In this month ten years ago, John Tyndall died. His real legacy is not the insignificant remains of the parties of which he was once chairman, but which now exist only on paper. It is his example of indomitable commitment to the cause of British nationalism, his writing and oratory that inspire those who again raise its standard and carry it forward.
We do not hero-worship him, or anyone for that matter. I never met John. By the time I joined the party he had helped to found and led for almost two decades, he had shamefully been expelled for the second and last time. I have spoken to some of those who knew him best. And I have read and listened to his words.
Like everyone, he had his faults as well as his good points. No doubt, as we all do, he made mistakes. Perhaps donning a para-military uniform in the early 1960s and launching a breakaway party based on the ‘leader principle’ in the early 1980s, were the most serious, as I think he eventually recognized. Democracy being the worst system, except for all the others, as the eventual disintegration of that party showed only too clearly.
Perhaps it’s idle to speculate about what he would make of the current state of British nationalism were he alive today. Though I am confident that, unlike many ‘weaker brethren’, he would not be disheartened and lapse into quiescence. Nor would he abandon electoral politics in order to peddle fantasy to the gullible.
He would not undergo cosmetic surgery and change his name in the hope of sneaking into UKIP by the back-door. He would scorn to deliver leaflets for, vote for, or donate to a party that would not have him as a member. He would regard any nationalist debarred from membership of UKIP, who nonetheless helped that party as lacking moral fibre. He would be 100% correct in this opinion. He would not be seen at an EDL march or demonstration.
What he would do is point out: the unprecedented opportunities that now exist for the cause to which his life was dedicated; the utter futility of any supposed alternative to electoral politics; and the inevitability of winning the overwhelming support of our people for a reversal of multiracialist immigration.
The political situation in Britain has never been more favourable for the acceptance of nationalist ideas and is becoming even more favourable with each passing day. Never within living memory have our people been more amenable to these ideas. Our people are turning again to what Enoch Powell called ‘the great simplicities’ and in due course will utterly confound the mumbo-jumbo men of the political and media Establishment.
All that is needed is to strengthen the instrument of action – the party. As nationalists we know this can be done because many of us have done it in the past. In today’s much more promising political circumstances it should be possible to do it even more quickly and efficiently.
There is no better way of getting our message of hope to our people than through a nationalist political party. Doing nothing while waiting for a bandwagon to arrive is not a sensible option. Quite apart from any other consideration, if the bandwagon can be heard coming then it’s already too late to climb aboard.
A large membership, though, is no longer a necessity for a successful nationalist party. A few good men are better than numbers. In any case, the day of the mass party may well be over, now there are so many other leisure pursuits vying for the attention of the individual. Our role should be that of the politically aware vanguard of our people and for this quality matters more than quantity.
Marches and demonstrations attract a certain amount of publicity but also attract counter-demonstrations and an institutionally hostile media use the atmosphere of conflict to convey an image of nationalism that is electorally unhelpful. The 1970s saw a great many nationalist marches and demonstrations, but they never saw the election of more than a couple of nationalist councillors.
The election of just a single nationalist councillor, to a seat they have not previously held, could begin a revival of the fortunes of nationalism similar to what we saw from 2002 onward, though developing much more rapidly and on a much larger scale.
A victory at borough or district council level, other things being equal, will lead to an increase in party membership and more importantly, further victories. A nationalist party built upon more solid democratic foundations than in the past, its leadership team directly elected at an AGM and not by postal ballot, for obvious reasons, will then be able to progress to further victories at parliamentary level.
The lack of sound democratic foundations in the past largely explains the failure of nationalism to make better progress. Free speech, including the right both publicly and privately to criticize the leadership of the party without fear of victimization, is essential. As nationalists we rightly protest against the erosion of free speech by government. To be consistent we should set a good example by defending free speech within our own party.
Nationalism must outgrow its immature culture of coup and purge, of intra-party faction fights, of suspension and expulsion, if we are to win the confidence of our people as a whole.
Many who, in the past, considered joining a nationalist party must have been put off by such a spectacle of pettiness. Who would want to invest their time and money in something from which they could be unfairly excluded at the drop of a hat?
Those who live by the bureaucratic maneouvre die by the bureaucratic manoeuvre, as what goes around comes around. We should always remember that the public will take the way nationalists treat one another as an indication of the way we would behave in government.
Purges, often of the best and most active members, are an abuse of the disciplinary process, an abuse of power and inevitably weaken a party. This would be a cause of concern to any activists whose aim was to make their party a contender for government. On the other hand, those whose primary concern was to acquire or retain control of a party’s money, in order to misuse it to pay themselves wages, might well regard such blood-letting as being of little consequence.
Patria proposes that however big we become, there should be no party payroll, disputes over which have contributed in large measure to dissension within nationalism in the past. Instead, every member, including the leader and treasurer, would be a volunteer and give their time to the party on an unpaid basis.
Legitimate expenses would still be payable, but the principle should be that no officer should claim expenses from the party for doing something which a member does free of charge.
Were this principle of universal voluntary service to the party to be adopted more widely, it would be likely to deter some of the more unsavoury types that currently plague nationalism from seeking leading roles to which they are, in any case, wholly unsuited.
As nationalists and patriots our task is to support the party. We should not want the party to support us.
‘Few things are impossible in themselves; it is not so much the means we lack as perseverance to make them succeed.’
We in Patria are resolved to build a nationalist Britain. Come join us in the work!