Why?
There is confusion spread throughout the party. Some are asking why we have to amend our
constitution, some are questioning their ideology and some are taking a long hard look at their political allegiance. They are right to be unsure. We are walking a tightrope. If we falter now, the BNP will never secure parliamentary representation for the indigenous peoples of these isles.
A cocksure Tory once said that Labour would never be elected again. A few years previously James Callaghan’s Old Labour government had fallen. It was widely believed that the party then in its present incarnation would never capture the support of middle England again. The signs were there in 1974 (and arguably decades earlier), when they had been forced to form a minority government, short of a majority by 33 seats. The belief that the public had lost faith – and many were suspicious of anything remotely resembling communism – in a socialist party was borne out over the course of the next three general elections, they failed in 83, 87, and 92.
Labour bigwigs needed to make the party more attractive to the middle-class, it was vital that they try to move away from its socialist stance to free-market policies. There was considerable opposition from the elder members and the hardcore ‘reds’. Like the BNP, Labour had constitutional issues, the infamous clause four, which detailed Labour’s commitment to Nationalisation and wealth redistribution, but it was also a stick for their own back, often attacked by their opponents.
In 1992, Labour were expected to defeat the Tories. Labour lost, and this was a wake up call for the party, it gave impetus to the architects of the New Labour project. Labour ratified Blair’s clause four constitutional amendments in 1995. This represented the final step from Old Labour to New Labour, and two years later, they won, massively.
2004 was our wake up call, it was supposed to be the year that the BNP finally broke into the big time, we were going to win several seats at the European election. Perhaps we should have realised that the media weren’t attacking us because we we didn’t pose a threat, and they were right, we were agonisingly close in Nick’s North-West region, but ultimately we failed. The party had overextended itself financially, morale was very low, and then, Nick announced the unthinkable, we were going to have to amend our membership criteria. There was big opposition from the membership, and the plan was abandoned, but not forgotten.
Five years later, high on victory, the amendments first suggested in 2004 were now being forced onto us by the establishment. The first hurdle has been navigated – the voting membership has selected a proposal from the Chairman to go to the party membership to ratify our constitutional amendments. The membership now holds in their hands the one chance we have to break away from the remnants of the old party that hold us back. For some, this may be a very bitter pill to swallow, but tell me: Is it as bitter as all the years of failure you have endured?
Remember;
We are still Ethno-Nationalists,
We still oppose mass immigration,
We are still committed to dismantling Multiculturalism,
We will leave the European Union.
The major difference between ethno-nationalism and racial-nationalism, is that the former recognises loyalty to your ethnic group before that of your race. Think of your country, culture and heritage before that of the kindred ethnicities. This may come as a surprise, but the British have been betrayed, bullied and in some cases slaughtered by those whom racial-nationalists would consider their brethren. It’s just a reconsideration, a repositioning of your world view and priorities.
From 1982 to 1999, the BNP was like a small child, uncouth, politically unpalatable, electorally toxic, too influenced by the movements that gave birth to it. We are now at the adolescence stage of our development, and it is painful. We are at the brink of passing into adulthood, political maturity, and like a youngster that has outgrown his peers, we most move on. Move on to electoral success and become a parliamentary party.
However, we must not cast aside those whom were there in the beginning, but they must accept that the tyranny we face now was allowed to manifest itself on their watch, their brand of nationalism was unacceptable to the electorate, it was a complete failure, they must accept and correct those failings, and they must adapt. Those that have done so, now lead the party.
This is our ‘clause four moment’.
Because:
1.) They leave their drivel all over the internet coupled with support for the BNP. It's easy for the media to assign their views to us from these postings, and they do.
2.) We are not a racial-nationalist party, how many times does it have to said, we are ethno-nationalists. Why do you think Nick repeatedly states that we are for the English, Irish, Scots and the Welsh?
3.) A 100% White country is a fantasy. It is too expensive, practically unworkable and would lead to the invasion of Britain by foreign forces. The Germans tried mass deportation, and where did that lead, once they realised it was too big a task?
Asmo you dont have to put this up but surely they all have to leave how else are we going to safeguard our race and nation; how will control birth rates and inter-marriage?. Look at South Africa(or Rhodesia) it was a prosperous , just and safe state until it buckled to the international marxists. I am worried about the amendments, Im in the army so im not a member just a supporter but the BNP was, and I thin kstill is, our only hope ..I dont want the BNP to play politics its an infectous game..we need to be better than that. I understand that we have been put in a bad position. Maybe you could explain to me how this will work out for the best because I'm having a hard time seeing it.
robertdegen@hotmail.com
There is a big difference between having a small portion of immigrants that will hopefully be absorbed into the indigenous population, and the current mess that Britain is in.
The BNP plans on deporting the illegals, the bogus asylum seekers, and foreign criminals. Those three will make a big enough chunk of the immigrant population. Once they are gone, the BNP will have a voluntary repatriation program with financial incentives for nations where the immigrants come from. Since many immigrants are in Britain for economic reasons, this may end up being a magnet for many.
There will be remnants, just as there were Roman, Saxon, and Viking settlers who settled into the British Isles, and were absorbed by the indigenous population.
But more importantly, what's going to be key is two things. A cultural restoration and a surge in native birth rates. Both these things will help speed along with the absorption process of the immigrants who stay on the Isles.
If you think that just deporting the illegal immigrant will solve our problems then you are in for a very rude awakening.
Anyone with the ability to think, knows what is coming and we little people have no say in it.
However we go through the motions until then I suppose.
Are you refering to me GA? If so, I am confused. I did not claim that deporting illegals would solve Britain's problems. I also pointed out that more than deportation would be needed to fix Britain.
And yes, there's unpleasant possibilities looming on the horizon. But I suppose some degree of optimism is needed.
Asmo: I agree, a 100% White Country is pretty much impossible. I would like to think that the BNP will achieve a 99.9% British nation once again.
We will always have issues regarding some chap that went to Thailand, married a Thai girl and have a family now in the UK.
I personally do not want ethnics in our party, but if we are wise and choose the "right" ethnics, I think it will make us stronger (Politically).
Once we are in power, we can change the forced laws that we do not like.
The BNP is not a racial nationalist party. At least not anymore. You speak of John Tyndall, the preceding chairman whom Nick tossed out along with his core followers. Over the years the BNP has evolved into an ethnonationalist party, a party that wants Britain to be for the British, rather than for white people as a race. That is a crucial difference.
Yes Britain was once all indigenous, but the BNP accepts the fact that you can't force people out who played by the rules. You have to find a compromise.
But besides repatriation, two things that will help indigenous reclaim their country are things that don't involve the State: a cultural revival and a surge in birth rates. These two things will have a far greater impact than removing immigrants. For what's the point of putting an end to immigration if the natives aren't reproducing? Or belonging to a decadent culture that makes successful families difficult to raise?
Say the BNP will achieve power within the next 20 years,In that time there will be 4th 5th maybe 6th generations of immigrants that will have family's,many if almost all from the sub Shara African and Asia,not to mention the East Europeans.Their birth rate far is far higher than ours.The biggest mistake the BNP could make is to accept these as British even if they have assimilated to our way of life.
Shared values and acceptance is not the way forward,we could have upwards of 20 million racial foreigners on this island in that time.I predict that within the next 5 years there will be an amnesty of all illegals in this country,Boris Johnston wants to do it now and he is A conservative.So the BNP might not even get a chance to kick out all the illegals.
I not against the BNP softening its image to make it self to make electable,What bothers me is that core values of the party are being eroded away,for short term gains.Race has everything to do with it.Even if some on here don't like it.
Your concerns are understandable and legitimate. The argument of the BNP is not one based on shared values solely. The BNP is an ethnonationalist party and understands the role of genes and heritage. It understands that culture does not exist in a vacuum and needs to be maintained by the descendants of those who built it. The BNP hopes to greatly reduce the immigrant population through deportation of the illegals, bogus asylum seekers, and foreign criminals. That will greatly reduce the immigrant population already. Then the BNP will set up a system of voluntary repatriation for immigrants desiring to return to their country of origin, and offer financial incentives to make the deal more enticing.
If all goes according to plan, the majority of immigrants will leave, and the remnants will be more easily absorbed into the British ethnic identity.
And yes, the immigrant birth rate is high, which is why its crucial that the indigenous Britons have as many children as they are both willing and able to support. This will make it so that the immigrant remnant has less of both a genetic and cultural impact on the British people.
This is the most fair compromise between kicking all the foreigners out, and seeing the British people follow the fate of the Romans, vanishing completely, leaving only ruins and a great legacy behind.
My thoughts exactly, at the moment nothing else matters except the ultimate goal of power, ethno nationalism is the only way forward if we wish to achieve that power for multiculturalism is now so entrenched in Britain that anything else would be unworkable.
The total stopping of immigration, the fincial encouragement for our women to have babies, the ban on abortion except for the endangerment of the mother's life, the immediate expulsion of any Muslim 'cleric' who dared to speak against Britain and her interests and the same for adherents,
the training of young people for a trade at the age of sixteen and the stopping of benefits of any kind for people who have not been resident in the UK for ten years.
I have said all along that we need a street fighting force as well as political clout to win power, the communist traitors in westminster have turned the police in this country into an arm of the political elite for the political elite, and we have to protect ourselves politically and physically.
There is a place for the national front as a disciplined street movement providing they curb their personal racial overtones, in fact the BNP should seriously develop this foir the time when politics go out of the window and the persecution of Christians and nationalists begins in earnest, and it will.
Otherwise peaceful Patriots and Nationalists are often somewhat reluctant to discuss the possibility that it may come down to civil conflict, in the same way that talk of the negative effects of immigration and Islamification is suppressed by the ever present but now less effective 'racist' label. Yet the very idea that these neo-Communists aka Fascist Labour in particular but the liblabcon and their ukip, green etc safety valve parties in general, are going to give up their power and wealth via the dodgy ballot box is bordering on the insane imho.
Anyway, the bankers (Zionist, non Zionist or their sympathisers) who issue and control the Nation's currency, are never going to relinquish that issuance and control without a bloody fight to the death. JFK tried to wrest control of the Dollar from the Fed (a private bank just like the Bank of England) and was murdered for it. You can forget democracy when it comes to dealing with these people, just as they have never been interested in democracy from day one. THEY are the ones effectively doing all the killing at the moment for control of oil and its monstrous wealth creation, murdering people (theirs and ours) in their tens, if not hundreds of thousands. Fighting this is a patriotic duty and not a crime.
To make a stand and say "no more" and being prepared to fight and die for it, is what freedom fighters have been doing for centuries when trying to bring down a tyranny and this is no different. The BNP and other Nationalist parties may have to steer the dodgy ballot box route but it will be the freedom fighters yet to emerge in a civil conflict, possibly accelerated by global conflict, who will eventually win the argument for them and it is those same freedom fighters, whose leaders will make up a significant part of any future Nationalist Government.
I know that they failed, I know that's why we're in this position. I don't see why I should heed those that failed throughout every decade from the 50's onward. You don't have to have been there to know this, the present situation is directly related to events in the past. I've done my research.
It's all very well saying 'I've been a nationalist since 1965', and therefore, I know better, when clearly what they do know, and did, led to nothing more than one elected councillor (elected unopposed), until Derek Beacon in1993.
Aussie Bob's 'Time to Go' article went directly to the point about one of our issues, anti-Semitism. I believe it's inseparably intertwined with racial-nationalism, you will never separate the two, so they both have to go.
Well you could try doing a bit more research on Kingsley Read and you will discover that the National Party of which I was a member had I believe two elected councillors.
Without those people who really did have to fight for Nationalism there would be no British National Party today.
Remember that.
I think that nationalists of old do deserve credit for laying the foundations of the modern BNP. But times have changed. I don't have a problem with nationalists who have seen it all, especially those who learned from the past and understand that a new direction is needed for British nationalism. Veterans such as yourself and others, including the BNP leadership. Veterans like you are needed to provide guidance to the young and brand new nationalists.
What Asmo is criticizing is the swarm of unreformed nationalists who may have done things for nationalism, some of which was good, but most of which was bad, hence why British Nationalists parties only got 1 or 2 elected councilors, rather than the 100 or so that the modern BNP has. Now the modern BNP has been in existence for 10 years, giving these old school veterans plenty of time to rethink their old ways. And yet it seems like quite a few have refused. Why so? Perhaps is it that their vision for Britain is completely opposed to Nick's vision and the modern BNP?
That's why these unreformed nationalists need to be shown the door to the NF, BPP, or some other fringe group. They will never be content with Nick's leadership or the new direction of the BNP, and will be a source of trouble.
So yes, show respect for those who were there during the dark times, people like you and John Bean and others. But more importantly, learn from the mistakes of the past, and recognize what had British Nationalism in a hangup for decades.
LOL, diplomatically put, as usual, Chameleon. I agree, which is why I said some of the experienced Nationalists, that have adapted, are still around and taking an active role in the leadership of the party.
I'm just not prepared to bow down to people on the basis of greater years of service (in some cases disservice). I'm no newbie, I've been around since 2001.
Erm, for those of us who would like to know, could you give us a bit more information along the lines of your post, I think I know what you are getting at but, ex squaddie has a valid point and argument, surely in the face of new labour/communist onslaught and their determination to wipe us out as a people and a country, we have to be prepared to make a physical stand at some point on the road to power, we need 324 seats to gain power at westminster and in the short term the establishment is going to destroy everything to implement their strategy, what then are we to do? lie down and think of England?
If it comes down to physical confrontation, I don't know how the indigenous will prevail. The LibLabCon regime as well as the EU are backed by the most powerful military in the world: the US military. I'm sure Obama would love to lead a Crusade against Racism; Americans can be easily whipped up into a frenzy especially since my countrymen believe that racism is a great evil.
And a violent confrontation with the LibLabCon regime will only give Obama such an excuse to intervene. A peaceful democratic way is really the only way. If the BNP can somehow rise to power peacefully, then that will make it a bit harder for Obama to find an excuse.
If we had said that in the face of tyranny from Hitler Europe would now be in Nazi hands, there has to be opposition to tyranny and treachery, Jack Straw has said that the "British as a race are not worth saving"
If a justice secretary of the present government can say that publicly then the white people and their families are in great and imminent danger (whether we fight or not) of being wiped off the map, death before dishonour.
'I advise that BNP supporters deny these cretins any platform'.
I don't like the sound of that! Some of these people have been members for a long time, and have genuine concerns that the party is moving towards civic nationalism. We need to reassure some of them that this is not the case. Dialogue is the way forward.
A lot of these people though, with some exceptions, aren't interested in dialogue. Many of these guys want the BNP to become the National Front. Which the BNP is not and never should be. And they are determined to bring as many people to the Dark Side of Nationalism.
You see, Jared Taylor, a prominent white nationalist in America, is a big tent guy who believes in unifying all the various nationalist factions in America, and that's why we're so disorganized and not accomplishing anything. We're too diametrically opposed, even though the big tenters claim we are on the same side. I, and other Americans, subscribe to BNP-style ethnonationalism, where as a big faction of Americans subscribe to Stormfront-style race nationalism. The two ideologies are very different and will inevitably come into conflict sooner or later. It's better to let the race nationalists go their separate ways by joining the National Front. There will be less inner conflict within the BNP when the minority faction has its own platform and voice.
I am also concerned about civic nationalism in the BNP. But the race nationalists object to it for different reasons.
I totally understand where you are coming from, in fact from what you have written we are singing from the same hymn sheet! I still think a 'no platform' stance is unfair, though – and if people have contributed time and money to the party then they are allowed a say in its future, especially as the membership is soon to vote on the changed constitution. If it does change, though, they will have to accept that. And will have to consider leaving the party, as to continue to vocalise what will become antiquated views will damage the party, and potentially even invite litigation against us.
We must NOT become a civic nationalist party, though!
I'm in complete agreement that the BNP should never become a civic nationalist party. It can be very difficult defending ethnonationalism for it is in essence a middle ground between civic and race nationalism. It recognizes the roles of both genes and culture, thereby acknowledging truth in both civic and race nationalist claims, and thus risks being pulled by both sides like in a tug of war.
Ethnonationalism in the West is a fairly recent concept, or at least it has been dead for a long time, when Western nations became defined as borders controlled by a State, and citizenship being defined as loyalty to the State. It's imperative that the BNP continue being the vanguard for Western ethnonationalism, previously considered the nationalism of the Third World.
Different ethnicities come under the broader classification of race. If you identify somebody as belonging to the white race, the info inferred from that is very little; skin colour, originating in Europe, etc.
It doesn't tell you anything of their heritage, culture, values, language, which is instead defined by ethnicity.
For Example, Somalis are an ethnic group that you would assign to the broader black racial group.
Thanks. Ethnos (Greek) is usually translated as 'nation', which fits in with what you say.
The situation of Britain now and Britain during WWII is a bit different. The Britain of WWII was a united, homogenous country with a government that would actually stand up for its sovereignty. The Britons then had a chance.
Right now, Britain is at the mercy of the EU and the US, and the US's current military power currently surpasses what Hitler was proportionally capable of doing. Hitler had no means to destroy the world 5000x over, my country can do that.
In other words, Hiter's war machine was beatable, this current monstrosity that is trying to blend all the world ethnic groups into one people and establish a one world government is not beatable. At least not with force of arms.
The way to beat this monster is the same thing that was needed to defeat the Soviet Empire, allow it to inevitably collapse. Expose the corruption, promote British pride peacefully, and win over your kinsmen and kinswomen. Then when the moment is right , declare independence right when the EU monster is about to collapse. I have a feeling that US military hegemony won't last forever either. And with the US backing gone, that EU and its puppet LibLabCon regime might be more vulnerable.
It is far better to retreat and live to fight another day, rather than go down in a blaze of glory.
I can see where you are coming from but, Stalin alone killed up to ninety million men, women and children and Heaven only knows how many in total were killed up to 1989,
because of the collusion between Russia and the leaders of the EU to set up the EU Socialist state to be run on Politburo lines, we are going to have an almighty persecution once the set up is complete.
Interestingly, all this is fortold in Revelation chapter twelve so as you say the world government is going to happen as is the fulfilment of the prophecy of the antichrist,
he will be inpower three and one half years.
The question is; are the power brokers setting up world government because they know who the antichrist is or, are they setting it up just in case he will appear?
Nick Griffin has got one hell of a responsibility on his shoulders.
Just making a statement. I wish I was as optimistic.
Well let's discuss it.
What do you envision being the most likely scenario?