Having had more time to digest the BNP ideas meeting and time to gather my thoughts and analyse the tone and atmosphere of the meeting I realise the difference between this meeting and other BNP meetings I have attended.
First the participants (not audience) were not all Party members.
There was no omnipotent hierarchy dominating the meeting.
Of course there was a "top table" including Andrew Brons but the meeting was chaired fairly and of course competently by Arthur Kemp.
There was the chance of all present, members and nonmembers but all nationalists to have their say as how to best progress the cause.
Arthur Kemp stated at the beginning that we should not dwell too much on the past but that our purpose was to find a way to promote the cause in the future. Many different ideas were considered from starting a new party to joining a new party.
All were agreed that the need to unite the nationalist cause, but how? What is the best way?
All present were allowed to have their input and in the end the consensus was that a new party was unviable.
It was agreed that the BNP had a toxic reputation but that was largely owing to the malign influence of Nick Griffin and his cohorts, but that cleansed of him and these others a new clean party, untainted by them could emerge.
The BNP in its present form it was agreed was finished with a decreasing membership and questions to be answered regarding financial and other aspects of its management due to be answered in court.
So what was decided?
A new party it was considered was a non starter and bound to fall into oblivion as will the many new micro nationalist parties which have sprung up in the last year.
The consensus of the meeting was that we should have a parallel group with no name ( to avoid proscription) ready to take over when the inevitable demise of the present BNP occurs.
Contacts should be made with existing BNP members as well as those formerly with us to join this NATIONALIST grouping in readiness to take over when the time comes.
Of course this puts more work on to Andrew Brons but with others in the room the burden on him can be lessened.
Andrew was reluctant to take on any extra work. He was there because of his belief in our country and people, not his pocket, which makes him unique among politicians.
And finally, the attendees were self selected from the best of our nationalist bretheren.
All they wished for was UNITY, and that was evident at the meeting.
So whatever happens to the dieing corpse of the present BNP there will with the help of those at the meeting a new CLEAN vehicle to take the cause of Nationalism, patriotism and our country forward.
WE SAW QUALITY YESTERDAY
