Andrew Brons addresses Scarborough National Front meeting – Saturday 2nd June 2012
On Saturday 2nd June, North Yorkshire National Front organised a meeting on the subject of ‘a way forward’ for nationalism. Branch organiser Trisha Scott opened the meeting in front of an audience of local nationalists and introduced the first speaker, Dr Jim Lewthwaite – former BNP councillor and activist on behalf of his Democratic Nationalists party in Bradford.
Jim spoke about the divisions that existed within the nationalist movement and announced that the Democratic Nationalists were in talks to merge with the England First Party of Peter Rushton and Mark Cotterill. He talked at length about the shortcomings of Nick Griffin and the condition of the BNP during his leadership. He said he believed that the election results from last month had shown that it didn’t make any difference what label a ‘nationalist’ used or whether they represented a ‘hard-line’ or ‘moderate’ form of ‘nationalism’.
I was pleased to be allowed to speak briefly in reply to Jim. I said that advocates of ‘nationalist unity’ were simply moving imaginary armies about and for some people the endless meetings had started to be a substitute for taking the message of nationalism to the British people as exemplified by the twenty Scottish NF activists who were out on the streets of Inverness that day. I added that bringing back the BNP (or a replacement) shouldn’t be entertained as an option as Nick Griffin had been a symptom of its problems rather than their cause – one problem having been that too many of its leading members had seen their involvement in politics as a potentially lucrative hobby rather than a relentless struggle for Race and Nation. I concluded by saying that there was no need for any other parties as the National Front represented racial nationalism in Britain.
The next speaker was Eddy Morrison, who had agreed to speak five minutes before the meeting started after another speaker was unable to attend due to work commitments. Eddy’s talk was informative and inspiring and was applauded loudly by members of the audience, most of whom had not previously heard him speak.
During the interval, those present had an opportunity to renew old acquanintances and make new ones. After the break, Trisha introduced the final speaker of the afternoon – former National Front chairman and current BNP MEP Andrew Brons. Mr Brons spoke on the plight facing our country, what it meant to be a nationalist and the possibilities he saw for the nationalist movement.
He reminded us that the British people faced an ‘existential threat’ as immigration could quite simply wipe us out. Andrew said that, in addition to the worsening racial situation, it was likely that we would also face far worse economic conditions in years to come. He said that many of those people who believed that nationalism or politics had no relevance for them because they enjoyed a prosperous, trouble-free lifestyle were likely to change their views as they were likely to feel far less comfortable in the future. He said that globalisation would mean a levelling-off in living standards between poorer and richer countries and that those in Britain might fall precipitously. Nationalists could provide the answers because (to borrow a phrase from the Social Creditors), we believe that “What is physically possible must also be economically possible.”
In defining the core beliefs of nationalists, Andrew Brons particularly emphasised that -unlike our opponents- we believed that human beings were not ‘blank slates’ (tabulae rasae), that inherent qualities distinguished races and individuals and our policies must reflect this.
Andrew moved on to survey the current situation among nationalists in Britain. He said that the National Front “deserved to succeed because it was thorough-going racial nationalist party” (although -to represent his views fairly- he did add that whether or not it could succeed was another matter). By contrast, the English Democrats were a ‘deplorable party’ because of their commitment to multiracialism and deserved the support of no-one. He told us that he had previously stated that he woudl not join the EDP ‘if it was the last party on Earth’ and he stuck by that.
He disputed Jim Lewthwaite’s assertion that moderate ‘nationalists’ had done well in the recent elections. He pointed out that, while some English Democrats had done well in Leeds, including Chris Beverley who received 15% of the vote in the ward he used to represent for the BNP other EDP candidates had obtained 2, 3 or 4%s, Kevin Meeson, the sole BNP candidate had achieved over 20% of the vote his ward. He said that BNP members who had joined the English Democrats had discovered they attracted little hostility and come to conclusion that they were more ‘popular’; however, the truth was that they were simply ‘less unpopular’ than the BNP or NF, but also ‘less popular’ as few people were interested in them either way.
As far as the future of the BNP was concerned, he said he believed that Nick Griffin realised that -short of something exceptional happening- he hadn’t a hope of being re-elected to the European parliament and wanted a party “small enough that everyone in it loved him, yet rich enough that it was able to pay him a salary”.
Andrew Brons finished by listing the conditions and caveats, he believed would have to be observed to establish a successful nationalist party in the future. These were:
1. nationalists of goodwill should maintain lines of communication and not as a last resort;
2. the main nationalist party should be a ‘broad church’;
3. a ‘breakaway’ party could not succeed while the parent party was still in existence; and
4. a large party would bring in civic nationalists and education should be in the hands of true racial nationalists we could trust.
Although some of his prescriptions for the future of nationalism ran contrary to the views of most National Front members, everyone there was glad to have had an opportunity to listen to such a thoughtful speech and grateful to both Andrew brons for agreeing to speak and to the Scarborough committee for inviting him.
There were several contributions from the floor. Perhaps surprisingly, the topic of ‘nationalist unity’ was largely left alone in favour of questions on the economy and of whether some sort of ‘unity’ between White nations might be possible or desirable, although not along the same lines as the EU.
A couple of announcements were made about forthcoming NF activities and a collection held on behalf of the local branch. After the meeting was formally closed, members of the audience had the opportunity to chat to the speakers.
Jim spoke about the divisions that existed within the nationalist movement and announced that the Democratic Nationalists were in talks to merge with the England First Party of Peter Rushton and Mark Cotterill. He talked at length about the shortcomings of Nick Griffin and the condition of the BNP during his leadership. He said he believed that the election results from last month had shown that it didn’t make any difference what label a ‘nationalist’ used or whether they represented a ‘hard-line’ or ‘moderate’ form of ‘nationalism’.
I was pleased to be allowed to speak briefly in reply to Jim. I said that advocates of ‘nationalist unity’ were simply moving imaginary armies about and for some people the endless meetings had started to be a substitute for taking the message of nationalism to the British people as exemplified by the twenty Scottish NF activists who were out on the streets of Inverness that day. I added that bringing back the BNP (or a replacement) shouldn’t be entertained as an option as Nick Griffin had been a symptom of its problems rather than their cause – one problem having been that too many of its leading members had seen their involvement in politics as a potentially lucrative hobby rather than a relentless struggle for Race and Nation. I concluded by saying that there was no need for any other parties as the National Front represented racial nationalism in Britain.
The next speaker was Eddy Morrison, who had agreed to speak five minutes before the meeting started after another speaker was unable to attend due to work commitments. Eddy’s talk was informative and inspiring and was applauded loudly by members of the audience, most of whom had not previously heard him speak.
During the interval, those present had an opportunity to renew old acquanintances and make new ones. After the break, Trisha introduced the final speaker of the afternoon – former National Front chairman and current BNP MEP Andrew Brons. Mr Brons spoke on the plight facing our country, what it meant to be a nationalist and the possibilities he saw for the nationalist movement.
He reminded us that the British people faced an ‘existential threat’ as immigration could quite simply wipe us out. Andrew said that, in addition to the worsening racial situation, it was likely that we would also face far worse economic conditions in years to come. He said that many of those people who believed that nationalism or politics had no relevance for them because they enjoyed a prosperous, trouble-free lifestyle were likely to change their views as they were likely to feel far less comfortable in the future. He said that globalisation would mean a levelling-off in living standards between poorer and richer countries and that those in Britain might fall precipitously. Nationalists could provide the answers because (to borrow a phrase from the Social Creditors), we believe that “What is physically possible must also be economically possible.”
In defining the core beliefs of nationalists, Andrew Brons particularly emphasised that -unlike our opponents- we believed that human beings were not ‘blank slates’ (tabulae rasae), that inherent qualities distinguished races and individuals and our policies must reflect this.
Andrew moved on to survey the current situation among nationalists in Britain. He said that the National Front “deserved to succeed because it was thorough-going racial nationalist party” (although -to represent his views fairly- he did add that whether or not it could succeed was another matter). By contrast, the English Democrats were a ‘deplorable party’ because of their commitment to multiracialism and deserved the support of no-one. He told us that he had previously stated that he woudl not join the EDP ‘if it was the last party on Earth’ and he stuck by that.
He disputed Jim Lewthwaite’s assertion that moderate ‘nationalists’ had done well in the recent elections. He pointed out that, while some English Democrats had done well in Leeds, including Chris Beverley who received 15% of the vote in the ward he used to represent for the BNP other EDP candidates had obtained 2, 3 or 4%s, Kevin Meeson, the sole BNP candidate had achieved over 20% of the vote his ward. He said that BNP members who had joined the English Democrats had discovered they attracted little hostility and come to conclusion that they were more ‘popular’; however, the truth was that they were simply ‘less unpopular’ than the BNP or NF, but also ‘less popular’ as few people were interested in them either way.
As far as the future of the BNP was concerned, he said he believed that Nick Griffin realised that -short of something exceptional happening- he hadn’t a hope of being re-elected to the European parliament and wanted a party “small enough that everyone in it loved him, yet rich enough that it was able to pay him a salary”.
Andrew Brons finished by listing the conditions and caveats, he believed would have to be observed to establish a successful nationalist party in the future. These were:
1. nationalists of goodwill should maintain lines of communication and not as a last resort;
2. the main nationalist party should be a ‘broad church’;
3. a ‘breakaway’ party could not succeed while the parent party was still in existence; and
4. a large party would bring in civic nationalists and education should be in the hands of true racial nationalists we could trust.
Although some of his prescriptions for the future of nationalism ran contrary to the views of most National Front members, everyone there was glad to have had an opportunity to listen to such a thoughtful speech and grateful to both Andrew brons for agreeing to speak and to the Scarborough committee for inviting him.
There were several contributions from the floor. Perhaps surprisingly, the topic of ‘nationalist unity’ was largely left alone in favour of questions on the economy and of whether some sort of ‘unity’ between White nations might be possible or desirable, although not along the same lines as the EU.
A couple of announcements were made about forthcoming NF activities and a collection held on behalf of the local branch. After the meeting was formally closed, members of the audience had the opportunity to chat to the speakers.
__________________
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t892770/
Good work from Trisha, Hopefully our conversation on the stairs, did a little good Trish ;-). My regards to you and yours.
Sean.
WHAT MORE CAN ONE SAY?
establishmentwatch 
Leaked Bilderberg Documents: “Nationalism Is Dangerous” http://www.infowars.com/leaked-bilderberg-documents-nationalism-is-dangerous/
"Peter Rushton and Mark Cotterill" (those two again?).England First Party, mergers, broad church yap yap yap.Nationalisms going around in circles, like a dog chasing its own tail.I am sick of it, it's become a farce of repetitive meetings with grand sounding strategies and no substance.Mergers, healing wounds and unity.There's never any progress as a result of mergers.Nationalisms a basket case and I don't necessarily blame the anti's or the establishment.The problem lies within nationalism itself, it should NOT be a broad church.Let the shit drift off and set up their toy parties, fuck any reconciliations and hand shaking (it doesn't last).Genuine nationalists shouldn't even co operate with these fools, there is only one brand of nationalism and it should NEVER be diluted.Dealing with these 'moderate modernisers', is like sharing your bed with bed bugs.Don't indulge them, it's better to quarantine them-they are an 'ideological disease' and are highly contagious.They helped to kill off the BNP, by spreading their 'new cool look' agenda.If this watered down nationalism was the way forward, then these splinter paries would have thousands of members knocking on their doors!.If the NF marries up with these individuals, it will be the kiss of death.The NF now appears to be the only party that is still true to its core beliefs.The way forward is to educate the young new blood, with the old values.The old worn out fags like agent Peter Rushton, should be shown the door.If these same old faces are allowed to ruin the new generation of nationalists, then lets call it a day.We need no nonsense, fire breathing nationalists, who have backbone and can inspire the new blood of the movement, not some feeble shirt and tie wet fart like Rushton.Can anyone imagine Rushton leading the storming of the barricades?.We need men to lead the nationalist movement, men of the John Tyndall breed.
Don't trust the East End London jew Brons(stein) – he was in the thick of it, along with his co-conspirators, MI5 puppets jewboy Gri££in and the deviant Patricia Brown-Hatter Turdway Harrington, in the fragmentation of the National Front.Fly On The Wall
Just because your White doesn't make you alright!FoS!
It was rather odd how Brons stayed with the young Turks triumverate of Griffin-Holland-Harrington when he was far more comfortable amongst the ranks of Wingfield-Brady-Anderson, but saying that, Joe Pearce also didn't side with the triumverate.
Brons has often shown an intelligent and thoughtful contribution to British nationalism, and his analysis has often be acute and accurate.However, his solutions have not always been the best. Whilst Brons has shown a distinct aptitude for intelligent thinking his leadership skills have been extremely poor and he has frequently displayed cowardice. From the beginning of the BNP fragmentation process Brons has displayed a remarkable and frightening lack of leadership, preferring to do nothing to rock the boat or to initiate a solution based on his leadership.Brons behaviour during the NF crises should give us all cause to be wary of his inner courage and judgment.We do not need more of the same, or leaders from the past. They tend to carry that same old corrupt nationalist DNA from the old NF.We need new solutions and new thinking. The NF certainly needs to be admired and respected for crrying that flame of racial nationalism but it also carries political baggage which unfortunately means that it is not a suitable vehicle necessarily.ALL of us must become leaders and begin taking responsibility. That doesn't just mean leaderless resistance. It means doing practical things and getting out in the community. Laying down roots. In future articles this will be discussed in some more detail but I would strongly advise all of us to look within and not without, waiting for change to happen.Change won't come from Brons or any of the old leaders. We are all leaders and we must all take that leadership upon us.Now each of us go with that in our hearts and reach out to OUR community. Starting off with our families, friends, work mates and neighbours. It is up to us now how the future will become.
Brons has done his stint (good or bad) and now – and as per the comments above – is time for a new way. Politics is dead to us, but that does not necessarily mean that a political movement, such as the NF (in fact only the NF at present), should not become a beacon for potential White Nationalists.What really fucks me off are the know-it-alls that condemn but do nothing. For example, those that bemoan Harold Covington as being some sort of crank (which he may well be for all I know) but do not utilise some of the positive things he has brought to our movement, e.g., his book The March Up Country. I recommend everyone serous about the white resistance reads it.We need to learn from everything around us; from the past and present, from our enemies and the greatest of our kind. We have to stop being so precious about what we say and how we say it. First of all, though, we must ditch democracy and prepare ourselves for a future were we will be forced to work together no matter how much we might clash today.Regards,N.G.
I have one thing to say, which may appear controversial.The National Front…is the only organisation worthy of the name 'nationalist'.But I'll say what should be obvious to everyone, the name National Front [NF] has been tainted by past association with the filthy rats who deliberately tore it apart, like Griffin et al).The public have these images in their minds, I think it would be fair to say that the rats have left a very nasty smell behind them.Here's my controversial idea, which may get a lot of flack, I think that to cleanse itself of its Griffin/splits/ ghosts in the public mind-that all the members rename the party.I ask people questions, to guage what's the general impression people have of the NF, unfortunately they still have a 1970's mental picture of the NF!.A lot of names have been used already, most being pretty bland.The Greeks have an amazing party name (in my opinion) Golden Dawn, I wish I would have thought of that.With the front still having the balls to take to the streets in protest, how about 'Direct Action Party U.K'? or something equally dynamic (I just checked the net and there is a action direct U.K, but not an Direct Action Party U.K).Maybe there's better names that suggests 'action' (non violent ofcourse, but at least it sounds ballsy!).All the British this and that parties have been exausted, it needs a new touch.Hows about; Direct Action Group (D.A.G) or Direct Action Group?.My idea may not go down well, but at least those names I suggested give of an air of 'political activity' and hint at forward progressive movement.I personally think it would breath new life in to the NF as a party, they have the political infrastructure already in place-so it would just be a relaunch with a new fresh party name (which sounds more impressive that the other so called nationalist parties, because it sounds unique and politically'tougher' than the other boring names!).Think about it people, I believe that it has a ring to it… Direct Action Party U.K ???? (plus it should attract the gutsy youth, who have been swallowed up by the zionist scumbags E.D.L).
"I have one thing to say, which may appear controversial.The National Front…is the only organisation worthy of the name 'nationalist'."Anon is right here about the NF being the only organisation (or at least one of only a couple) worthy of the name 'nationalist'.Yes, 'Golden Dawn' is just an evocative name, imaginative and out-of-the-box thinking, which is what we in Britain currently lack.Although I don't agree with Anon's sugegstred name for a new or revamped party (DAG) at least Anon has had the guts and imagination to raise the point and to go with his/her ideas.
By the way, did you know that the name 'Golden Dawn' was also the name of an English occult organisation that originatd in the 19th century and was extremely influential? It is such a superb name for any kind of new and radical grouping.
Nick Gifford ssaid, amongst other things,"We need to learn from everything around us; from the past and present, from our enemies and the greatest of our kind. We have to stop being so precious about what we say and how we say it. First of all, though, we must ditch democracy and prepare ourselves for a future were we will be forced to work together no matter how much we might clash today."Whilst I wouldn't go as far as to reject democracy and the democratic process in its entirity, he makes some excellent points about the fact that we should all learn from others, including our enemies.Yes, Covington's book is essential raeding and can be pirchased from Amazon UK:http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-March-Country-Harold-Covington/dp/1593640099
Addressed to nemesis from anon @10 June 2012 23:29 (I'm a man last time I checked haha).The Golden Dawn is a great name, though it may be a little too poetic for British tastes.To expand on my earlier suggestion, if the party [NF] were renamed Direct Action Party, then branches could be; 'Direct Action Groups' and smaller elements; 'Direct Action Units'.I wish I could pass the idea on to the NF, they would most likely tell me to p*** off.It even sounds a little militant,in a 'legal protest'sense.Like I was saying before, I am going off the feedback from the average guy in the street and the NF is seen as a 'this is England' boots and braces Griffin cock up.
Nationalism dangerous? Not with the Griffster in the driving seat, who has chauffeured the vehicle into a political cul de sac at the behest of his masters.
I predict Morrison will be allowed to re-join the NF, will (again) in spite of his previous fuck up, be allowed to control their site, (re) start Spearhead (or another title)., be selling pirated DVD's and will again get drunk and piss all their efforts away.I would consider supporting the NF, but only AFTER Eddy &co. have being permanently BINNED!