WHATEVER IS THE BDP FOR? By Andrew Brons

This is a question that all organisations should ask themselves but few do.

Are Jim Lewthwaite and I, as well as Kevan Stafford and Chris Canham, so convinced that we are the lucky recipients of more than our fair share of Charisma (Gift of Grace etymologically)? Er, No! I can only speak for myself but I think that I must have been out when the delivery van carrying that commodity called.

Have we been so exceptionally successful in attracting members that the membership of all British Nationalist movements should be rushing to thrust their subscriptions into our hands. Er, Successful, No but Exceptional Yes, I am afraid so!

Have we had any successes? Yes, in 2019, Jim Lewthwaite in Wyke Ward, Bradford, came second behind only Labour, securing 25% of the vote. That is the highest vote for a long time for an overtly Nationalist party. I do not want to undervalue For Britain’s success is getting a candidate elected but that was on a platform of accepting multi-racialism.

Nevertheless, why do we not throw in the towel and join one of the least small British Nationalist parties – I shall not say largest! The answer is that none of them ticks all of the necessary boxes, although they all contain people of worth.

That is because we see the BDP or British Democrats as a template for an ideologically-sound and electable British Nationalist party. Our bottom line is not that Nationalists must flock to our ranks but that they should tick all of our boxes – take our ideas, if you like, and use them in their own parties.

None of us in the British Democrats have the slightest wish to lead a political party or pursue a political career. I am far too old for that. I would prefer to enjoy my retirement.

The BDP has a Constitution designed not to make the leadership powerful or immune to criticism or replacement. Our Constitution places constraints on the leadership and, in particular, prevents the leadership from using the party’s disciplinary procedures against internal critics and rivals. It prevents the leadership from appointing hanging judges and juries. Those eligible to sit on disciplinary tribunals are not chosen on an ad hoc basis. They are elected before any proceedings are contemplated and the tribunal members to sit in a particular case are chosen from those people by lot.

Security staff would not see their role to protect the leadership from the membership but to protect the Party from external opponents – especially agents of the state or violent opponents.

We would seek to be the right kind of moderates and not the wrong kind of moderates.

The right kind of moderates refrain from using offensive language about ethnic minorities or our peaceful and respectful opponents. Indeed, we shall refer to both in a respectful manner. Whilst we shall not refrain from making generalisations (including racial generalisations) when they are justified, we shall not seek to apply them to all of a group. We might say that a population group is disproportionately involved in a particular activity but we shall not say or imply that all or most are involved. Why? Because all or most are invariably not involved in reprehensible conduct.

Indeed, we must express our respect for ethnic minorities, provided of course that they behave themselves and we respect the most those who are proud of their ancestry. We say that they must be so proud that they want to re-invest themselves in their countries and continents of origin.

We must not be the wrong kind of moderate. They are people who pretend that ethnic minorities are just a different kind of Briton and that the British are defined by being born here or even simply by living here legally.

We do seek to be the right kind of radical, without being the wrong kind of radical. We recognise that there is a recognisable indigenous population of Britain and of other European countries. How is that population defined? It is defined by ancestry – by descent. I am sure that Ukipers would regard such a view as extreme and the holders of that view as extremists. Farage was once asked for the definition of a Briton and he said somebody who was legally resident here and paid his taxes. How absurd the man was and is!

Well, if our views are extreme and if we are extremists, we are in good company. There was a debate being held in 2014 about what constituted Britishness and a poll was conducted, in June 2014, by the respected polling organisation, British Social Attitudes. They found that 51% of those asked said that Britishness was defined by British descent. If we are such dreadful extremists, so is a majority of the population. If we assume that the population questioned would have contained an appropriate proportion of immigrants and ethnic minorities, the proportion of the indigenous population with our view would have been much higher.

What is the wrong kind of radical? They are people who express themselves to ethnic minorities or about ethnic minorities in insulting or disrespectful terms or who make over-generalisations that are not justified by the facts – by the truth. They are people who shout insults at ethnic minorities or even attack them. However, the number of attacks on whites by ethnic minorities is rather greater than the other way around. The killing of Steven Lawrence was indeed awful and to be condemned unreservedly but the case is so well-known because such a case is so rare.

We must never say or imply that racial attacks can ever be justified or excused or even ignored. The attack on, and murder of, fifty-one Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand was an outrage. So were the killings by the nail bomber in London in 1998. The perpetrators of such acts are not Nationalists; they are our enemy who cause us a great deal of harm. However, they must be condemned not just because their actions have harmed us but because their actions were utterly wrong.

We must make completely clear that we abhor political violence and that the murderer of Jo Cox MP was rightly prosecuted, convicted and put out of circulation. He was not a Nationalist and we must make that clear.

We must not imply, as I have heard some Nationalists imply, that members of the present government or of previous governments should be put on trial and then suffer some grisly end at our hands. That would imply that we have an agenda of taking revenge on our opponents. That might seem emotively satisfying to some but it would be putting our signature to an admission that we are not fit to govern.

We must obviously proclaim our right to free speech but we must also proclaim the rights of others to enjoy freedom of speech, provided, of course, that they do not advocate violence.

We must show that we respect our system of government based on Constitutional Monarchy and Parliamentary Democracy.

 

This article is intended to stimulate debate within and around the BDP as to what the Party is for. Further contributions on this theme are welcome.

Leave a Reply