|A Stink in High Places||John Tyndall comments on proposed BNP constitutional changes|
Nick Griffin, in his paper putting forward his proposals for altering the constitution of the British National Party to enable non-Whites to become members, announced that this topic had been discussed at a leadership conference in July and that the proposals had been endorsed by "the unanimous opinion" of those present. The proposals, examined by our editor on pages 6-9 of this issue of Spearhead magazine, involve the putting to a postal ballot of the party membership a formula for complying with some, as yet, purely hypothetical legislation forcing the party to scrap its rule that members must of British or kindred European descent.
What should concern us here as a matter of the utmost gravity is the "unanimous opinion" of Mr. Griffin's colleagues to which he refers. Just how was this obtained? These people are supposed to be the senior representatives of the BNP around the country and in its various departments. It is already clear from feedback from the party's grass roots that there is massive opposition to Mr. Griffin's scheme. It is extremely unhealthy in any organism - whether political party, club, society, company or nation - when the consensus among those at the top is far removed from that below, so that one cannot remotely be seen as representative of the other. Yet it appears that at the conference at which these matters were put to those present not one single firm voice of dissent was raised. Is Mr. Griffin's 'leadership' circle a consultative body in which brains are pooled to deliberate on and debate serious questions affecting the party so that its senior executive has the benefit of prudent counsel? Or is that circle merely a collective rubber stamp for the exercise of its leader's will?
In this case, the lamentable failure of the conference to posit the obvious objections to the proposed rule-change suggests that the latter is true.
People with close connections to Spearhead have in fact spoken to one person who was present at Mr. Griffin's conference and obtained from him the admission that he now deeply regrets having so easily been stampeded into endorsing the Griffin scheme: he saw all the hands go up and thought he had better not be seen as the odd man out - a moment of weakness for which at least he is entitled to respect for admitting it.
There cannot be the slightest doubt in the mind of any reasonable observer that a move to admit non-Whites to BNP membership in advance of any legal obligation to do so would cause so much internal division that it would, in effect, split the party in two. The question that must follow from this is: does there exist some undisclosed strategy in which this is in fact a deliberate aim? Does the party leadership actually want to drive out of the BNP all genuine racial nationalists and leave it with a mere rump of tame semi-Tories who will be all the more amenable to yet further 'liberalisation'? Additionally, it might be asked: is there a strategy directed at removing the BNP from participation in elections - just at a time when its prospects in that arena are so promising? We ask this because just that option is one of the ones specified in Mr. Griffin's paper as seemingly preferable to the others.
If these suspicions should prove founded, this would amount to nothing less than treason against our party.
All this must lead to the question of how and why the people attending Mr. Griffin's 'top table' come to be there. What are the criteria for their selection? There is already evidence throughout the BNP that several senior officials have been appointed on the basis not of competence and performance but of servility towards the leadership. This is not the way to achieve an efficient organisation but it certainly is the way to sow discord.
Then there is another matter, which we suggest is not unrelated. There was an admission from BNP headquarters some time last year that no fewer than thirty officials in the party were being paid some kind of financial emoluments for their services - a figure quite ridiculous for a party of the size and resources of the BNP. We have heard that there have recently been further additions to this number. Is there some connection between these monetary arrangements and the seemingly slave-like acquiescence of so many top officials in recent controversial policy initiatives, most notably the latest one directed towards admission of aliens to membership?
Whatever the truth is here, we suggest that the time has come for the party as a whole to be honestly informed as to who among its officials are being paid, and in each case how much.
We know that there are some in leading positions in the BNP who are honourable nationalists, do what they do for motives of service to the party and would still do it even if they were not paid.
But these people need to take careful stock of their positions and ask themselves: are they sometimes tempted to say 'Yes' to bad policy and personnel decisions by the thought that some of their monthly bills might remain unpaid if they were to do otherwise? And can they accept money from the party with an entirely clear conscience when they know that so much is wrong within it which they have done nothing to oppose?
A final question must be asked about these payments to so many official personnel: just how is the money available to make them possible? Just where is it all coming from?
In the BNP right now there is a powerful stink in high places. Until those at the top become more transparent and stop treating the members as idiots this stink will remain. Just what is going on? The people who trudge the streets and donate the money have a right to know.