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.

On the BNP and their constitutional changes to come

October 15th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Fat Nick caved in

BNP leader Nick Griffin has agreed to ask his party to amend its constitution so it does not discriminate on grounds of race or religion, a court heard.

The UK’s equalities watchdog had argued the BNP broke the Race Relations Act by restricting members to “indigenous Caucasian” people.

The court heard Mr Griffin had agreed to use “all reasonable endeavours” to revise its constitution.

BNP members will be asked to agree to the changes at a meeting in November.

Either the begging letters didn’t raise enough or Fat Nick thought it would be better spent in the upcoming general election.

Will the disgruntled party faithful accept these changes? Who knows, but according to the current BNP consitution (pdf) says…

1) Consideration will regularly be given to changes in this Constitution for the purpose of improving the functional efficiency of the party. Final authority to determine such changes, however, will rest with the elected National Chairman – saving those Sections protected by Section 13, Sub-section4.

So, the Chairman can change most of the constitution as he sees fit. What does Section 13, sub-section 4 say?

Any changes in Sections 1, 4, 5 or 13 of this constitution must be approved by a two thirds majority vote of members attending a General Members’ Meeting.

Follow the number. Follow the numbers.

Section 1 is Political Objectives

Section 4 is Elections to the Party Leadership

Section 5 is Advisory Council

Section 13 is General Members’ Meetings

All the above sections need a two third majority vote of the membership.

Section 2: Membership, doesn’t. Fat Nick, being the Chairman, has the authority to change that section of the constitution all by himself.

So where does that leave the BNP?

Fat Nick has no choice but to change the constitution because the law requires it to be changed and the Chairman has the authority to change it. The party faithful has no say in it. Either the constitution changes or the BNP stop being a legally* legitimate political party.

*Whatever, they will remain a morally illegitimate party.

All this though, will not change the party at all. Consider this, from a report of a public BNP meeting in Cleveleys (via)…

One member offers me a drink as he says: “We’re not intimidating are we? We get a lot of bad press but we’re not thugs.”
But I don’t like what I hear next as around six people put their hands up to request an application form to become a BNP member. One convert shouts: “I’ll have an application form, but not a coloured one!”
It was greeted with laughter by most in the audience, and was a deeply unpleasant reminder of where I was.

While inside the building the recruitment drive was in full flow, it was a different story outside as four people got turned away. All were either black or Asian. There were no members of the ethnic minorities inside.
As I left a security guard told me: “After a while it was getting full up so we decided it had to be members only.”
Strange that, as I was given a seat all to myself and I’m not a member. And I swear there was plenty of space.

Having the decision made for you

October 3rd, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

There have been a couple of posts on this blog recently, debating the policy of No Platform with regard to the BNP.

I am of the mind that not to be involved in the debates in various arenas along side the BNP and to challenge them as and when their bullshit is being spouted is to miss an opportunity to challenge their propaganda at the time of its seeding in the mind of the listener, at the best time to challenge it.

This view is challenged by the opposing thought that to go along with any appearance of the fascists is to give them credibility, a respectability that they do not deserve.

The two ideas are both, I think, valid. The No Platform policy does have some history to back it up, against the National Front, but I just cannot get my head round leaving those fuckers to bleat on about how we are under an invasion that is ethnically cleansing the indigenous population with out challenging it at the time. it feels a little like letting them get away with it.

I confess, I do not know what to do. Do I carry on with my attitude of trying to refute them, or go for the No Platform policy.*

Until now.

(*I have never been in a position where this decision has actually affected anyone or anything directly, but you never know what’s gonna happen in the future)

What the policy of challenging the BNP needs, is not just someone opposing them in debates, which I am sure there are many people who could rip them to shreds, but chairmen of those debates and interviewers that are willing and able to challenge them and let the anti-fascists challenge them and follow up the BNPs’ responses with something more robust than is currently happening.

Until the people challenging the fascists in these arenas are able to go at them harder, and deeper in to the fascists answers to expose the real truths behind what is being offered as real by the BNP, then the BNP are not just being given a platform, but are able to turn it into a form of propaganda.

It’s not going to happen though, is it? Getting real scrutiny of the fascists in debates and interviews? When you have stuff like this interview and supposedly intelligent people fucking up so royally, it’s gonna be interesting to see how Jack Straw, David Dimbleby and whoever else is going to appear on Question Time handle Fat Nick and his lies, but I fear it is just going to show how the media and such are just not up to the job.

The decision is made for me. No Platform it is then.

Bullshit baffles brains…

August 18th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

… as the saying goes. It doesn’t apply here though.

The question over at the BNP site is “Who are the minorities?”. And guess who are the minorities…

Over and over again, British people — and Europeans generally — are told that they must “accommodate the minorities” in their countries. Yet the worldwide reality is that European-origin people are the true global minority, and, using the liberal logic which demands special rights for minorities, it is Europeans who should receive the special perks.

Yes. The poor old white man is the true minority. The white man might not be a minority in their own country so the BNP are making the battle global. Suddenly, the Nationalists are worried about other countries. If the white man clubs together, then and only then, and even then only in absolute numbers does he become an endangered species.

[There are several reports mentioned in the BNPs’ pamphlet of shit and it’s late so if someone else wants to look into how good/reliable they are, go for it..]

Consider the following: The world’s population is forecast to hit 7 billion in 2011, the vast majority of its growth coming in ‘developing’ and, in many cases, the poorest nations, according to the latest World Population Data Sheet issued by the Population Reference Bureau in America.

Some 97 percent of global growth over the next 40 years will happen in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, said the report

And there is a lot of talk of birthrates, quoting various population increases in various countries and suchlike, all of which may be accurate, but just as likely not. But then there’s also stuff like…

A United Nations population survey in 2007 predicted the 21st century disappearance of western man.

By 2050, a fourth of all the people of Eastern Europe will have vanished. Ukraine will lose one-third of its population. Russia, 150 million at the breakup of the Soviet Union, 142 million today, will be down to 108 million.

Ah, ‘Western Man’. That’s what the racists are worried about, aren’t they? So, in the next 91 years, there will be no true white man, eh? Why are they quoting Eastern Europeans in the decline of western man? Aren’t they one of the groups of people coming over here, taking ‘our’ jobs and taking ‘our’ benefits whilst shagging ‘our’ women?
Here’s the first solid bit of bullshit numbering. Either the BNP are adding their own numbers or the report they got it from was written by an uninformed twat because didn’t the Soviet Union break up twenty years ago? Any recent self-respecting, legitimate report wouldn’t count anything to do with the Soviet Union. The USSR is history already. Oh, and where do all these people in the Ukraine get lost? In the sodding permafrost?

The UN statistics, however, show the populations of Northern, Western and Southern Europe stabilising or falling only slightly.

That’s just not good enough, is it? Come on. It’s your duty to your race to fuck more!

It is time, therefore, that liberals stopped talking about ‘minorities’ as if European people were somehow the dominating majority. European-origin people across the world are the true minority, and as such deserve extra special treatment in their home nations.

Ok. Taking their figures, the dodgy groupings and double accounting, at face value, so what? Aren’t they supposedly ‘Nationalists’? Isn’t the clue in the name? What do these Nationalists care about other countries? Don’t they have an isolationist twang to their policies? All of a sudden, the go-it-aloners are worried about other nations ‘indigenous people’.

[added during a read through: When liberals (and that could be anyone when the BNP say it) talk about minorities, they talk about the minority ethnic groupings of that country. In South Africa the minority is the white bloke. In European countries, European descended people are the majority. FFS.]

I just spotted too, ‘European-origin people’ don’t just deserve an equal crack at the whip, not even special treatment, but extra special treatment. What do they want? A fucking house given to them? They want immigrants that come here to work (until they can send them packing), but want extra special treatment themselves. Sounds like aparthied would be just up their street.

Here come the big guns of the arguement: The United Nations stuff…

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007, states very clearly that:

Oh, go on. Lets see what you make of this. I’m going to quote everything they do and then deal with it in one go at the end…

“Article 3
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 4
Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.
Article 6
Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.
Article 8
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
(e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.
Article 33
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live.
2. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine the structures and to select the membership of their institutions in accordance with their own procedures.”

Indigenous people do have all those rights. They are meant, primarily, where a land has been occupied, colonised or conquered. A good example of this are the Aboriginal people of Austrialia. Foreign people came and conquered the land and for fuck knows how long denied them full rights, equal rights in their own land.
I challenge anyone to give me an example of where one of the UN articles quoted above are being violated with regard to the ‘indigenous’ population of Great Britian.

Those UN articles apply to individual countries, territories, irrespective of what is happening in other countries. The Republic of Ireland could have a majority population of Easter Islanders and it wouldn’t matter to the rights of anybody in the UK at all.

I would imagine ‘Western Man’ is already a minority. Think about it. There’s a fuck load of people spread over this earth and western Europe and North America is a small part of it. If the fascist nationalists are having to club together with unnatural bedfellows to become the put-upon victims, the rest of their arguments disappear like sand through their fingers

Protest at RWB

August 16th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

The UAF protest at the RWB Festival yesterday was largely peaceful, but did not achieve as much as was hoped for.

I was part of a group of around 200-300 protesters who blocked one of the nearby roads from around 10am to 2.30pm, when we heard that all other road blocks had been broken, and faced with four police horses, dogs, and a body of around 50 to 60 police, we rejoined the official body of protesters.

The protest was generally good-natured. At several points during the day, the police tried to disperse us, informing us of some random section that had been invoked that made our gathering illegal, but we formed ranks and linked arms, and in the end each time the police looked as though they were about to use force, they decided not too. The police were forced to block the road themselves with two police vans parked across it, as Nazi’s trying to attend the festival were stuck in a large traffic jam and started to get out of their cars to confront us.

We were informed that other road blocks had been held for a while, but eventually the Nazi’s managed to get to their festival, though in lower numbers than the BNP hoped for.

The protest I was with was peaceful but resolute. The police were mainly locals, and at no point changed into riot gear, a far cry from the G20 protests, where the thugs of the Met’s Territorial Support Group couldn’t wait to get tooled up. This would have undoubtedly lead to some  serious conflict, especially in a confined country lane.  The policing was far more sensible on this occasion, though we still have to remember that they were there primarily to try and ensure the festival of hate continued undisturbed.

I challenged a number of them on why they were protecting the Nazi’s. In the main there were few denials that the BNP were Nazi’s, but the usual theme of freedom of speech came through, combined with the traditional ‘I’m just doing my job’.  One officer said to me (in reference to our protest) that his grandfather who fought in the war would be appalled, which was a strange thing to say. I pointed out that his grandfather, and in fact the many millions who died in the war against the Nazi’s, would be appalled by the fact that the Nazi’s are now being protected by the police, and granted democratic status by our governments, who are paralysed in the face of the new family friendly approach of the BNP.

Whilst we did not achieve the shutdown that we hoped for, the protest was uplifting and partially successful. The particular blockade I was with was made up of a large mixture of young, old, black and white. We were prepared to struggle alongside each other, though individually few if any there were at all inclined to violence. This is in contrast to the BNP, whose strength is rooted in violent, thuggish and cowardly attacks on individuals, rather than any collective action. We can take strength from this as a movement. We are not the same as them – there is a huge difference between their racial violence and the type of direct but non-violent force that we used.

There is also great potential to shut this festival down. Given a bit more planning, and double the number of protesters, we could have held the key road points. We must make sure we a successful next time, as it unfortunately seems likely there will be a next time.

I have been informed about a piece on the news last night, I will post the link once I find it. Apparently one of the ‘fun’ games at the festival was to put two characters dressed as Obama and Bin Laden in the stocks and throw things at them!

BNP’s Hate-Fest

August 13th, 2009 § 6 comments § permalink

The BNP’s Red White and Blue Festival takes place this weekend, with several thousand expected to both attend and protest at it. The planned protest, called by UAF, has received a degree of hostility from the press and police to date. The police are getting in some pre-emptive strikes, with echoes of the G20 operation,  preparing the country for a brave defence of the Red White and Blue festival against those violent anti-fascist thugs. Not them again, the collective country asks, they are always up to no good – there’s bound to be some trouble if they are involved. Alongside them, the BNP are on the charm offensive, trying to convince us all that this is effectively a village fete, and all they want is to be left alone to enjoy themselves. After all, aren’t they a legitimate political party?

The general arguments that are made against the UAF protests can be broadly grouped into the following themes.

Firstly, we have the argument about free speech. The BNP are a) entitled to free speech, and b) aren’t the anti fascists being fascist for denying this free speech? Following on from this, the UAF are then shown to be ‘just as bad as the BNP’.

Secondly, there is the presentation of the festival as some sort of casual, lawful celebration, with attendees going for no other reason than to have fun, which they should be lawfully allowed to do without harassment. The quote from Simon Darby, deputy leader of the BNP, on the Guardian web site says it all: ‘”It’s not in our interests to cause trouble. We’re up there with our wives, girlfriends and children. We just want to have a good time, but these protesters want to latch trouble on to us.” Clearly, we are led to believe that this is just a family event, with fun and games in the sun. The police are treating this at face value, with the local spokesperson saying of their operation “The people attending Red, White and Blue have a right to do so in peace and safety but we also realise that people have the right to protest in a lawful and peaceful way.”.

Thirdly, we have the view that the protesters are also violent, and that this amounts to some sort of contradiction – you can’t resort to violence and call yourselves anti-fascist. The methods of the UAF are questioned and compared to the BNP’s thugs. There are other ways of trying to stop the BNP, which must be done without confrontation.

Lastly, some argue that we should all just ignore it. The election results clearly show that the BNP’s vote has not increased in absolute terms, but that the rest of the country has become disillusioned with politics, and with no alternatives to the 3 mainstream parties simply didn’t vote. The BNP will never get in, as the vast majority of the country do not support them. By making a fuss of their festival, we are giving them publicity and national coverage.

This is not an exhaustive list, but a brief survey of the ideas emanating from the mainstream media. What is striking is that in almost all the coverage, the fundamental issue of the racist and fascist roots of the BNP is never discussed. We have somehow moved on from this argument – the terms of debate have changed. Whether this is a sign of the gaining legitimacy of the BNP, or merely lazy sensationalist reporting, the fact of the matter is that  UAF finds itself in the unusual position of having to defend themselves for organising a protest against a party that the majority of people would probably accept are racist, and in general oppose.

So how do we address the 4 themes outlined above?  Extremist parties such as the BNP have often used the free speech argument to gain a platform for their ideas, though free speech is the last thing that would be on their minds if they ever got into power. Did Hitler stand up for the principles of free speech when he was in power? Are we to make the mistakes of the past and allow the racists to use free speech and democracy with the aim of destroying it?

We also have to ask ourselves what we even think free speech is. Is it being able to say whatever we want? How do the people that are the victims of the racial hatred that is spread by the BNP feel about free speech?  As with many things that we label as ‘free’ we generally consider within the framework of not causing harm to anyone else. Freedom to do whatever you want does not include things like attacking or murdering other people, and in the same vein, freedom to say what you want has limits too, such as inciting violence against people based on the colour of their skin or ethnicity. If this is too fascist for you, then clearly you have lost faith in the ability of society to set some basic rules for itself.  I would be interested to see if anyone was prepared to defend a festival celebrating pedophilia on the grounds of ‘free speech’, so why do we consider it in a racist context?

The BNP’s characterisation of this event as a peaceful festival has been given an astronomical amount of spin. As noted in previous posts, there is mountains of evidence, including their own manifesto, that the BNP is a racist party, with it’s philosophy based on white supremacist theories,  links to many violent far right groups, participation of many of it’s leading members in earlier racist organisations and struggles, and the previous convictions that some members, such as their leader, have had for racial crimes. Amongst the tombola stalls and coconut shys will be speeches and talks pushing the white is right message, and the aims of hounding out of the country of all those who are non white.  This festival is not about peace and tolerance, it is about hatred and violence. The police know all this too, which makes it even more astounding that they are preparing to defend it.

How do we deal with the violence question? There is undoubtedly a violent element within the UAF, but this is limited to a minority. Without dismissing this, the contrast is with the BNP, whose entire immigration policy is based on violence, something that the vast majority of the BNP membership buys into, and is one of the central unifying themes within the party itself. Arguing that the UAF are as fascist as the BNP is comparing a coalition who are trying to stop the BNP spreading their doctrine of hate with a party whose logical conclusion is the holocaust! This is not just misguided, it is wrong.

The argument as to whether to use violence or not is a fair enough question. Most people there will not use violence.  Force, maybe, but violence, no. We are not going there to beat them up, we are just going there to stop the festival happening. The press will of course get their usual shock pictures, but as with the G20 protest, there will be one day of tutting at the protesters, before the truth seeps out over the following weeks. Those that claim that using violence against the BNP is wrong of course reserve the right to support violence elsewhere – the general populations of Iraq and Afghanistan are far more deserving of our violence than the BNP! I don’t have an unequivocal view on the violence question, but the threat posed by the BNP, the vile messages that they are trying to spread means that the possibility of violence from a minority is no reason to stop the protest.

So should we just ignore it all? Not at all. The recent election victory has lead to an increase in racial attacks and racist demonstrations, as the BNP and it’s thugs gain confidence. We  have the historical example of the rise of Hitler, and the deaths of millions. ‘It will never happen here’, they say. Well, I bet they never thought anything like that would happen in Germany either. But it did, and it was not a sudden event, it was a process that took place over a number of years, with Hitler building a party and using the democratic machinery of the state to spread his doctrine. We need to learn from the past, and instead of sitting back and ignoring it, make sure that history does not repeat itself.

We need to fight the BNP every step of the way. Nothing is set in stone, we make our own history, and we need to collectively make sure that our history is one that is not dominated by the the racist, fascist BNP.

Dale, the police and the BNP

August 12th, 2009 § 3 comments § permalink

Iain ‘Fail’ Dale fails to understand the problem…

Are we really saying that a BNP supporter is incapable of doing his job as a police officer? If an officer displays any degree of racial discrimination during the course of carrying out his duties, then I would be the first to say that disciplinary action should be taken, but a blanket ban is wrong, and in itself discriminatory. Should we also fire any police officer who supports any political party, or just those ones we don’t happen to approve of?

Is it wrong to discriminate against people that discriminate? Do Labour, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats want the removal of people from the country depending on their colour?

The BNP Constitution, Section 1, sub-section 2, part b

The British National Party stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples. It is therefore committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigrationand to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.

That statement in the BNPs’ constitution isn’t just about declaring their dislike for a certain section of society, it is a declaration to ethnically cleanse anyone that the BNP decides do not belong.

Membership of the BNP isn’t like the church where there are differing opinions on particular areas of thought. For example. Some members of the Church of England don’t give a monkeys’ about homosexuality and some think it’s abhorrent.
Every member of the BNP has read (or should’ve done) and agrees with it. Every member of the BNP thinks that non-white European people shouldn’t be here, have no right to be here, is taking something away from the white people.

What do you think ‘negotiation’ and ‘consent’ mean? BNP member have been arrested for ‘negotiating’ with non-white citizens.
At the moment the BNP are not able to get rid of people by legal changes, but if they did, what do you think that would involve? Forced deportations, removing civil liberties, there will be probably be organisations that are deniable to help ‘persuade’ people to leave.

The BNP aren’t fucking about.

Having said that, and much more could be said, if someone believes that much that someone, who’s family have lived in this country, 3 generations or so born here, no connections to anywhere else, works, pays taxes etc, does not belong just because of the colour of that persons skin, why would they help them? Any occasion that requires someone to call the police is a bad situation. A bad situation could help someone decide to leave. The BNP member is committed to getting non-white people to leave.

There are several arguements that go with this, mostly ‘whatabouteries’. The two most common appear in The Fail Dales post and comments. These are religion and the National Black Police Association.

Well, the religion one, as explained earlier using what could be said is a parallel situation, does not have a definative, stated viewpoint, policy, or objective with regards to homosexuality. Some strands of religion accept it, some don’t. Some are still deciding. It may be the case that religion and being a police officer are incompatible, but that is a different discussion. The two things, religion and being a copper, and BNP membership and being a police officer, are separate issues. One does not dictate the result of the other.

With NBPA, it states on the front page of their website…

Membership of the NBPA is open to all in policing on application.

There is no bar to membership based on colour.

The NBPA is also not trying to deny anybody anything. They are not calling for the removal of white police officers or the denial of employment rights from a certain section of the force.

The BNP want to solve the problem of ‘British workers for British people’, racial discrimination, and social housing problems by removing sections of British citizenry. Not just recent immigrants or asylum seekers but also people that know nothing else. People that don’t just feel British but are British.

Ooh, I nearly forgot. Another arguement is that the BNP is a legal political party so why not? Well, the BNP is a racist organisation pushing racist idea and policies. This means that the question shouldn’t be ‘should police officers be allowed to join the BNP’ but ‘should the BNP be legal’?

One of Dales’ commentors has hit the nail on the head

The truth is that supporting the BNP is itself a racist act: it makes a person guilty of contributing to a climate of racism and prejudice in this country, which is harmful to racial and ethnic minorities. That is true whether or not the person considers him/herself to be a racist. We ought to be upfront about this fact, and more willing to openly condemn supporters of the BNP. Saying that supporting the BNP is a mere ‘protest’ gives the party, and its supporters, a veneer of legitimacy that they just doesn’t deserve. If someone supports the BNP, in any capacity, they are complicit in racism. They have contributed to making life that little bit harder for racial and ethnic groups in Britain, and that is something of which they should be ashamed.

Left or right?

June 8th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Are the BNP left wing or are they on the right?

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?

More shit than I can eat in one sitting

June 5th, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

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.


– 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.

– 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.

The BNP Defence ‘policy’

June 5th, 2009 § 6 comments § permalink

The BNP Defence Policy…

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?

Bloggerheads has a collection of links to the rest of the policies

Where Am I?

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