Sunday 19 June 2011

BNP EGM Advice - Vote NO - NO - NO

British Nationalism faces a fork in the road.

You can either walk forwards with Andrew Brons or keep stepping backwards with Nick Griffin.

Vote NO / NO / NO at the BNP EGM.

When Searchlight, The Guardian and the UAF all agree that the BNP is better off under Nick Griffin - then logic dictates one must revise their opinion.

End the lickspittle cult of personality inside the BNP.

Create a BNP of the future - a party that stand prouds in a nationalist movement based solely on merit, where the best amongst us are given the means to succeed and where promotions and positions are not handed out to lickspittles soley on the basis of nepotism, sycophancy and obsequiousness.


Andrew Brons MEP has called upon all members of the British National Party to decisively reject all the proposed “constitutional amendments” to be put to the party’s upcoming General Members Meeting on 26 June.

Mr Brons made the call in a formal statement on the matter issued today, and reproduced in full as follows:

Statement by Andrew Brons MEP, leadership challenger for the British National Party 2011.

The Annual Conference in December considered three different constitutional proposals and voted for one devised by Arthur Kemp.

This proposal was for a new constitution with an (indirectly) elected National Executive and its own Chairman with the responsibility for running the Party with the separately elected Leader.

Its two salient features were that it would be elected and that it would be the governing body i.e. have power.
An amendment proposed by the Clive Jefferson that it should be appointed was expressly rejected.

Arthur Kemp’s proposal was supported by an overwhelming majority of the Annual Conference, which decided that it should be considered for adoption by an Extraordinary General Meeting.

A mostly appointed body without power is not the same as an elected body with power.

All of this is provable fact – the truth.

Our current Chairman has called a General Members’ Meeting for 26th June at which a completely different proposal is on the agenda for consideration.

This proposal is for an amendment to the existing constitution with an Executive without significant powers and the majority of the members of which will be appointed.
Our Chairman or his agents have described this, in the bulletin announcing the GMM, as a proposal that was overwhelmingly supported by the Annual Conference in December.
This is clearly and indisputably false.

Our Chairman has:

1. Interfered with one of the few democratic decisions taken by the Party by substituting a proposal of his own for that which was supported overwhelmingly by the Annual Conference.
The seriousness of this cannot be ignored.
Substituting a proposal that has not been passed for one that has been passed is the equivalent of emptying a ballot box and filling it with your own ballot papers!
2. Described his own proposal as the one that was overwhelmingly passed by the Conference.
This is simply untrue or to use one of our Chairman’s favourite words, it is a lie!
There might be some who like the idea of a Machiavellian Chairman who is not afraid to tell lies to get his own way.

However, this is not even a clever lie. It is not clever to tell an untruth that is demonstrably false.

To tell such an untruth is the act of a desperate fool.

This demonstrable untruth will haunt him throughout what remains of his political career.

Our Chairman really thinks that he can instruct the membership to believe what he wants them to believe.

It reminds us of the Party slogan in Orwell’s 1984: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

Whilst our Chairman might control the content of a party bulletin, the Voice of Freedom and the official party website, he does not yet have complete control of the present.

It is of the utmost importance that we reject our Chairman’s phoney constitutional proposal.

Only a decisive rejection of all of his proposals will stop his irrational thirst for complete and irreversible control of our Party and the minds of its members.
The British National Party is not Nick Griffin’s personal fiefdom; the Party belongs to its members. He must not treat the membership with contempt by telling them a provably false account of the decisions of the Annual Conference.


Add to Technorati Favorites

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Lee. Why do you care if NG stays or not? Aren't you with the Freedom Party?

Kind Regards,