Gay nationalist Peter Phillips did *not* part ways with BDP because they had a problem with him being out and proud

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/blogs/searchlight-blog/engine-trouble-stalls-andrew-brons%E2%80%99s-new-party

It was because he disagreed with the way the party was being run, and it is being run by committee.

http://www.tomschori.com/35800.HTM explains this concept.

It is also another way of saying run by buck-passing.

When I was excluded from the London IONA Forum it was a decision by Committee.  Ditto Traditional Britain Group.  http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/why-do-traditional-britain-group.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_passing

Below are a few more suggestions of what it all means.

"It means they're pretending to make decisions as a group. But in reality the decisions have already been made by their handlers. It's all a sham."

"It's a way to avoid ever having a responsible party to blame."

They have a committee structure and insist on everything being "bottom up" up rather than "top down", whatever that means.  Party members think Andrew Brons is President, but he isn't and they have no real leader.  Kevin Scott is only the Chairman of the Steering Committee.  It is clear that they lack party identity and different regions do whatever they like.

It is possible that Peter Phillips

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrB_ITm-0k4

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/jun/16/uk.thefarright

wanted a shot at the leadership, but everyone else was in favour of the Committee System.  You can see from his analysis of the national debt that he is leadership material, but it seems that is not good enough for the easily-frightened founder members of the BDP who really didn't want a leader at all.   The fact that he is gay would add great interest, but they decided not to take any chances.  He must have seen that the BDP was a hopeless case and because of this wouldn't give them the True Brits name which he had copyrighted.

It seems the Committee System is an extreme response to Nick Griffin's leadership style of Führerprinzip http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip

Instead of electing a leader with suitable checks and balances, they basically opted to have no leader at all.

How interesting that these men do not or will not accept that without a leader they will never get anywhere. Instead, they prefer to faff around in the fields of failure until their dying day, while allowing nationalism to be associated with racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia peopled by the lumpenproletariat too stupid to even elect a leader because they are afraid of being kicked around by someone who is going to exploit and abuse them without getting them anywhere.

What this also says is that they are too distrustful even of each other to choose a proper leader.

What a shame that British nationalism is now reduced to this kind of pathetic and womanish risk-aversion.

Doubtless these men are not in the least bit afraid of being told that they are incompetent and effeminate cowards and prefer the occupational therapy of pretending to be in a party that is really a social club for old timers who cannot accept that times have moved on.

This is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse.  http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+the+cart+before+the+horse

Disobey the Koran AT YOUR OWN PERIL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an_and_violence

The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own. Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist.  The principle of forgiveness is reiterated in between the assertions of the right to self-defence.

Below are the two verses that the British transgressed against when their government declared war on Germany in both WW1 and WW2:

002.190
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

022.039
YUSUFALI: To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
PICKTHAL: Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory;
SHAKIR: Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them;

What was WW1 about?

Belgian neutrality.

What has Belgian neutrality to do with Britain when it was not being directly threatened by Germany?  This was oddly not mentioned in any of my history lessons.  I cannot remember it anyway.

What was WW2 about?

It was about Germany invading Poland.

Do we know that as recently as the 1600s the Poles had a German king?  Poland was the backyard of Germany.   Hitler thought the British would be reasonable about Poland and all that huffing and puffing by Chamberlain about Germany not invading Poland was really just for British domestic consumption  That was his fatal mistake.   How could he expect the British to have been reasonable about Poland when they had been so stupid about Belgian neutrality?

Of course, Hitler should not have invaded Poland either, for doing so was unIslamic.

There was a time when the British were unconsciously doing what the Koran recommends. That was how they became wealthy and powerful.

And then, they stopped being unconsciously Islamic and did all sorts of stupid things after they became too much infected with liberalism and feminism.

Just as it was unIslamic for Hitler to have invaded Poland, Britain's declaring war on Germany was unIslamic too.

Every war is a GAMBLE.

The Koran tells us not to gamble, and the British lost the gamble and consequently their empire.

What did they do after they lost their gamble and their empire?

They comforted themselves with WINE, WOMEN, SONG and USURY, worshipping the Gods of Mammon, Consumerism and Sexual Liberation while desecrating the institutions of family and marriage.

And so did the rest of the Western world.

And now the party is over.

But what else are we doing that we should not be doing?

Usury is prohibited in the Koran but we are still being consumed by debt and creating even more with our hair of the dog economic policies.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riba

All that business with the banks in trouble over manipulating LIBOR perfectly demonstrates that borrowing and lending with interest means we will be consumed by our debts.

Extramarital sex is prohibited in the Koran but now there are more bastards being born in Britain than there are legitimate babies.   If we lashed 100 times SSMs then there would certainly be fewer of them, but it seems we won't be doing that any time soon, judging from the reaction I get when I recommend this.  http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/koran-clearer-than-bible-about.html

I fear that by the time the British finally acknowledge the gravity of the situation they will have to end up stoning those who indulged in extramarital sex to death to discourage their infamously promiscuous women, because they would be such hardcore sluts that even lashing them 100 times will not make them stop breeding their bastards like vermin.

We should have a flat rate income tax of 20% with the rest made up in charitable donations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums  This would be better than confusing tax evasion with tax avoidance until anyone with any enterprise becomes a tax exile.

We really should have a referendum about the EU, but our government refuses to give us this option thus offending the principle of consulting the governed.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shura

The abolition of the death penalty is unKoranic since the Koran prescribes it, where just.   [6:151]

http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/006-qmt.php

I am saying basically, that nations and people who are unIslamic will suffer terribly and will have to submit to the horrors of Truth, Justice and Reason, eventually.

If only the totality of Koranic exhortations and prohibitions could be distilled into a list.  This list can then be ticked (or not the case may be) to discover which nation in the world is the one most in harmony with Koranic principles.  I am pretty sure that the one most conforming to Koranic principles will be the one most happy and glorious.