Inevitably, in the UK, one has to consider the BNP, particularly in working class inner city areas.  The opposition to their politics is well known, from the Nothing British campaign through to every other party and within many groups.

Wiki says:

In the 2005 General Election, the British National Party stood 119 candidates across England, Scotland and Wales. Between those candidates the BNP polled 192,850 votes, gaining an average of 4.2% across the several seats it stood in, and 0.7% nationwide—more than triple its percentage at the 2001 election. In those seats in which the BNP stood, it was the fourth largest party.

Clearly, proportional representation or the narrowing of electoral boundaries would favour them and they did gain representation in the European Parliament.

The danger for small c conservatives is that many of their policies, taken in isolation, are what we might actually believe in.  Here is a range of BNP policies which I, for one, agree with:

#  The BNP would prefer economics to be driven by the interests of the nation and state, rather than the other way around. It has called for British ownership of its own industries and resources as well as the “subordination of the power of the City to the power of the government”.

The City is an interesting phenomenon.  If you look at this post, you’ll see that the City is a law unto itself and is the tail which wags the dog, namely the government, namely the people who elect representatives to it.

So the BNP is right in a way here.  What they might not realize themselves and perhaps even the usual capitalists in the City don’t realize, is how far it is permeated by and in thrall too, the Venetian precedent. This brings in all sorts of nasties such as the Templars, the Scottish Rite, the thirteen families, the old usury and so on.  Like Islam, which is so dangerous because it seeks to dominate and subsume the public life of any nation it enters, so the City is in thrall, unknowingly in most cases, to a power which is the very power blighting us through the EU.  In other words – Them.

#  It [the BNP] has also promoted the regeneration of farming in the United Kingdom, with the object of achieving maximum self-sufficiency in food production. Presently the United Kingdom is the fifth highest donor of foreign aid—the BNP has advocated ending this to greater aid the needy at home.

Naturally, I’ve left out the last part of the BNP policy in this area because it is a tricky one, I have my own ideas on it and these can be aired in a different post.  As for the farming, anything to break the Monsanto seed banks and GM food is a good thing.

#  In its 2005 manifesto, the BNP declared its opposition to “globalism and international socialism“.

Well, of course – that goes without saying.

#  Though the party has recognised [that] “old-style socialist methods” of simply taxing income away from the rich “turned out to have harmful effects”, it would instead seek “non-destructive means to reduce income inequality”.

If it were possible to find these, it would be good.  The best way is to cut the iniquitous taxation regime we groan under, rid ourselves of the KPI idiocy which cuts out so much of the talent in the UK and introduce policies which would stimulate production and competitiveness on world markets.  From this stems employment.  It did before, it can again.

#  The party advocates the provision of extra resources for “especially gifted children” and the reversal of closures of special needs schools.  It has proposed that repossessed homes should become council houses, to prevent these being sold off cheaply to undercut private sellers, and to provide housing for those who need it.

The concern is quite valid but the details would need sorting out.  Don’t forget the policy advocated by Mark Wadsworth on LVT and on home ownership as well.  Re the gifted children – the danger is of course the Aryan ideal and the taking of children from their parents for state purposes.  Within the family context, extra resources for promoting talent is a good thing.

#  The BNP proposes to reintroduce corporal punishment, and to make capital punishment available for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers.

I hate the idea of capital punishment because of the chance of an error, of police stitch-ups and so on.  However, there is enormous impunity among the crims and let’s face it – the crims are protected by Labour in our society and the innocents are charged.  Also, be careful with the definition of a “terrorist” – it’s not so far away from a subversive and insurgent and that’s precisely what your humble blogger is – advocating the overthrow of the political elite and devolving power back to the people – a subversive act which the Power does not like.

#  The party supports animal welfare (such as the banning of Halal and Kosher slaughtering and the phasing out of factory farming) and environmental policies.

There is a long tradition amongst the rural conservatives of supporting environmental protection in their areas and good husbandry of land and resources.  In this sense and not in the sense of the occult madness of the Gorite hijacking of the green movement, this is not a bad policy.

#  Immigration

Obviously I don’t go in for the xenophobic Paki-bashing and all that but that doesn’t mean we do not have an enormous problem of Labour’s self-admitted EU attempt at breaking down the ethnic basis and heritage of our society.  Most reasonable small c conservatives have no issue with this-or-that person of another ethnicity and my gfs have been Russian, Serbian, Muslim and French, so who am I to speak of racial purity?

However, when we look at the political aspects – the sheer numbers from other countries, the percentages, the drain on the resources of the nation, the tendency for so many to freeload on the state, i.e. the taxpayer – then that is another question altogether.  And Enoch was right in that Rivers of Blood speech – that river is on the way, as we all scramble for a part of the dwindling national pie.

#  Islam

Tied to the last one, I was aiming to marry a Muslim not so long ago and would do it again if the requirement were not to convert from the true faith.  As has been said ad nauseam – there is no quibble with any faith which accepts the way the nation is set up already – this is JC’s “give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”.

It is the overall percentage of Muslims and the fanatical commitment of their druids to either convert or kill which is the problem.  I couldn’t be bothered going into this any further here – it’s been done on other posts and by many other pundits.

#  The BNP states that homosexuality in private should be tolerated but believes that it “should not be promoted or encouraged”.

Right on!  Many readers of this blog are homosexual and I count them as friends.  Not a problem – that’s their thing and I do my mainstream hetero thing.  The problem is the gay mafia who insist on going into schools and converting children to homosexuality when no sexuality of any kind should be the preserve of schools.  Has no one heard of homes, families and parents?

Other thoughts

#  As of 2009 only the police and the prison services have an official stated policy that they will sack officers for membership of the BNP.  A ban on BNP membership in the civil service was considered in 2004 and also considered in the probation service in 2005.

As far as I’m concerned, when you start getting into banning this group or that group, it’s a very sticky wicket.  The Albion Alliance could easily be banned for advocating a referendum on what would turn out to be the destruction the EU state if the UK withdrew, so wherefore all this banning?

Similarly, if any prat denies the holocaust took place, well so be it.  Why must we always be totalitarian and ban whatever we don’t like?  Islam is the one area though where bans have some validity, simply because of its destructive intentions towards the society.  As for the EU – I don’t advocate banning it.

I just want to destroy it.

In 2007, there was a huge blowup over the BNP at a blog group,  which did derail the group for some time although they came back later.  I myself was severely criticized by libertarians for headhunting the BNP to excise them from the group, not on account of their politics but on account of their methods.  I think the BNP would have me on their list of bovver-boot bashings if they were as violent as people make out.

I don’t know if they are or are not these days – they certainly were in the past.

If this blog hardly mentions the BNP or the Lib Dems, it’s not for any particular reason but perhaps because there are so many other things demanding blog attention as well.  Naturally, I’m opposed to any sort of brown shirt thuggishness or forced eugenics but some of the policies do make sense.

On a personal level, I’ve always got on with the BNP supporters I’ve known but then again, I’ve always got on with alleged communist academics and alleged socialist economists too, so what does that prove?

Most of my battles have been with fellow conservatives, usually about their puzzling directions and falling away from the path to that which we are looking for in our society.

There was a rosette moment in one election where the Tory lady and I were getting sick of it and needed a break [I was Labour and young in those misguided days], so we both put in proxies to hand out the literature and went off for a morning tea.  Naturally we kept off the politics as far as we could and had a lovely time together.

BNP?  Jury’s out on them.

4 comments for “The BNP

  1. February 26, 2010 at 14:33

    Well, apart from the BNP are awful, the beauty of LVT is that it would sort out a number of issues on that list;

    1. It would cut the banks down to a sensible size (there can be no credit bubbles without asset price bubbles).

    2. It is not a tax on incomes or production so does not depress economic activity.

    3. It would make councils want to have the best schools because that improves property and rental values in the catchment area. Whether a school that allows corporal punishment makes it a ‘good’ school is a moot point.

    4. Ditto good policing. That improves property and rental values.

    5. LVT would be good for farming (rather than being good for landowners). It’d lead to more efficient use of land – farmers would concentrate on getting the most out of a given patch (which includes being more labour intensive), rather than just trying to maximise the amount of land they own.

    So LVT is the perfect tax – even for National Socialists and racists. I suppose in extremis, you could argue that as having too many immigrants in an area drives down property and rental values, the state might not be so bloody welcoming.

  2. February 26, 2010 at 16:37

    This is making more and more sense to me as we go on. How does a young start-out couple then get a roof over its head?

  3. February 26, 2010 at 16:57

    JH, either rent or buy, of course.

    The gimmick being that LVT acts like a higher interest rate so (a) makes the house cheaper and (b) as LVT would hopefully replace other taxes, they’d pay a lot less other taxes as well.

    LVT is just like rent on the land bit, really.

  4. February 26, 2010 at 17:46

    Perhaps we just need a civil war to clear the air a little?

Comments are closed.