Thursday, November 3, 2011

The British National Party: A Conspiracy Against Democracy?

According to Lee John Barnes, former legal adviser to the British National Party
British Nationalism is a total disgrace.

Led by idiots and crooks and filled with lick spittles that think unconditional loyalty to their bent Fuhrer [equals] patriotism. ...

These are supposed to be 'leaders' of the Nationalist movement, a bunch of greedy, idiotic, corrupt egotists and loons who have used the movement for their own ends. ...

Let the whole movement burn to the ground.

Only then will something better rise from the ashes.
That may be a fair assessment: the BNP, a party led by idiots and crooks signifying nothing.

Or it could be that the "idiots and crooks" and "corrupt egoists" running the movement have, with cool intent, skillfully intimidated through fear of association, those who would otherwise support the populist policies comprising the BNP's avowed platform.

Consider the party's supposed agenda, which is to:

end mass immigration to what is one of the World's most densely populated countries; require illegal immigrants to leave Britain; institute a national industrial policy that protects British jobs and preserves Britain's industrial workforce skills and technological capabilities; pull out of Afghanistan immediately; exit the EU; grant teachers the authority to restore discipline in the classroom; focus education on basic literacy and numeracy skills, and the study of British history and culture; remove legal curbs on the freedom of speech; implement a Bill of Rights; introduce citizen-initiated referenda; devolve powers of the central government to the lowest feasible level (See all this under the policy tab on the BNP Website).

And how has the BNP leader, Cambridge-trained lawyer, Nick Griffin, promoted these policies?

By surrounding himself with a band of nuckle-draggers and crypto fascists.

By repelling decent people by racists remarks, widely publicized and then implausibly denied.

By bloodying the nose of a Times reporter during the general election campaign and then boasting that this proved that the party had not gone soft.

By having the party's publicity chief arrested for making death threats against the party leader.

By bizarrely turning the BNP into a laughing stock by conducting a national televised broadcast with the image of a Marmite jar as a backdrop: an apparently meaningless stunt that drew the threat of legal action by Unilever, owner of the Marmite trademark.

Then there's Griffin's association with Roberto Fiore, a self-proclaimed fascist who fled Italy in the wake of the (?Gladio) 1980 Bologna train station bombing that killed 85 people. Fiore was convicted in absentia of conspiring to carry out an armed attack.

Gladio was created by NATO at the end of WWII to discredit populist left wing parties in Europe.

Griffin's BNP looks and acts like a mechanism to discredit any populist, anti-imperialist movement in Britain.

The existence of the British National Party, I suggest, mocks the notion of democracy in Britain and ensures that control of the British Government remains firmly in the hands of the lackeys of the corporate oligarchs, the Anglo-US empire and the Con/Lib/Lab Friends of Israel.


  1. Sadly all too true. My one reservation is with Lee Barnes. He was rather too late in leaving the sinking ship in my estimation. Considering his previous closeness to Griffin I now view him with extreme caution.

    Here's another of my pieces you might enjoy.

  2. Re: Harry's post on Nick Griffin, I posted the following on Harry's blog.

    You say,

    "throughout history the elite controllers of the enslavement system we live in have always planned very far ahead and attempted (and usually succeeded) in controlling both sides of any situation"

    It seems that is the way things are managed in this era of plutocracy dressed as democracy, but I don't think such a system of control was even possible throughout most ages of history.

    As a purely practical matter, it would be difficult to run a complex conspiracy without telephones, encrypted email, and multi-billion dollar security service budgets.

    Certainly, none of the great historians refer to such a conspiratorial interpretation of the main pre-20th century events.

    I think it is a mistake to say that communism and facism are two sides of the same coin. They are both totalitarian, but communism was always a conspiracy for global empire and as such has always sought to destroy the nations of the earth, e.g., Stalin's forced migration of peoples within the Soviet Union.

    The fascists on the other hand were strongly proponents of their own nationality. The Germans under Hitler did not seek global empire, they sought Liebensraum in central Europe for occupation by Germans. The Italians, likewise, wanted space for Italian settlement in N. Africa.

    However, the fact that Hitler was a nationalist does not make an opponent of the genocide of their own race a Nazi, as most of the lib-left, as exemplified by the Guardian newspaper, seem to quite stupidly believe.

    The absurdity of the advocacy of diversity as a justification of mass immigration is that mass migration results in the opposite of diversity, i.e., miscegenation and a new uniformity.

    If you've ever delighted in a Vietnamese girl's beautiful nose, you should be glad that when she was conceived her mother wasn't shagging a hairy big-nosed American.

    If you love diversity, you must oppose mass migration and the destruction of the beautiful diversity of the nations of humanity.