The British Nationalist

Intrinsic to the beliefs of liberals, socialists and the Left more generally is the notion that if the world was not divided-up into nations with borders (i.e. nation-states) then sustained economic “growth” and cultural “enrichment” could be gained. This is an attractive proposition to the Left for Globalism allows for the justification of classical liberal economics whilst also satisfying socialist or Left-wing demands for internationalism – a type of global order based upon the equality of human beings.

The liberal world order has largely evolved as a direct result of the English-speaking world’s proclivity toward work, trade and fairness. The economic system so prevalent in the world is the consequence of centuries of post-mercantilist free market development and trade interdependence between nations. The collapse of the Soviet Empire saw the only competing economic system also collapse. This allowed the hitherto restricted liberal advocates, and Chicago School idealists, to claim dominance in a world unfettered by any competing ideology, such as “communism”.

Consequently, as an immediate result of the liberal economic dominance of the world order, what is now termed “Globalism” arose unchallenged through various groupings such as the European Union, APEC and ASEAN. Whilst the levels of cooperation between member states of such organisations differs greatly between the respective member states, the ideological foundation of the development of greater regional integration (and global, if we include groups such as the G20, IMF, World Bank, WTO) is the promotion of liberal economic systems of trade, open markets, private competition, and withdrawal of the state as an actor in the market place. These are basic tenets of liberalism and the more refined neo-liberalism – free trade (e.g. no tariffs), less state involvement (e.g. privatisation of state assets), open borders, competition, and importantly, low taxation.

Through regional and global organisations bilateralism between nation states has become subsumed by multilateralism as regional and like-minded states cooperate more closely. In Europe’s case, multilateralism has been overtaken by the almost total surrender of nation-state sovereignty to deliberately construct the EU, a confederation of “member-states”. The elected political elites of the EU member-states who control the EU progress toward total union into a European Federation of States are so keen on the federal model of regional cooperation that they have surrendered the power to make decisions on a national basis. Instead, they have agreed, many issues and policies must be agreed through majority voting by those same nationally elected political elites. National sovereignty has been given to the EU.

We have the situation whereby a dominant economic ideal is being imposed as the only option for economic, social, and political progress. In other words, the liberal elite that are so entrenched in positions of power throughout Europe’s major political parties (and within EU the bureaucracy and parliament) have established their own structures, procedures and legal framework within the EU that any individual, organisation and national government must obey. In short, the EU is the vehicle by which the liberal elite advance their ideals.

Quite naturally, the effect that the evolution of such an organisation as the EU has had upon the peoples of the EU member-states is far-reaching. Indeed, the very notion of the EU is to be far-reaching. In document after document, the EU justifies its movement toward a united Europe as being necessary to avoid conflict. Given the history of war that certain European nations have, this may be seen by some as a justifiable ambition. The liberal theory hangs on the important principle that free-trade between nations leads to all-round prosperity. Socially, liberalism advocates a similar policy in that it desires a world free of borders, and the rights of all people to travel and live where they want to travel or live.

When people refer to us living in a “liberal democracy” the “liberal“ part of that description refers to the understanding that individuals have the freedom to do want they want – as do economic actors. This seems great. It is exactly what the British and our brothers and sisters across the world generally believe in. So what is the problem?

Such is the extent of liberal hegemony that nations are beginning to lose their voice in matters affecting them. We have for so-long tried to overcome our differences between peoples that now, that those national differences have become smothered by global brands and the normative imposition of trade terms and financing by the likes of the IMF and WTO, and the continuous EU Directives. Our very fabric of nation has been torn asunder through disinvestment, resource depletion, financial collapse, productivity collapse, unemployment, and conformity all demanded by the EU, government and the Big Business leaders. Dissent and anger is building. Combined with the now obvious betrayal of nations by the liberal elites – who have been so blinded by their own power and dogmatic stupidity that they have almost destroyed the democratic systems upon which our wealth, capital and power has been and could be built on in the future – nations now feel bereft of unity, lacking identity and confused as to the object of their mutual loyalty.

Essentially liberalism has led the nations of Europe to the brink of catastrophe. The success of liberals and their Big Business allies has created the dire situation whereby international war is not the concern. Rather, a prolonged period of internal national conflict will eventually erupt as businesses, governments and state agencies continue to suppress any sense of nation. They want to eradicate nations.

Their purpose, for varying reasons, is the creation of a new world order – Globalism – that will create more wealth for business, less accountability for politicians, and greater power for bureaucrats and the elite. Those nations seeing their losses become more and more apparent will steadily build concerted social and political movements, demanding and eventually getting the political, legal and economic control so brazenly snatched by the treasonous liberal elites and their corporate paymasters.

By BNP Blister

The blatant hand-ball by Frenchman, Thierry Henry in the recent World Cup game versus Ireland brought memories of that infamous “Hand of God” incident when Argentina beat England flooding back. Henry and the French Football Federation seem happy that their cheating has got them to South Africa – and all the riches that come with a finals appearance.

The incident got me thinking about how the British would respond in such a situation, if one of our players had committed the offense. If we include the dishonesty over the handball offence by a footballer himself and the FA’s blinded response to it, then maybe we could interpret the whole matter as offence, after offence, after offence. We have some experience with cheaters and they receive the particular disdain of spectators, viewers and followers almost universally. Remember “The Winker”? He displayed such a subtle betrayal of his intent that we all saw and knew in that one instant that there was a young man who is willing to do anything to win, including cheat. To us it “just wasn’t cricket”. The British are not bereft of such efforts by our own sportsmen. Indeed, many now excuse such actions as “going down” when touched; exaggerating injury; cunning handball; and any form of deception on the pitch, as mere examples of professionalism.

Maybe as an older person, I view such practices – sometimes by our most highly acclaimed British players – with absolute disdain. Can we call it natural instinct to press the rules, and the referees, to the point whereby it is the referee’s failings and not the perpetrators that are at fault? Sure we can, but from a moral perspective I suggest that deception and the failure to recognise a mistake is a greater sin than committing the sin in the first place. Likewise, in the western world, and specifically Britain as that is where we are interested in, we have the situation in which successive governments have made the incredible mistake of allowing immigration by people with no cultural link to or loyalty to our peoples. This is the handball offense of the liberal elite (though such an offense is incomparable in importance or impact).

They have made a fatal error of judgement in committing the primary sin of doing something just not within the rules of their own nation. Allowing uncontrolled inward migration has allowed for the decimation and eradication of British culture, tradition, and political and economic power. Yet, incredibly, the governments have not responded to these threats at all. They peddle their excuses as to why their Globalist policies must be right for Britain. Just like the French Football Federation in turning a blind eye to a cardinal offense that affected the course of football history, so recent UK governments have been guilty of failing to see the forest for the trees, in claiming that immigration is good for economy (shown to be an incorrect claim) whilst failing to see the obvious consequence that immigrants were displacing British people, their traditions, culture and values.

In steadfastly and deliberately engineering our effective eradication the LibLabCons have betrayed their nation and reinforced their initial policy mistakes.

Given that British culture is about fairness and tolerance do British nationalists even have the right to throw stones at our own values that have inadvertantly led to our demise? It can be argued that Britain has never been nationalist, though our separate countries of the UK are of course built upon the “nations” of Britain. We can and have always had a varying level of nationalism in the constituent UK nations, but how “far” should British nationalism go? It is to me an important question. Should we (the British) commit what we have always viewed as “wrong” – like Henry’s handball – to achieve the ends we so desire, namely national pride, rejuvenation and strength?

We are not hypocrites. The opposite is true and history has always shown the British to be generally honest and fair. Sadly, the world is not full of British-minded people, and instead of following our traditions and holding our values dear, they see them as vices to be torn down and conquered. Often, through our own historical imperialism which civilised, democratised and industrialised much of the world – until decolonisation at-least – we built amongst foreigners resentment toward our Greatness, and our caring attitudes. Instead of remaining side-by-side with Britain, the newly “free” nations of the old empire typically de-evolved into states of ingratitude, injustice and corruption.

The British naturally, they claim, were to blame for everything from our democracy to our Christianity that they had “suffered”. Yet we still persisted in the mistake of allowing those same people into our lands to enjoy the fruits of our collective hard endeavour. There comes a time that every nation must construct a new perception of its place in the world and invent a new sense of what is their “nation”. Such a time is probably upon us. In seeing the rise of the BNP we witness the birth of a natural, new and deliberately constructed sense of British nationalism, perhaps only seen fleetingly in times-past of national emergency, and which live-on in our minds, books and ceremonies with a quasi-religious sentiment. Such changes and events are not random. They are natural consequences of the historical environment and how that environment has affected the nation.

If nations are to continue existing they must show either the ability to adapt through change (even temporarily), or conversely eschew all other nations and exist as barbarian – effectively at war with the world. Given the natural and new nature of our British nationalism, the deliberate nature of its renewal must be supported. It is an important matter, for if we assert that we do not support the political development of British nationalism then we demonstrate our disdain for our nation, and thus join the ranks of those for whom “Britishness” is not a value worth protecting and fighting for.

Anti-nationalists are at-one with the barbarians, who decry our notions and sentimentality toward our own nation. These traitorous people, so encouraged by – or from within the ranks of – the self-interested clowns of the Left and the liberal elites fail to see that sometimes winning is everything and that failure, just like the Irish football team, amounts to total and abject eradication.

It is quite correct to suggest that some of the points I make in the article are designed expressly to “clear the decks”. We must at-least find out who exactly is in the UK and what their status is (i.e. are they employed, illegal entrants, asylum seekers, convicted criminals etc). The present government is open about the fact they have no idea about who or how many people live in the UK either legally or illegally. I ask you, will illegal immigrants (and we know that there are many, many of them) respond to a general call to present themselves to the authorities (the police or Immigration and Nationalities Directorate)? Probably very few – unless we bribe them big time – which would only exacerbate the illegal immigrant problem, long-term. So we need positive policies to actually find out who and where they are – and then do something to resolve the situation.

The list I made up is in no particular order. It contains points that are plainly unworkable, such as giving 6 months notice that all non-UK citizens must leave the UK. As has been stated, and I wholeheartedly agree with the poster, to actually do this would result in such a collapse in our social services, health and education systems that we could not seriously contemplate it. Much within the list I do not agree with and do not feel comfortable with.

Those who have criticised some of the points are well justified in doing-so. For example, “making Islam an illegal religion” and “closing mosques…” I do feel this contradicts my own opinions about freedom of worship and association. British tradition is about tolerance. Yet a quick perusal of wires and comments on the BNP website shows that a large number of the website members (BNP non-members included) believe such harsh sentiments. I included such elements in the list, not as I personally believe they should be BNP policy, but, and I make no bones about this, they are possible policies and we need to keep an open-mind.

I notice that some objectors do not object to the first point “Ban all non-UK citizens from entering the UK”. Surely that is as crazy as the last – making visitors wear a tag. What the list does do is provoke discussion. If the BNP really is to do as its immigration policy states:

“We want Britain to remain – or return to – the way it has traditionally been. We accept that Britain always will have ethnic minorities and have no problem with this as long as they remain minorities and do not change nor seek to change the fundamental culture and identity of the indigenous peoples of the British Isles.”

Then how is the BNP going to do it? Rely on a repatriation scheme that doesn’t even work now? How are we going to ensure that demographic (hence culture and identity) control is retained by the British people? It is a fact that ethnic Britons are being out-bred by immigrants. What are possible courses of action that do not break the ancient traditions we have of tolerance and fairness? We have never had a proper immigration policy, other than “let ‘em all in”.

The list is like a brainstorming session, and no malice was intended against the BNP. What are people’s views? What are your ideas? Only crazy people would seriously suggest we use totalitarian methods. So, what do we do when those that hate Britain stay here and continue to spread their intolerant views?

By BNP Blister

So, what should we do when the BNP becomes the government? I have been pondering this for a while now. Some of my responses to our national problems may seem extreme to some – I make no apology to those who take issue with them – but how else are we to reclaim control of our own country?

The quick list I have drawn-up here is focused on non-British nationals, but we could use the same exercise in looking at the economy, housing, military or whatever…

Here’s a Top Ten ”To do’s”:

1) Ban all non-UK citizens from entering the UK
2) Give 6 months notice that all non-UK citizens must leave the UK, regardless of circumstances
3) Make Islam an illegal religion
4) Close all mosques, Muslim Welfare Associations and other non-British ethnic based organisations
5) Street by street, house by house roundup of all non-UK citizens with immediate expulsion to any overseas country
6) Withdraw from the European Union; establish trade agreements with the EU
7) Introduce Oath of Allegiance in all schools, businesses and communities to weed-out separatists Withdraw UK citizenship from all foreign-born criminals with immediate expulsion
9) Shut down all money exchanges, such as Western Union
10) Make all visitors wear an electronic (radio frequency ID) wrist tag to enable tracking

They are just a few points. I am sure we have many other ideas – none are too crazy and all options deserve discussion.

BY BNP Blister

Now, leftists, don’t go thinking you can turn these solutions into official BNP policy, they’re the ideas of a BNP supporter. – Ed

Something the BNP is often accused of is a deficit of tolerance for non-British nationalities, or ethnic groups. Naturally, as a former ”left-wing” radical myself, I am all too aware that the ”intolerance” tag is like mud – it sticks – and is an effective tool in creating a perception, rightly or wrongly, that any entity ascribed as such must be avoided. In short, the labelling of the BNP as intolerant is specifically designed by the Left and the liberal-minded elite to create a popular aversion to policies and sentiment that clearly defines well-being on a nationality (i.e. ethnic) basis.

I find it remarkable that the very people that throw this accusation around with the sole intent of destroying the possibility of BNP support, are the very same people responsible for the decline of the British economy, judicial system, educational standards, law and order, foreign invasions and the total surrender of our Great Country to a clearly hostile European Union. Forget – or do we dare to mention – their postulated ideals of liberty, equality and justice. These are hardly ideals when they are so clearly abused and decimated by the Left and the liberal elite in times of mass opposition and dissent.

Liberals have long advocated the Globalist and neo-functionalist world order we have found our nation immersed in. Yet these intellectuals – largely consisting of LibLabCon politicians, broadcasters, economists, lawyers and corporate executives – berate and bully anyone that speaks of the natural and current consequences of their Globalist, free-market, neo-Liberal order. We suffer from a total lack of effective sovereign control over trade, border security, trade standards, employment rights, consumer rights, judicial recourse, refugees, finance, and state investment. These are just a brief handful of areas in which the liberal elite have engendered the United Kingdom’s utter surrender. Consequently, our people are no-longer great producers or exporters. Consequently, our people lack any identity with a clearly defined state authority. Consequently, our rights as British citizens have been subsumed into the rights of Europeans with the common legal, political and commercial rights and freedoms as all other EU citizens. In short, the liberal project has resulted in the destruction of British life in all areas. The British nation finds itself bereft of direction and politically decapitated.

The Left, on the other hand find themselves at once opposed to the Globalist order, yet simultaneously in favour of Internationalism. To the Socialists, Communists and other rabid ranks of the Left, “Internationalism” is about having a socialist world with no borders. They just dislike the private ownership of capital. To them, if they dare to examine the truth, a world without borders, a world without nations, a world without dissent from their Marxist dogma, is exactly what they will do anything for. That includes the deliberate flooding of aliens into a state (as per the Stalinist policies of removal, committed against multiple nationalities of the Soviet Union) to destroy any sense of nationality or resistance. These radicals really do want to destroy the great entrepreneurial nations of the world. Does this ring a bell? Peckham, or Wembley anyone?

Tolerance is a word bandied around by both the liberal elite and the Left to justify the policies of Globalism and Internationalism, whilst averting any critique of it by slagging-off any opponents to those policies by alleging intolerance. Such is the situation that facts are not even relevant to the situation for these neo-fascist ideologues. They are not just using a deliberate policy intended to wipe-out the nations of Europe, and Britain specifically, which can be unequivocally argued is an act of grave human rights abuse or even genocide. In addition, these elites have introduced such intrusive measures (ostensibly aimed at fighting terrorism and crime) against the British people that now the State – though it miserably fails in its role of sovereign authority – demands demonstration of the British nation’s loyalty. This has been done through the use of electronic surveillance, video cameras, harsh sentences for failure to pay council tax, TV licence enforcement, DNA collection, increased use of facial and number-plate recognition systems, data sharing, and even the politicisation of the police against political opponents. These are not measures supposedly favoured by the liberal-minded! Rather, they are direct policies of intimidation and social control more fascist than democratic.

If security and tolerance were the real motivation of the liberals and the Left then we would have had a real impact on crime and disorder long ago. Likewise we would have the instant expulsion of those who come to our once Great Nation only to defile our traditional values and freedoms, preaching messages of intolerance.

The Left need to wake up and look what’s going on around them instead of remaining brainwashed and brain-dead by their “progressive” and “tolerant” Marxist ideology – it is a con. The liberals, led by the LibLabCons, just need to be brought to account for the massive damage they have wrought.

I ask myself, “Why should the BNP and its supporters even think about showing these traitors any tolerance?” Truthfully, I’m not sure of the answer.

By BNP Blister