Comparing the BNP Language and Concepts Discipline manuals

July 21st, 2009 § 9 comments

In April, the BNPs’ definition of British in their Language and Concepts Discipline manual, of which I took a copy of at the time, came out in the news.
It looks like this event prompted the BNP to update their manual, as it was written in 2005. This update completely passed me by.
Thanks to Dave Cole, it has been brought to my attention.

So what are the changes?

So you don’t have to sully yourself by going to the BNPs’ site, I have copies of the manuals:
BNP Language & Concepts Discipline Manual (July 2005)
BNP Language & Concepts Discipline Manual (updated April 2009)

It’s a long post so I’ve tucked them neatly below the fold, but my impression is that this new document is from a party much more comfortable with itself. There are only thirteen rules in the new pamphlet, as opposed to twentytwo in the old.

The old manual had a lot of negative in it, statements that began ‘we are not…’. Nine out of twentytwo rules begin ‘The BNP is/does not…’. The new manual is a lot more positive in its’ wording: Three out of thirteen start in the same way.

With the positivity comes confidence. A confidence that it doesn’t need to explain itself or deny what it thinks it isn’t, or at least what it doesn’t want us to think it is.
In the old manual the BNP felt it needed to deal with accusations of racism and fascism. In the new, the charge of racism is dealt with, swiftley, but the only mention of fascism is in a description of the European Union.

The BNP has been working hard to clean up it’s image, this updated version, drafted before the European elections in June is part of that. This, along with the collapse of the main parties vote in the Euro Elections means that they are on a high at the moment and in a good place to capitalise on their good fortune that has put them in Europe.

That fortune needs to be reversed.

When the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational debate.

~Nick Griffin, Leader of the British National Party

Rule 1, 2005:

The precisely correct description of what we are, in the standard terminology of international comparative politics, is an ‘ethno-nationalist’ party.


…international comparative politics, is a ‘patriotic’ or
‘ethno-nationalist’ party.

In the 2005 manual there is some re-assurance that to the members that they are not racist…

There is nothing fascistic or unusual about this, and we don’t have to apologise for it. If we must describe our attitude towards race, it is ‘racial realism,’ as no-one can admit being against realism.

But now, that re-assurance has been replaced by instruction not to get into an arguement about racism or whether the BNP is racist but to just deny it. Presumably because they know they’re on to a loser in that arguement…

If you are accused of being a ‘racist’ then do not try and get into a definition of what is meant by that. The answer is simply “no, the BNP is not racist” and that is all. Do not fall into the media trap of trying to debate what racism is — as soon as you hedge the question, you are giving them an opportunity to exploit.
See the 2008 booklet Folk and Nation: Underpinning the Ethnostate for more details.

Rule 2 in the old manual has been completely removed…

The BNP is not a ‘fascist’ or ‘fascistic,’ let alone a ‘Nazi’ or ‘neo-Nazi’ or ‘national socialist’ party. It should never be referred to as such by BNP activists, and anyone else who does so must be politely but firmly corrected. The precisely correct description of what we are, in the standard terminology of international comparative politics, is a ‘right-wing populist’ party. That is, we espouse, like many political parties all over the world, the right-of-centre views traditional to ordinary working people who are not leftists

‘Fascist’, ‘fascistic’, ‘Nazi’, ‘neo-Nazi’ and ‘National Socialist’ do not appear anywhere in the new manual, except to describe the EU as a ‘liberal fascist monstrosity’ in it’s rule 6.
Either the BNP no longer feel they need to defend themselves from those charges or they do not want the reader to wonder why they need defend themselves from these accusations.

Rule 2 of the new manual is basically rule 3 and 4 of the old.
old rule 3 & 4…

Rule #3: The BNP does not apologise for what it is. We do ‘repudiate’ the bad aspects of our past, but no more need to feel guilty about them than Labour does about its trade-union thugs and Marxist traitors or the Tories about their crooked businessmen and rapacious capitalists. Activists should be sensitive to people’s misunderstandings about what we are, and politely make clear what we do not believe if challenged, but fundamentally should project moral conviction and political confidence.

Rule #4: The three rules above are applicable to the BNP such as it is today. In order to prevent our enemies from ‘proving’ that we are indeed what they accuse us above of being, it is absolutely necessary for us to draw a clear distinction between the ‘bad old days’ of the party (before 2000) and ‘what we represent today.’ Today, we stand for ‘21st century nationalism,’ as opposed to the outdated ‘20th century nationalism’ which had so many problems. Without this distinction, bad deeds from ‘our naughty past’ can be used to mis-characterise our present political identity. Since these bad deeds did occur, denying them merely creates an impression of dishonesty, while admitting them is disarmingly honest and prevents our enemies from blocking our message by dwelling on our past. (It is important, however, to make sure that we do not admit to offences worse than those actually perpetrated.)

New rule 2…

Do not hesitate to repudiate bad aspects of the BNP’s past.
Point out that all parties have some people who have said and done silly things. The important issue upon which to focus is what is being said and done now. People can and do change, and this has happened to the BNP as well. There is no comparison between the BNP of ten or fifteen years ago, in the same way that there is no comparison between the Labour or Conservative Parties of now and twenty years ago. All parties evolve, mature, and change, and we do not have to be on the defensive for things said and done twenty years ago which have no relevance to the modern BNP.

Rule 5 has gone from the old manual, with it their ultimate goal of ‘voluntary repatriation’ of ‘foreign residence’ of the UK…

The BNP does not tell lies about what it stands for, what it has stood for in the past, and what its intentions are. We do not have a secret doctrine of what we ‘really think’ which we conceal from the public. We make no secret of the fact that we are an ethno-nationalist party or that our ultimate goal is the orderly, lawful, humane and voluntary repatriation of the resident foreigners of the UK. Activists should never deny or squirm when asked about these things, but defend them with good conscience.

As is their non-tolerance of violence (rule 6 of the old manual)…

The BNP does not espouse or tolerate violence. BNP activists must never threaten any person with violence or say things that might be misunderstood as doing so. They must report anyone who engages
in violence to the police for prosecution and anyone who threatens or advocates it to party leadership for expulsion. Failure on this point exposes the whole party to retaliation by the authorities and is thus a very serious matter.

Neither of those two rules appear in any form in the new manual.

Rule 3 in the new manual states what the BNPs’ core principles are…

The BNP’s core principle is one of Britain and British people
first, and we do not hesitate to announce this from all public platforms.
This is not an extreme position — in fact it is one which any normal country would have. If you are questioned on this, and there might be some people mad enough to call it into question, point out that the Japanese government always acts in the interests of the people of Japan etc., and that almost all nations in the world act in the interests of their own people first. This does not mean that the Japanese “hate” anybody else, merely that they have the good sense to put their own interests first. In this way, the BNP makes no secret of the fact that it seeks to put British people and British interests first, and this includes putting measures in place to ensure that the majority population of this nation remains ethnically British. This is not a policy to hide — on the contrary, it is one to discuss openly, as it differentiates the BNP from all the other political parties who seek the exact opposite.

There isn’t really and equivalent passage in the old instruction book, but the above rule does include with in it the old rule 7, that the BNP is not an extremist party.

New rule 4 is a call for any member to be on their guard and there are probably a few people about that could prove it factually wrong too…

The BNP campaigns in a totally lawful manner. Our experience has shown time and time again that agent provocateurs who suggest nonparliamentary means of political activity are most often extreme left infiltrators who seek to create situations wherein the media can portray the BNP in a bad light. Any member hearing any such language or suggestions must immediately report it to their party senior who must then pass the information upwards, never outwards, so that it can be dealt with as quickly as possible.

The old rule 7…

The BNP is not an ‘extreme’ or ‘extremist’party

…and 8…

Arguments for our policies should always be couched in terms of the most moderate language, and the most mainstream principles, sufficient to vindicate them.

…are in new rule 5…

Always remember that the BNP’s policies are basic common sense, and mainstream. Repeated opinion polls show that on our core issues, the majority of the public agree with us and the extremists are the establishment politicians. Do not let interviewers or opponents get away with using the words ‘extreme’ or ‘far right’ or such terms. Challenge such statements immediately by asking what is so ‘extreme’ about any of them. The interviewer or opponent will quickly be put on the spot to justify his position, and will be hard-pressed to show that a policy (such as) “Britain for the British” is extreme. (You can point out that everyone agrees Tibet should be for the Tibetans, and that is not regarded as ‘extreme’.)

The wording of the new rule make me think that either the BNP truly believe that their policies are common sense and mainstream or that repeating and pushing the view that their policies are mainstream, they will eventually become mainstream.

Rule number 9 from 2005…

The BNP strongly prefers the term ‘hard right’ to ‘far right,’ ‘extreme right,’ or ‘radical right.”
‘Hard’ implies moral seriousness and firmness of purpose. ‘Far’ and ‘extreme’ imply we are outside the spectrum of reasonable opinion. ‘Radical’ is acceptable when addressing a highly disaffected audience, especially when making ‘radical’ critiques of the present regime, but is otherwise to be used sparingly, lest we sound like Marxist troublemakers. The best term of all is ‘patriotic right’, as opposed to ‘unpatriotic right’ or ‘globalist right’ (i.e the Tories).

…is a goner. Another victim of the update is rule 11, the assertion that the BNP is not an anti-semetic party, of which they were so worried about being perceived as they felt it neccersary to include this following line in rule 11 (their emphasis)…

Because of the inflammatory nature of this issue, as well as the party’s past, it is best to simply never speak or write of Jews at all. It is especially important not to use them as a clumsy code word for other things

Rule 10, ‘We are not anti-Europe, but anti-European Union’, makes it from the old to the new, renumbered to rule 6 and with the EU changing from the “engine of the destruction of Europe” into…

a liberal/fascist monstrosity designed to destroy national borders, identities and cultures, and which poses the greatest threat to the continued existence of individual nations since the end of the Communist empire.

There is a new rule in the 2009 edition of the manual, number 7…

The BNP is not ‘anti-Polish’ or ‘anti-Eastern European’. The Eastern European nations have the right to protect their own workforce — in exactly the same way that Britain does. If you are in a discussion about Polish or Eastern European workers, do not end an argument by saying “how terrible it all is” but point out that Poles would object if a million British, or a million Vietnamese descended on Poland and took away jobs from Polish people by working for less than the living wage in that country. There is nothing wrong with such a policy position, and all intelligent people will understand this — Poles and other Eastern Europeans included. Finally, point out that it is the EU “Freedom of Movement” rules, introduced by the Tories, which are ultimately responsible for recent demographic changes, and not the people themselves.

The Poles, being the most recent to swamp the UK in their millons get a special mention.

An obvious one this, the old rule 13…

When addressing a specific audience, arguments for our policies should always be couched in language calculated to be relevant to the interests of that audience.

…has survived to become new number 8.

The old rule 14 telling members never to use racial or ethnic epithets or insults has also been put in the updated version, although not telling you to bugger off to the National Front any more if you do, but explaining that the media are on the look out for it.

New rule 11 is almost word for word old number 21…

Explanations of our ideology should be couched, whenever possible, in terms of specifically British history and the specific national identity of Britain. For example, when discussing rights, we should speak of ‘our traditional rights’ or ‘the rights of Englishmen’, not about universal human rights, which is a very different concept.

Rule 12 in the new pamphlet shows the BNP still sees itself as revolutionary…

Successful revolutions from the right have always presented themselves as restoring older traditions. Therefore, we should couch our agenda in restorationist terms whenever possible. Ours is a populist traditionalism, not an elitist one.

…but not in the way Thatcher or Atlee were any more, as they did in rule 7 of the old version.

Rule 13…

The BNP defines British people in both civic and ethnic terms.
Immigrants, and descendants of immigrants who have settled here from non-European countries, are British in the fullest civic sense of the word, and entitled to the rights of all British subjects. This includes all rights and duties (such as full protection under the law) and all other aspects of participatory society, such as national sports teams, military service, civic associations and the like. The BNP also defines British people in an ethnic sense, in that we are the descendants of the traditional peoples of England, Scotland, Wales and the island of Ireland.
In the same way, an English person might be born in China of English parents and might have a Chinese passport, but would never be ethnically described as Chinese.
This ethnic understanding of Britishness does not impinge upon the civic rights of British passport holders. It is merely an expression of the rights of an indigenous people to be recognised as such, and to have the right to remain as the majority population in their own nation.
This right is accepted as normal by almost every other nation on earth, who also define their indigenous populations ethnically. Pakistan, for example, has a law of return which guarantees children of Pakistani immigrants the right to a Pakistani passport, no matter where in the world they may have been born.

…is new and is a less clumsily worded version of the old rule 15…

BNP activists and writers should never refer to ‘black Britons’ or ‘Asian Britons’ etc, for the simple reason that such persons do not exist. These people are ‘black residents’ of the UK etc, and are no more British than an Englishman living in Hong Kong is Chinese. Collectively, foreign residents of other races should be referred to as ‘racial foreigners’, a non-pejorative term that makes clear the distinction needing to be drawn. The key in such matters is above all to maintain necessary distinctions while avoiding provocation and insult.

Rule 19 in the old and rule 10 in the new are worded slightly different but the same for all intents and purposes, that activists should be positive at all times as if they are full of despair and hopelessness, the party will never increase it’s membership otherwise.

The old rule 12, about never attacking a too wide an audience has been left out and rule number 16, too…

The correct term for the native inhabitants of these isles is ‘actually British,’ as opposed to foreigners who inaccurately claim this status.

Last but not least, rule number 16 from the old copy has no place in the new…

The BNP is not a ‘hate group’ and does not ‘hate’ anybody, with the possible exception of members of the ‘corrupt, treasonous’ political establishment. We merely believe that certain foreign persons do not have the moral right to reside in this country. We are not about hostility; we are about political action. If some members occasionally forget this, these are their personal feelings and not the policy of the party they belong to.


§ 9 Responses to Comparing the BNP Language and Concepts Discipline manuals"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What's this?

You are currently reading Comparing the BNP Language and Concepts Discipline manuals at Sim-O.