Campaign or recruitment?

September 22nd, 2010 § 0 comments § permalink

The latest BNP newsletter slithered into my email inbox last night.

I proclaims that last Saturday, their first ‘Day of Action’ with regards to their ‘Bring Our Boys Home’ campaign an “unqualified and refreshing” success.

Obviously I don’t know if the figures they quote for the amount of signatures they got in their petition is true or inflated, but is this campaign really about bringing British soldiers back from the battlefield?

You already know the answer, I’m sure. But just incase you didn’t the newsletter urges us to contact their local branch to get involved in future days of action and…

…take part in the largest, most successful nationalist recruitment campaign in British history!

Soldiers. Just another useful tools for the BNP.

being denied the right to ‘self-association’

August 24th, 2010 § 0 comments § permalink

Dear Fellow Patriot,

Uh-oh. Here we go.

Imagine a country where high-handed police chiefs abuse their powers to stop the native people celebrating their own culture and traditions.

OK. I’m imagining, but it’s quite hard to imagine that when the last time I went morris dancing, in the street no less, the police rather enjoyed the show. It’s quite hard to imagine when up and down the country there are folk events going on all over the place, with the police not even bothering to turn up. I wonder what traditions and what part of our culture Fat Nick thinks he can’t do that anybody else can?

Imagine a country where busybody local council bureaucrats use petty regulations to harass campaigners for the rights of the indigenous people and prevent them holding perfectly peaceful festivals at which the older generation seek to transmit knowledge of their culture and heritage to youngsters.

Those petty regulations aren’t used because of the festival per se, but because of the crowds of demonstrators that turn up as well. Creating chaos in the local area and annoying the local population even more than having wankers get lagered up in a field.

Imagine a country where it is ‘illegal’ for a band to perform a live song

Have they never talked to a landlord of a pub in a residential area that’s tried to get a live music licence? Obviously not.

or for a Punch and Judy Man to put on a show without a licence – a licence that is refused to opponents of the ruling regime.

Why would the Punch & Judy man be granted a license to perform, and that is what it is and not specific a Punch & Judy license, at an event that hasn’t been granted a license itself?

Imagine a country where the ruling elite uses taxpayers’ money to try to force a political party that stands for the survival of the native people to change its rules and policies with the intention of swamping it with hostile members of ethnic minorities who boast of their intentions to destroy that party and to deny its members the right to self-association.

Oh dear. Poor little racists. Having to change their rules to comply with the law. Boo-fucking-hoo.

And “self-association”? Surely they mean free association? ‘Self association’ sounds like a rather grubby thing to do at a supposedly family event. No wonder the BNP weren’t granted a license for their Red White & Blue festival of hate.

How Not To Run A Political Party

May 19th, 2010 § 1 comment § permalink

or The BNPs’ Slow Motion Implosion.

Jai at Pickled Politics has gathered together over 15 ‘things’ that have fucked the BNP since the general election.

Such as

4. Griffin’s third public message, including fabricated ‘percentages’ of Barking & Dagenham’s non-white electorate along with the assertion that the BNP is the ‘British Resistance’. Believe or not, Griffin’s apocalyptic faux-Churchillian call to arms isn’t actually a spoof; he really did write this message.


8. Just before Griffin was leaving the premises after the election results for Barking & Dagenham, he was confronted by Nick Lowles from Searchlight about the incident in Barking involving Bailey. Lowles’ impromptu confrontation with Griffin was captured on video. Griffin makes false allegations about the Asians carrying knives and also refuses to condemn Bailey’s actions (especially Bailey’s attempt to forcefully kick the Asian lying on the ground) despite being repeatedly questioned about the matter by Lowles. Also note Griffin’s Freudian slip when he refers to the [white] ‘British majority’ and then corrects himself by stuttering ‘minority’, along with his claim that the BNP now needs to change into a ‘civil rights’ organisation for them.

Go read and follow the links. It’s quite a mood-lifter.

The defeat of the BNP

May 15th, 2010 § 2 comments § permalink

The defeat of the BNP

At two minutes past six last Friday morning, Nick Griffin walked to the front of the makeshift stage at the Goresbrook leisure centre in Barking, east London, and tried to make his voice heard above a braying crowd. The BNP leader had just suffered a humiliating defeat, beaten into third place by Labour MP Margaret Hodge in the constituency where he had promised to create a “political earthquake”.

But as he began a flustered and angry speech, Griffin already knew that worse was to come. Rumours had been circulating round the east London count for more than an hour that the party had not only failed to get its first MP, it was on the verge of an electoral disaster in the area Griffin had once described as the party’s “jewel in the crown”.

“Within the next five years, the indigenous people of London will be a minority,” barked Griffin, as jubilant Labour supporters taunted him with shouts of “Out, out, out!” “It is going to be too late for Barking, but it is not too late for Britain.” By then, though, no one was listening.

In the next 12 hours, Griffin’s worst fears were realised – and even exceeded. The party was thrashed in its two key parliamentary constituencies of Barking and Stoke Central. Its record number of council and parliamentary candidates failed to make a single breakthrough; and of the 28 BNP councillors standing for re-election, all but two were beaten.

Read the rest

Via Chicken Yoghurt

BNP Manifesto GE2010: Foreign policy

April 29th, 2010 § 0 comments § permalink

The BNPs’ foreign policy is quite simple: Neutrality.

Fair enough, there’s both pros’ and cons to being an officially neutral nation, but when it’s worded…

We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British interests. In this regard, a BNP government will:

– Reach an accord with the Muslim world whereby they will agree to take back their excess population which is currently colonising this country, in exchange for an ironclad guarantee that Britain will never again interfere in the political affairs of the Middle East or try to dictate to any Arab or Muslim country as to what their internal government form should be; and…

… you know that it isn’t just about not getting involved in others affairs.
Excess population? The muslims that have come to live in Britain aren’t ‘excess’ people from their own country. They haven’t been called in front of a local official, told that their country is full and handed a one way ticket to Blighty. Muslims have come here for many reasons, just like all the other immigrants of other colours and religions. They have also come on their own initiative, not on the orders of some mysterious Arab officialdom. I would guess that most of the muslims in this country are British born, too. Once again, we’re back to deporting British people because of the colour of their skin.

Only once poverty and deprivation amongst British people has been eliminated, can any thought be given to foreign aid — and even then, a BNP government will link foreign aid with our voluntary resettlement policy, in terms of which those nations taking significant numbers of people back to their homelands will need cash to help absorb those returning.

Foreign aid, when it is given to a country that needs it in return for taking people off our hands, isn’t aid. It’s a bribe to take some people off us.

BNP Manifesto GE2010: Defending Britain: BNP Defence Policy

April 28th, 2010 § 3 comments § permalink

The first thing I noticed was that the first policy in the BNPs manifesto is the defence policy. The Conservatives and Labour feature defence in the last sections of their documents, the LibDems have it near the middle, page 57 of 104. Read into that what you will.

Apparently our armed forces are in disarray and they intend to avoid the UK coming close “to the brink of destruction”, as apparently happened twice in the twentieth century, because of not spending enough.

The BNP intends to remove ourselves from collective security arrangements, presumably NATO and the EU and spend all the money that we have on developing and supplying British Weapons for British Soldiers.

The BNP aims to have an independent British military, equipped by British factories in all the essential needs of modern warfare.
Our independent force must include an independent nuclear deterrent and capability. These weapons would remain under British control.

So that’s light, medium and heavy guns that aren’t already British made. Tanks and aeroplanes. Oh, and all the ships, helicoptors, and other heavy machinery that the modern war machine needs. That’s all got to be developed and then made.

Then there’s all the communications gear. Y’know, radios, sat nav (which includes the satellites themselves), radar equipment. The list is endless and it will all have to be paid for by the taxpayer. Is it really necessary to have everything home made? Of course it isn’t.

Our independent force must include an independent nuclear deterrent and capability

I wouldn’t trust these clowns with a spud gun, never mind a big red button labelled ‘In an emergency, PUSH’.
Where is all this money coming from? Develop and make a whole independent arms industry and develop and make a new nuclear weapon. Boy, someone’s gonna have to work some overtime.

Britain must be prepared to launch limited operations where it is necessary to protect our citizens abroad and not be deterred by ‘world opinion’.

and it can.

The Falklands campaign was an obvious example where Britain needed to act, but more recently there were clear grounds to rescue people of British descent from the murderous regime in Zimbabwe

What? Did I just read that right?

… there were clear grounds to rescue people of British descent from the murderous regime in Zimbabwe.

What that statement says is that they BNP are prepared to go into a foreign country and “rescue” citizens of that country based on their colour. Not rescue British ex-pats or holiday-makers but Zimbabweans because some of their relatives might have come from Britain. Would they have checked out the geneology of the people they would rescue? No, of course not. It would’ve been a case of the white man gets on the boat and fuck the rest. I’m surprised They’re not calling for Zimbabwe to be renamed Rhodesia as it used to be.

We shall restore many of the historic regiments, particularly those from Scotland, which were disbanded by the Labour government.

Why? Would it reduce costs or improve the abilities of the forces? I understand that the military is feircely loyal to their regiments, but keeping any structure just for the sake of history when function is more important than form is just plain stupid.

We shall renegotiate our presence in NATO to ensure that we maintain independence and neutrality.

Ah, there it is. I wondered when that would come up. By ‘renegotiate our presence in NATO’ they mean leave NATO. A nation cannot be in NATO and be neutral. We leave NATO we can count on no one to come to our aid.

We will raise spending on defence by one percent over the rate of inflation for the next five years so that our forces may never again be committed to any conflict short of equipment or kit, as has been the case with the shameful deployment in the Tory/Labour war in Afghanistan.

Now, bear in mind what has just been said about an independently kitted British war machine, with nukes and everything, tell me, because I don’t know the figures, just roughly, is that one percent going to cover it? Nah, didn’t think so.

This last subsection in the defence section seems a little out of place. Surely it should be in the Culture, Traditions and Civil Society section?

We will introduce a Community Award Scheme for our young people which will take the form of a compulsory one year period for all school leavers during which they will work in the community as the final element of their education.
This scheme will allow young people to choose between a variety of community service options which might include, for example, caring for the elderly or disabled people, environmental or heritage restoration projects or military training

That’s a nice name for compulsory service, isn’t it. At least the youths will be able to choose what they’re forced to do.

The final choice of direction in this regard will be dictated by the school leaver’s scholastic record, preferences and suitability.

So the bullies get the guns and the bullied wipe arses, huh?

Service in this scheme would entitle each individual to receive something back from the society to which they have learnt to contribute, such as free university education, a properly supported apprenticeship or business training.

Instead of receiving guidance and help when you’re young and need it, you first have to earn it. You have to be taught how to contribute to society. You can’t just contribute in your own way, you have to be taught to BNP contribution way.

So what do have so far? We’re going to be neutral. We’re going to build and supply everything our forces needs, from nightvision goggles to aircraft carriers, ourselves. It’s going to be paid for by raising spending one percent over inflation for five years and our kids are going to be taught one particular way how to contribute to society.

Already things are all over the place… and this is just the first section.

BNP Manifesto GE2010

April 26th, 2010 § 4 comments § permalink

The BNP Manifesto is now out.

I intend to go through it and have a laugh at it. I’m not expecting to get it all done and anway, I’m not sure how much I’ll be able to do due to real-world stuff going on as well so I could really do with some help with it.

If you fancy picking a policy area to take apart let me know and I will stick a link in my posts to your post on it.

I’ve got a copy here (pdf), if you need it, so you don’t have to wade through the sewer of the BNP site.

Policies and excerpts to various posts are below the fold.

» Read the rest of this entry «

The BNP/Christian love-in

March 22nd, 2010 § 4 comments § permalink


  1. a formal discussion in a public meeting or legislature, in which opposing arguments are presented.
  2. an argument.


Nick Griffin…

Tonight I will debate the issue of Christianity in modern Britain with Revd. George Hargreaves, Leader of the Christian Party UK.

WTF? That’s gonna be some debate.

I intend to press home the increasing Islamification of the UK, the decline and censorship of Christian values, history, traditions and culture in politically correct Britain, and the absurd spectacle of the modern upper echelons of the clergy teaming up with leftist political radicals to dismantle traditional Christian Britain.

To have a debate their needs to be an opposing argument otherwise there’s just a lot of nodding in agreement to what ever anyone says. What do the Christian Party offer? Well, during the European election campaign their line was…

Britain is a Christian country, vote to keep it that way

Selly Oaks Hospital refuse BNP Donation

December 9th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

I still haven’t had a proper reply to my email to Selly Oaks Hospital regarding the BNP donating the funds from the sale of their ‘Bring Our Troops Home’ stickers. I sent my original letter on 4th December and have only had one reply. That reply was…

I have replied to you

I originally thought Ms Fiona Alexander, the hospitals Director of Communications, had replied and I had accidentally deleted deleted it or was sent but didn’t get to me for some reason. Now I think it was childish joke.

Thanks Fiona, for taking me oh, so seriously. That made you look sooo clever.

Moving on, because, I’m bigger than that, I’m not the snarky idiot, it appears a *real* journalist got a reply. No, really I don’t mind. Selly Oaks has refused the donation…

a spokesman for Selly Oak Hospital, which houses the army’s Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, said: “The British National Party is selling merchandise with the promise of donating the proceeds to the Selly Oak Hospital burns unit.
“Neither the University Hospitals of Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust nor its official charity, UHB Charities, have been contacted by the BNP about this venture, and the Trust does not accept money from any political party,”

So. That’s a partial answer to the couple of questions in my email. That’ll do.

The BNP, typically, haven’t changed their article, or stuck up a new one, to let people know that the hospital won’t accept their donation, and are presumably still selling them under that guise (although I could be wrong).

The spin machine elsewhere has started to work. One of their top supporting blogs, Green Arrow, has a few words to say about it…

it seems strange that an hospital that is supposed to care for people would prefer them to suffer than accept money from a political party because they do not approve of its policies.

See what they did there? The hospital refused the donation not because the BNP are a political party but because the hospital doesn’t like it’s policies. The hospital though, doesn’t accept donations from any political party irrespective of policies.

I’m just surprised Selly Oaks hasn’t been called a communist organisation that’s part of the leftie conspiracy to replace the white man with in his own home.

BNP & Selly Oaks Hospital

December 4th, 2009 § 5 comments § permalink

I was going to post this once I got a reply, but I’m getting a bit impatient so I’m doing it now.

To: Fiona Alexander
From: Sim-O
Subject: BNP Donation

Good morning Ms Alexander,
The British National Party have launched a ‘Bring Our Troops Home’ sticker, declaring all the proceeds will be donated to Selly Oaks Hospital burns unit.

As you probably know, the BNP is a racist and divisive organisation that is “is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples” and is “committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration”.

‘Opposed to any form of racial integration’ sound strikingly similar to apartheid, doesn’t it?

‘Reversing the tide of non-white immigration’ is a term the BNP use for the deportation of people, British people to other countries. This would include, not just recent immigrants, but people born here, have had family in Britain for generations and which no other country has an obligation to take purely on the basis of the colour of the persons’ skin.

With this in mind, have the BNP informed you of their declared intention of donating money from the sale of these stickers to the Selly Oaks Hospital burns unit? If so, have they told you when that donation might happen?

What is your reaction? Do you have a statement?

Will the hospital be accepting the donation, which the BNP will no doubt use for political purposes?

Does the hospital have a policy regarding donations from political parties, as apposed to a campaigning local MP? If so, what is that policy?

Thank you for you time.


Update 09/12/09:
I got a reply.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing entries tagged with bnp at Sim-O.