Tuesday, 7 April 2009


Matt Wardman has a copy of the BNP's Constitution, which appears to have disappeared from other sources on the intermong. Their founding principles are:

(a) The British National Party is a party of British Nationalism, committed to the principle of national sovereignty in all British affairs. It is pledged to the restoration of the unity and integrity of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It believes that the indigenous peoples of the entire British Isles, and their descendants overseas, form a single brotherhood of peoples, and is pledged therefore to adapt or create political, cultural, economic and military institutions with the aim of fostering the closest possible partnership between these peoples.

OK ... I guess. Something in there makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up, but I'm not quite sure what it is. Actually, it's probably the fact that it strongly implies a complete rejection of any alternative point of view. And there's a bit of a herrenvolk tone to the whole thing.

(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 immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent, the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948.

I'm sorry, did you really just say that? I mean, I'm hardly going to win points for my tolerance, but Jesus, that is a bit much, isn't it? You're going to legislate the people you don't want in the country out of the country? Even if they are nth-generation British? Just because they're not as white as you'd like? Who's going to make your curries and your jerked chicken? *

(c) The British National Party is pledged to the maintenance of a private-enterprise economy operating within a broad framework of national economic policy. It is opposed to international monopoly capitalism and to laissez-faire free trade and free movement of plant and capital. Social stability and contentment is best achieved by the many enjoying a personal stake in our society. Accordingly, we believe that private property should be encouraged and spread to as many individual members of our nation as possible. We recognise that Finance exists to serve the Nation and its industries rather than the other way around.

Ewww ... that is very nasty. So, they're actively opposed to laissez-faire trade and free movement of plant and capital? Dude, WTF?

There is a one-word description for this economic policy: it is quite literally the textbook definition of fascism.

Fascism has never worked out well before, even if you exclude Hitler and Mussolini. It crippled America after the Great Depression, for example. Fascism and racism really does just look like a very bad mixture indeed.

(d) The British National Party is implacably opposed to Marxism and liberal-capitalist globalism, which undermine our standard of living, human and ecological welfare, freedom and national identity.

You might be implacably opposed to Marxism, but what you're proposing is just as dangerous.

(e) The British National Party stands for a policy of armed neutrality in international and military affairs. We are pledged to ensure that the lives of British servicemen are not risked in international quarrels in which no national interest of our own is at stake.

Something I can agree with.

(f) The British National Party will introduce a Bill of Rights, establishing as absolute the right of all British people to effective freedom of speech, assembly and worship. The undemocratic power of the mass media and vested interest groups will be curbed by the introduction of a statutory right of reply and tougher penalties for corruption in public affairs. We favour a devolved, democratic system in which political decisions are made by ordinary citizens at the most local level of government possible. We are pledged to extend and rejuvenate democratic government by means of electronic media and Citizens’ Initiative referenda, and by returning to Parliament the powers that have been appropriated by the EU.

On the face of it, it sounds reasonable enough, although I really wonder how you can have a government that is directing the economy, chucking out undesirable ethnics and opposing free movement of plant and capital allowing the little people to vote on anything of any significance, or indeed speak about anything they don't like.

And a Bill of Rights is a very dangerous thing: it says that you can do these things that the government allows you to do. What we really need is a Bill of Rights for the government: you can do these few things and for the rest, you can fuck off, Mr Government. People should be free to do whatever they like, apart from anything specifically proscribed by the law.

All in all, it sounds very scary indeed. The fact that the BNP enjoys any support at all with a platform like this says a lot to me and I don't like what I'm hearing. But having said all that: they are a legally constituted party and they should be allowed the same opportunity to state their case as anyone else. And people should be allowed to agree or disagree with their policies openly and without fear.

For my part, I've seen nothing in their constitution that makes me feel that the BNP would be any better for the country as a whole or for me personally than a Labour, Tory, LibDem, Green or Communist government would. Aspects of their constitution are frankly repellent. I guess I could say that about any mainstream political party, but the BNP seem to be a lot more upfront about their "repellence".

Whatever the case, I am adamant that the way to deal with the BNP is to mock the poverty of their arguments and show up the historical evidence of the failures of fascism -- not to treat them as some kind of bogeyman.

(How anybody can confuse libertarianism with fascism is entirely beyond me. Perhaps you need a Ph.D. in Stupidity to do this.)

*This was an ironic observation. I feel I have to point it out, because the right-on brigade are fucking humourless cunts.


Rob Farrington said...

Wonder how they feel about that black guy...you know, the one who pledged allegiance to the crown, saluted the union flag each day, and then recently went on to win the Victoria Cross?

Is he a fuzzie-wuzzie too, or would they make an exception for someone who almost gets their head blown off while trying to help his racially 'pure' colleagues?

Just wondering.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Good stuff, just three points:

1. I'd rather have a Labour government than a BNP one. Heck, I'd rather have a Green Government committed to us becoming part of the EU.

2. After closing a blockquote tag, just start typing again, don't insert empty lines after the end blockquote tag.

3. We have a perfectly serviceable Bill of Rights, ninety per cent of which talks about restrictions on what the government CAN do. Which is the correct approach IMHO. There's not much point waffling on about what individuals CAN do.

Anonymous said...

The Bill of Rights stuff is a good idea. The point is to have something like the US constitution, placing a heap of restrictions on the government.

I think this is actually what the BNP are proposing, because I seem to remember seeing it in their manifesto. But as Obo points out, it's hard to see how they will implement such restrictions while at the same time throwing out all the darkies and closing our borders to trade. I expect they would say that other things had to come first, and somehow, they would never get round to the Bill of Rights. It's just there to win support - it's hardly their first priority.

Lastly, in fighting the BNP we should be careful to avoid using the words that the MSM use, "racist" "fascist" etc., because would-be supporters have already learned to ignore these words. We must concentrate on what the BNP actually say and let "ethno-nationalism" speak for itself.

K. MacEgan said...

Where does "Europe" end?These Ras Clarts have a poor graps of genetics and conflate skin colour with "race".Please excuse me as I listen to "Horst Wessel Leid".

Stan said...

Rob Farrington said...
"Wonder how they feel about that black guy...you know, the one who pledged allegiance to the crown, saluted the union flag each day, and then recently went on to win the Victoria Cross?"

Good question. What's the BNP stance on the Gurkhas? Perhaps that might give us a clue?

Mark is quite right about the Bill Of Rights. We don't need a new one, we just need governments that don't ignore the existing one. They can only do that because EU law has supremacy over our law - and yet every member of the Cabinet swears an oath to protect our nation from foreign law!

It's a funny old world.

Henry North London said...

Its the Bangladeshis who run the restaurant trade... Their country is sinking beneath the waves

Anonymous said...

Seen purely in economic terms and ignoring the wars of which fascists were so fond, fascism was not a disaster, although it did not live up to its propaganda (what does?). Germany, which had been particularly badly hit by the Depression, recovered remarkably quickly thanks to some nifty financing wheezes (essentially, quantitative easing). Spain enjoyed rapid growth in the 1950s and 60s, although you could argue with quite how fascist Spain was. My point isn't to advocate fascism, just to point out that, economically speaking, it's probably better than communism. Or New Labour.

aproposofwhat said...

Nice one Obo - I hope this post gets taken up by Guido or Iain Dale, though I doubt they'll want to credit you for it.

And K MacEgan - 'Ras Clart' - excellent! Though I doubt whether old one-eyed Nick would get the reference ;o)

I did flirt with the BNP some time ago, but the racism is just too deeply ingrained for me to handle, so I'll just stick to being Old Labour (ca. 1948). Feel free to abuse me or try to convert me to libertarianism, though!

Prodicus said...

Incoherent economic illiteracy building on Utopian nostalgia, resentment and xenophopbia.

A perfect vote catcher.

Leaving aside the persecution of minorities, there are a few other snags.

Like Hitler’s, an economy of this sort absolutely depends on expanding lebensraum (invading other countries) because such a society is not self sufficient as long as private property is permitted – which is why Stalin banned it. To assemble the military forces for the necessary invasion of one's neighbours requires either popular support or a police state to hunt down millions of refuseniks. (Think Stalin.)

Their policy on property is incoherent being full of internal conflicts. They declare themselves against the free movement of people and property and yet they say they encourage private property. You can't have it both ways. Closing the borders circumscribes where people may locate themselves and their real and personal property. Thaty reduces its value, so why bother? Live on the state! Which is what socialists want you to do. Then, bang goes the currency which was underpinned by private property. You end up with the old joke of 'We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us,' and everybody queueing for state-produced bread. (Think Stalin.)

The BNP government would have to control who may live where and how every square foot of land is used (for food production) because other nations would not trade with it, given that its terms of business are unacceptable – no mutuality. (Think Stalin.)

Directed food production, international trade having stopped because the government has effectively banned it, means a wartime economy, a land army… sound familiar? This obviously requires a supportive national consensus and there would not be one, to put it mildly.

It would have to direct (control) essential industries, with conscript labour, exactly as Hitler and Stalin did, because industrial concerns controlled by private individuals – or even by worker cooperatives – would rebel against the government’s incoherent ‘policies’ if only on the grounds that they cause chaos. Which would necessitate... etc...

The all round national shambles and discontent would trigger martial law of some sort, with all its familiar delights. The camps would follow.

Can you see what it is yet?

The BNP may genuinely think they mean well. Doubtless they think they are not at all like Hitler and Stalin. Not at all. How could they be? They’re British, man! Have a pint and lets all be mates!

Sadly, we have heard all this before from idiots who end up winning votes but thank God, not enough of them to take power. That needs guns. What?

The BNP are economically, politically and historically illiterate. They are romantic (not in a good way) and short-sighted and their mania-festo would necessarily turn out to be murderous in implementation.

Well, they’d have to murder me, for a start.

Roger Thornhill said...

What Prodicus says.

That, and "Hail Spode!"

Bill Quango MP said...

Anon. The Nazis did QE away a lot of debt but they also achieved the goals of German nationalism, including the Saar,Sudetenland and Austria and near full employment.
Unfortunately, as it was built upon arms for internal consumption, so it had no where else to go.
Inflation was kept dormant right through the money printing period until 1938. But by 1939 it was there.The currency was under extreme pressure and there wasn't a bean left to support it in the economy. War or bust were the last options. Much like Argentina in the 1980's.
BNP Britain would be no better and probably a lot worse.

Fidel Cuntstruck said...

Well.. it wouldn't be the first Constitution written down the Pub after all.

Mr Eugenides said...

I've never understood this. They're opposed to any form of racial integration with non-Europeans?

So I'm not allowed to want to bang Shakira? I mean, really? On what planet does that make any sense?

Tessa said...

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.



John Bull (the arisen spirit of) said...

What a sour bunch off killjoys these chaps
are!,where would Bull find his sweet n sour prawn balls,or ye gods his lamb jalfrazie with extra chili,no more kebabs after a night of fine english ale.I hope these scroats come knocking on my door, Mrs Bull has a bucket of warm slop waiting for them.

Chalcedon said...

Don't you think that if such a party gains some power, say some MEPs, more councillors etc they will know it is more of a protest than a genuine vote? To consolidate their electorate and secure more votes they will have to soften certain areas, just as the Labour policy dumped serious left wing socialism to get elected. There's no point thinking about chucking out people of colour who by their culture are as British as I am. Many such chaps have served in the army with distinction. If they chucked out all the radical extremists of whatever hue, that would be a good thing. Don't we live in intersting times?

Bill Quango MP said...

that's what the Germans thought.
They wouldn't get rid of war hero Jews, or Jewish doctors. Just Gypos and mentals and the layabout unemployable and homosexuals would be slung out the country.

Didn't work out like that though. They were serious and they did mean it.

Vindico said...

Obo. You say "The fact that the BNP enjoys any support at all with a platform like this says a lot to me and I don't like what I'm hearing"

I think you give people too much credit. Most BNP supporters will not know this. I have met a BNP general election candidate who didn't know his party was pledged to ethnic repatriation!!

If ever anybody needed a reason not to vote BNP this blog post is it!

Henry North London said...

Most BNP supporters cant read...

I know thats a sweeping generalisation and mea culpa but some of them struggle with words of three syllables...

Wakefield is full of them There are 200 people who voted BNP in my home town where I grew up It scares the shit out of me. Im born and bred here and you would not know from talking to me on the telephone that I was an ethnic minority. In fact I do a passable Norn Irish accent too

Henry North London said...

Matt wardmans blog is cleared?

What the f is going on?

Obnoxio The Clown said...


Anonymous said...

It's really quite simple. The BNP, who appear to want to preserve their ethnic heritage and culture, can form their own communities leaving the Libertarians to enjoy the benefits of all the mosques and temples and celebrate Eid and Diwali. Indeed the Libertarians can enjoy all the fruits of multiculturism and if you're lucky you'll be able to send your children to predominantly Muslim schools. You can have all the joys of being an ethnic minority in your community and leave the BNP types to themselves. Everyone's a winner.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

I don't believe in multi-culturalism, and I don't think I am alone in the Libertarian community for having that perspective.

I don't believe in any kind of divisive advantage given to any segment of the population, whether it's Muslim-lady-only swimming sessions or white-men-only sheet wearing parties.

If people want to build a mosque (or whatever) to worship their particular sky fairy (or do anything else) that's fine by me. But don't expect a Libertarian government to take money from anyone else to build it for you.

I think you'll find that it's the corporatism that comes from statist parties like the BNP, Labour, Social Democrats and Cameron's Tories that encourages this kind of behaviour.

Henry North London said...

Im with Obo on this one

Everyone should maintain their own religions.

Sikh temples get built from donations within the sikh community as do Hindu Mandirs, You dont see them getting money from the government In fact you dont hear about the Hindus and the Sikhs

I wonder why that is?

When I tried to re access the BNP constitution it had disappeared from Matt Wardman Is it back up there now?

Anonymous said...

I think you missed my point which wasn't regarding funding of mosques and temples.

I've been on anti-racist marches in my youth so I'm not an instinctive 'racist' (what an ill-defined, misused and overused word that is). However having witnessed the effects that mass immigration has had on the area I live in I began to change my views on the subject. I don't 'hate' the Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Kurds, Albanians, West Indians etc that have transformed my neighbourhood. None of this is their fault. Although I'm not a BNP member I have noted that in all their writings they are eager to emphasise this very point; that it isn't the fault of the ethnic minorities for the overwhelming change taking place in Britain. The blame lies firmly at the feet of the political elites who are intent on destroying this country in a variety of different ways.

Mass immigration has taken place against the wishes of the majority. The policy itself, for me, is 'extreme'. The rise of the BNP is the inevitable result of this extremism. Those newfound BNP supporters are merely expressing their desire to remain in communities of their own choice. My point was why not let them. The inevitable consequences of mass immigration is that there will be large areas of this country that will be multicultural, state enforced or not. As Libertarians wish to extend this policy they should be the ones that reap the benefits. This will quite likely mean that you will be ethnic minorities in those areas. I've experienced that and I don't like it. I prefer English culture in all its forms. The Mosques, Yardies, Diwali celebrations and ethnic street gangs are all yours.

For the record, as I said, I'm not a BNP supporter. It's even worse I'm a conspiracy theorist. It's more than self evident, with a little research, that there is an agenda for a world government with the subsequent destruction of the nation state. Ethnic minorities are being cynically used to further those ends.

Matt Wardman said...

Obo - to say a belated thanks for picking up my piece.