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.
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.
Look at that face. Isn’t it sad?, maybe even a little bit scared. It makes him look almost humane. Even his eyes are nearly pointing the same way. I would feel sorry, for him, but he’s a racist, so I don’t.
Destroying the BNPs’ arguments is all well and good, but now and again you gotta have a laugh, ain’t ya. And if No Platform can produce things like this, then it must have some merits.
Sitting in his suit and tie, with neatly combed hair and trotting out psephological jargon, he comes across as a sort of racist version of Tony Blair: coolly spouting dodgy dossiers of misinformation to justify a “war” against weapons of mass immigration and miscegenation. Most people don’t believe him; we’re not sure whether he sincerely believes himself, but he’s going to keep pushing his line for as long as he can.
At the moment he is trying to soft-sell repatriation. “We’re not talking about turfing everybody out. We’re talking about encouraging some to go. It would benefit them if we did a proper, sensible deal with countries that have suffered hugely from brain-drain, with people coming here – it’s the final form of colonialism. Instead of stealing, erm, gold and old statues, we steal the people and best brains, and the countries suffer as a result.
“We would help to stabilise all sorts of countries if some of their nationals or people who originate from there returned to their homelands with some of the skills that they’ve learnt here and applied them to make those a better place instead of coming here because it’s convenient for Britain and easier than training our own people.” Xenophobia as humanitarianism is just one of his verbal gymnastics.
So. Nick Griffin isn’t a racist that wants to keep the white race on top and withdraw Britain just about every international organisation you can think of, because we don’t need them.
Nick Griffin is going to save the world and improve all those third world countries (is that still a valid term or is it ‘developing nation’) by returning all those immigrants that we have train. Nick Griffins’ flying monkeys are good flying monkeys.
How the interviewer managed to carry that through, I’ll never know.
Almost 9% of us describe ourselves as non-white compared to under six percent 10 years ago. If you take away mixed-race identities that figure falls to just under 7.5%.
A far cry from the headlines in the run up to the 2001 Census which predicted that by 2010 white people would be the ethnic minority in places like Leicester and Birmingham.
The census is interesting in telling us where people have settled and continue to live
This fact was used by far right groups to whip up a spectre of Britain losing its indigenous racial identity.
If there were only 9% of people were non-white in 2001, I doubt it’s much different now, so aren’t the BNP pushing an open door? They’re rallying for something they already have.
So that’s it, then. They can shut up shop and fuck off.
There’s people on both sides claiming that the BNP is not on their side. To some, the idea that a party so abhorrent as these racist fucknuts can be on the same side as ‘them’ is just something that they cannot comprehend. It just doesn’t compute.
Some of the BNPs’ policies at first glance seem left wing, socialistic. Policies like rebuilding the countrys’ council housing stock, improving the NHS and renationalising national monopoly industries. Others seem conservative or right wing: the ‘restoration’ of discipline in schools (including corporal punishment) & basically taking the school system back to the 1940’s*; ending the ‘fixation on the rights of criminals’; pretty much the whole of their crime and punishment agenda.
*I might be a little out with the decade, but you get the idea.
Look a bit deeper into the policy at the wording, though and it all comes at the expense of non-white people. For any of their policies to work they have to get rid of whole swathes of people who they designate are not truly British.
The BNP are both left and right wing. They’re also neither. They take what they think is popular policies and feelings and adopt them adding their own racist spin on them.
Isn’t that enough to be going on with? Do you really need anything else to distance yourself from them? Are you such a complete twat that you need to keep repeating the fact that they are left/right wing hoping that people will take it in and equate all people of that stripe a fascists?
Are they big enough cunts that you’re comfortable with your differences to them, or are you a little insecure that people might not know you from them?
Here we go again. More BNP bollocks. Google Immigration into Britain: These are the facts because I ain’t linking to it.
British National Party is the only political party which has consistently sounded the alarm on the topic of mass immigration into our country.
Because they’re paranoid that the white British man will be enslaved to all the foreign brown people that come to these shores not out of desperation or fear but to live of the sweat of the honest of the noble Englishman.
All the other parties, assisted by their controlled media, have either attempted to downplay this topic or to attack and smear the BNP for daring to openly discuss it.
I love that line, the ‘controlled media’. It’s just as common the otherway, too, the ‘controlling media’. And what they do’t do so much in the articles themselves but you’ll see in comments and on BNP blogs is Rupert Murdoch being called a communist. Murdoch? A commie? No one denies the media don’t have an influence, and the amount is debatable, but they are not really controlling in any sense of the word.
And now we come to the facts…
– According to an August 2008 Office for National Statistics (ONS) study, some 2.3 million immigrants have officially come to the UK in the past 16 years, the vast majority of whom are from the Third World. (Of the 2.3 million, only 205,000, or 8 percent, came from the new East European members of the EU.)
Over 16 years that’s only just under 145,000 people a year. I don’t know for sure as I can’t find the report, but I’m pretty certain that that there is the number of people that returned to their original country and the amount of British citizens that emmigrated to be taken off that 2.3 million figure to give a true picture of how immigration has increased our population.
– August 2008 French government statistics showed that more than 1,000 Third Worlders pour into Britain from northern France every month.
I can’t speak French. But what a wonderful turn of phrase that is ‘Third Wolders’. Brings to mind industrial sc-fi rather than people fleeing persecution and poverty.
– A report by an all-party group of Members of Parliament in 2008 said that more than one million illegal immigrants were living in Britain – a population equivalent to that of Birmingham.
Ok, rough figures because I’m crap with Google, but they’re good enough for you to get the idea that this is a complete crock of shit. I’m not saying that the one million figure is too high, just that know one knows. In 2005 the home office tried to put a figure on illegal immigrants. What it did was take the figure of foreign born people living in the UK recorded in the 2001 census, a figure already 4 years out of date, and then subtracting the estimated number of legal immigrants. Not a rock solid figure that was right a few years ago, but a guess.
Then in 2008 the London School of Economics adds some more fictional numbers to this first report to come up with the magic numbers for illegal immigrants between 524,000 and 947,000, with a ‘central estimate’ of 725,000, which the BNP then rounds up to 1 million. Whereas the figure could be as low as just over half million, but that would not suit the BNPs’ (or the daily Mails’) purposes, would it.
– An August 2008 ONS report showed that nearly 25 percent of all babies born in Britain were from ‘foreign’ mothers. The ONS said that 758,000 babies were born in Britain in 2007, and that births to foreign-born mothers rose to 160,340, or 23 percent of all live births.
And?
– More than half of all births in some towns and cities, including London (54%), Slough (56%) and Luton (51%), were to non-UK born mothers. This figure peaks at 75 percent in the London borough of Newham. As the key areas reporting the biggest baby boom were London, West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire – all areas of long-settled Afro-Caribbean and Asian immigrants, it is highly likely that once these figures are added to the 25 percent ‘foreign’ birth rate, then as many as 50 percent of all babies born in Britain in 2008 were of Third World origin.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this and the previous point don’t add up, do they?
Lets do this slowly. For my sake if not yours. We’ll take ‘foreign’ as the parents/grandparents of the pregnant lady to be from another country and ‘foreign-born’ as the pregnant lady herself was born somewhere else. Presumably all the births in these figures are live births, not just the ones stated as such:
25% of all babies born in 2008 were of ‘foreign’ mothers.
23% of all babies born in 2007 were to ‘foreign-born’ mothers.
These two figures are not really connected in this equation as we are not looking at a trend because they are from different years. Then we have some figures for specific towns for non-uk born mothers (yet another term) from an unspecified year.
These areas may have high ‘foriegn’ parentage, but they have already been counted in the 25 percent of babies born to ‘foreign’ mothers as non-uk born mothers are a subdivision of ‘foriegn’.
I am right aren’t I? They’re adding numbers up that have already been counted and throwing in extra numbers to confuse things. Aren’t they?
– The ONS population report states that, on average, ‘foreign’ women have 2.5 children each, rising to 3.9 for those from Bangladesh and almost five for Pakistani women. The number of babies born to British mothers is also rising, but lags far behind immigrants at an average of 1.7 children each. From this it is possible to deduce that white British mothers are only producing 1.5 children at a maximum, against a required replacement level of 2.1
‘Foreign’ mothers have mor babies than white british mothers. But They’re not really talking about foreign, they’re talking about brown skinned mothers and white mothers.
Some more abiguous wording there as well – ‘deduce’. Either you can work out that figure or not. Deducing something is having a guess. And I’ve just noticed that if the average white mother is having 1.7 children each, that means that some are having more children and some are having less, how can then deduced or even properly worked out that they are having a maximum of 1.5 children? If the maximum is 1.5 then the average would be much lower.
WTF?
– The ONS has also predicted that the British population could reach 71 million by 2031, with migrants and their UK-born children accounting for 70 percent of that growth. This fast-moving trend means that babies born to immigrant mothers are set to become the main driver of Britain’s population growth within the next few years, taking over from immigration itself.
I can’t be bothered to look into this claim as the previous ones have made my head throb. Even if it is true, so what? What they gonna do? Oh, yes deport everybody. Then where are we gonna be? In a declining poplulation which is no good for a nation. Unless, of course the BNP want to introduce a complusory amount of children each couple are to have.
– The ONS also released official immigration figures in August 2008 which revealed that 69 people – mostly Third Worlders – entered the UK every hour. According to the ONS, in the 2006/7 year period, a record 605,000 people moved to Britain – the equivalent of 1,650 a day. The number of foreigners living in Britain has increased by 1.1 million in three years – enough to fill a city the size of Birmingham.
And on it goes. I got other stuff to do, I didn’t realise what a long piece this is. It’s fucking relentless, isn’t it?
No, I’m not on about immigration. I’m on about the indignation, the outrage, the, the mindless lack of self-awareness of just what cunts they are.
British soldiers’ lives are one of the most valuable assets this nation has, and should only be risked in conflicts in which British interests are directly affected.
This simple and logical core belief is paramount to the British National Party’s defence policy, which demands self-sufficiency for our island nation in all aspects.
‘Self-sufficiency’ in all aspects? How do you propose to go about that then? No country can be self sufficient in everything. In their ‘How the BNP will Rebuild Britains Economy’ they say…
the BNP calls for the selective exclusion of foreign-made goods from British markets and the reduction of foreign imports. We will ensure that our manufactured goods are, wherever possible, produced in British factories, employing British workers.
That’s not quite the same as being self sufficient in all respects, is it? Again, back to the defence policy..
Britain can only be safe if it is able to defend itself without being dependent on any other country. Britain therefore needs to have a credible and independent defence against all threats – and the ability to use this wisely.
How safe do these guys really think we will be if we told other countries ‘Y’know what? We’ll be fine on our own now, thank you very much.’ No more being chumly with the US and their proper big nukes. No more sharing information, having to work it all out for ourselves.
I know that at the moment and every now and again the Americans shoot us down or screw us with or for intel, and that does need to be sorted out I don’t disagree, but wouldn’t it be better to have a flow of information about what ‘the enemy’ is doing and sharing of the burden of flying the aircraft and moving tanks about than to take it all on by yourself? The problem we have at the moment isn’t the sharing and co-operation between countries, it is what those countries are doing and why they are doing it that sticks in the throat.
The policy is… -Strengthen our conventional forces;
More soldiers. Well, that sorts out the unemployment figures then.
– Retain a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent and produce all our weaponry in Britain;
We haven’t had a genuinely independent nuclear weapon since the sixties. That is going to cost a shit load of money and put us outside a few treaties concerning nuclear weapons which would help us on our way truly self-sufficient. Trident would have to go. All that money we would have to spend developing a nuke that could be spent on hospitals or education…
– Only commit British forces when British national interests are at stake;
What is our interests? Was Iraq in our interest? It could be argued tat it was.
– Preserve and restore our historic County Regiments;
Why? Would it be purely for tradition? Sometimes, with operational requirements traditions have to be given a lower priority. It would be silly, especially when lives are at stake, to just keep doing something the same way just because it’s always been done that way.
– Bring our troops back from Germany and withdraw from NATO, since political developments make both commitments obsolete;
Becoming a pariah state by persuing our own nukes will help with that one.
– Close all foreign military bases on British soil;
Again, that will probably happen anyway when the BNP government stop co-operating and helping all our ex-international buddies.
– Refuse to risk British lives in meddling ‘peacekeeping’ missions in parts of the world where no British interests are at stake;
Again, what constitutes a British interest? Isn’t that attitude a bit, well, shouldn’t we go and help civilians that genuinely need our help?
– Restore national service for our young with the option of civil or military service.
Along with a compulsory citizenship organisation for young people?
And lastly. Independent or not, would you like these people to have their finger on the big red button?
Manic at Bloggerheads has got his video camera out and taken the piss out of the BNP youth mascot er, thing.
Billy Brit is meant to show the kidz how great it is to be a true Brit, with white skin…
As usual, for the BNP, it’s a bit shit and highlights great Britains that weren’t actually British. That meant it was just begging to have the piss taken.
Take it away the all new Billy Brit (Racist Shit)…
