for some members. One could not expect these members to make immediate changes to their outlook but one hopes for gradual change.
What must not happen is for people to march off in a huff leaving the main body of nationalists and forming yet another midget party.
In the article below there are references to other articles. I would suggest that on a first reading these are ignored, as there is too much detail to take in at one go.
From time to time people make pleas for the unification of all nationalist parties. However, in general, these pleas for unity are pointless if unaccompanied by an understanding of why people are disunited and a subsequent plan how to deal with the differences.
It is axiomatic that the two parties united stand a much better chance of growing and being able to find and support candidates for election as Councillors and MPs. And then, just as importantly, maintaining that support when they are elected. It can be assumed that the forces destroying our Nation are delighted at the split between the BNP and the NF and will encourage the continuance of that split.
Two questions need answering, if a serious attempt is made to unite these parties:
Why did the original National Front split?
What are the major differences between the parties?
There is no doubt that a major reason for the break-up of the original National Front was the demand by John Tyndall for more power for the Party Chairman, that is, himself. There were other reasons, such as the discovery by Party members that Martin Webster, the Party’s Activity Organiser, was an overt homosexual. However, John Tyndall breaking away and forming a new party – the New National Front - was the principal cause. He then went on, despite advice to the contrary, to rename that party as the British National Party and thus put off many English and Scots who don’t see themselves as ‘British’.
The split then was primarily a split caused by personalities rather than policy.
John Tyndall wrote a Constitution for the British National Party that gave him autocratic powers. This Constitution has caused major problems particularly with John Tyndall’s successor, Nick Griffin.
The BNP, especially since the time of Nick Griffin as leader, has fudged important matters of policy, for example, it has allowed non-whites to join the Party and it states that foreigners already here may stay. Under its Constitution Nick Griffin was able to quarrel with and expel leading members and it was alleged on many occasions that Party money has been ‘squirreled’ away unaccounted for.
As a generalisation, current BNP members are mainly those who wish to be seen as reasonable and nice.
Turning to the NF, the problem here is that, in effect, there are two parties. One part of the Party believes that the Party is a normal UK political party, whilst the other part believes the Party is part of some world-wide white movement that includes liaison with foreign political parties of dubious make-up. Worse still some of these members are tainted with admiration for Adolf Hitler. Again, many of these members wear black clothing as per the original fascists (Mussolini’s men), the SS and Oswald Moseley’s BUF. This makes it hard to refute the jibe made by the hooligan opposition that the NF are “Fascists!”.
To bring the two sections together, these major differences need to be removed. This will not be easy, but must be done.
BNP members need to toughen up – they should take a look at many of our inner cities and see the huge concentration of fast breeding foreigners. Allowing them to stay is a death sentence for our nation. They have to learn that we are fighting an undeclared war against a nebulous but powerful enemy ( See para 4). The BNP Constitution is a nonsense and must be ditched.
The NF must make up its mind whether it is a UK political party working in the democratic system to select and support candidates in UK elections, or that it is clandestine re-incarnation of military dictatorship with Hitler as its hero.
The National Front needs to openly state that it is not tainted with Hitlerism otherwise there is no chance of unification.
On the good side, the NF has a simple written policy, see Leading policies. And although needing detailed update, its Constitution is of a federal nature and does not allow the Party to be run by a dictator.
The ultimate authority within the NF is the members in Conference.
Both the BNP and NF should bear the above facts and suggestions in mind when taking future actions.
Backgound reference: Backgound
In the articles found in the above reference, there is an explanation of:
1. The nature of our enemy – Molochism.
2. The fact that AH was not a National Socialist, he just conned the German people that
3. Religion and anti-religion (Molochism): Article
Return to Links