BNP FAQ (Short Version)
Steve Greene
Q: The politicians and the media call the BNP "racist"? Is this true?
A: No. "Racism" is when you hate another ethnic group. We don't 'hate'
black people, we don't 'hate' Asians, we don't oppose any ethnic group
for what God made them, they have a right to their own identity as much
as we do, all we want to do is to preserve the ethnic and cultural
identity of the British people. We want the same human rights as
everyone else, a right to a homeland, security, identity, democracy and
freedom. We are not against immigrants as individuals. We are against a
system which imports cheap labour regardless of the wishes of the host
population. The British people were never asked if they wanted a
multi-cultural society, immigration was forced on us undemocratically
and against the clear wishes of the majority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What solutions does the BNP offer to the immigration problem?
A: The first thing a BNP government would do is to stop all further mass
immigration into Britain. Then we would put in place a system of
voluntary resettlement whereby those foreigners resident in Britain
would be encouraged to return to their lands of origin. We would offer
them the proper cash provisions to do this. This would stop, reduce and
then reverse the headlong rush to a majority ethnic Britain. This
scenario would benefit not only the native British people, who would
secure themselves a homeland, but those of foreign origin who would take
invaluable benefits to their own countries by using the skills and money
they acquired in Britain to help their lands of native origins develop.
It is the only answer to the present problem, the alternative is that
the British people become a minority and face an uncertain future as
second class citizens in our own land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Where do you stand on racial attacks?
A: Racist attacks are wrong, plain and simple. The majority of racist
attacks in this country are committed against white British people,
contrary to the image that the anti-British mass media portray. If a
race-attack takes place, and the victim is black or Asian, the result is
an endless media circus, howls of condemnation against the perpetrators,
and more calls for repressive crusades against supposed racism. If a
race-attack takes place, and the victim is white, the result is usually
total silence. No condemnation, no media fanfare, total silence. By
contrast, the BNP condemns all racial attacks, including those on
non-whites. It is not the fault of individuals that they are in our
country, and the answer to the problems caused by mass immigration must
be solved by democratic political change, not by violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: When you talk about being "British" what do you mean?
A: We mean the bonds of culture, race, identity and roots of the native
British peoples of the British Isles. We have lived in these islands
near on 40,000 years! We were made by these islands, and these islands
are our home. When we in the BNP talk about being British, we talk about
the native peoples who have lived in these islands since before the
Stone Age, and the relatively small numbers of peoples of almost
identical stock, such as the Saxons, Vikings and Normans, and the Irish,
who have come here and assimilated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Do you promote violence?
A: No. What possible advantage could we gain from it? The BNP feels that
this country can, and will, only be changed by legal, democratic means.
This is why we contest elections at all levels, from local parish
council seats, to the General Election. There simply isn't any evidence
whatsoever of any promotion of violence by the British National Party,
it is all lies, lies and lies from a left-liberal media who know that
our views and policies are shared by millions of people and so resort to
unfounded smears rather than dealing with our arguments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Are you against democracy?
A: No. We are for more democracy. If the British people had their views
represented in government and public affairs, many of the bad things
that have happened to this country would never have happened! Mass
immigration to the point where the native British people will become
outnumbered in their own country would never have happened, capital
punishment would never have been abolished, the sell-off of our freedom
and independence to Brussels bureaucrats would never have taken place,
and whole areas of our country wouldn't have been turned into a foreign
country. It is the lack of democracy, and the emergence of a ruling
political class in which a minority of self-serving career politicians
impose their views which is the problem. A completely democratic
government system will be the cornerstone of Britain's future under a
BNP government. We are against the present sham of 'democracy' in which
whatever way people vote they get the same. We offer an alternative - as
democracy is supposed to do - and for that the self-serving left-liberal
elite accuse us of being undemocratic! Yet, in reality, by seeking to
deny voters a choice, and by gagging free speech with so-called Race
Laws, it is our opponents in the old parties and in the media who are
the anti-democrats, the real fascists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Are you against freedom of speech?
A: We want more freedom of speech. People are sick and tired of being
told what they are allowed to think and say within Britain.
Increasingly, laws are being introduced or proposed to restrict our
expression - witness the McPherson Report's demand that people should be
arrested for what they say in their homes! Support for freedom of speech
is one of our most popular policies. Patriots are independent-minded
people who want freedom of speech, and would not accept any regime which
did not permit it. We are always willing to debate with our opponents,
but they refuse to do so. We would introduce, as one of the first things
we will do, a bill of rights guaranteeing absolute freedom of speech for
all citizens. Does that sound 'authoritarian'?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Does not the nationalism you promote lead to war?
A: No. The set of ideals and policies which make up what is called
"Nationalism" are already in place all over the world in black, Asian
and Oriental countries. Simple things that are being taken for granted
such as a homeland, law and order, protection of the environment, decent
social structure, complete freedom of speech, a democratic system of
government, are all things that are fundamental to nationalism. All of
these things are enjoyed by about 90% of the world's population and this
never leads to wars. But the suppression of peoples' wishes to keep
their homelands has frequently led to war throughout history. That is
exactly what is happening to the British and we are opposed to it. It is
multiculturalism that leads to war - witness Yugoslavia, Israel and
Kashmir!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Are you 'anti-European'?
A: Absolutely not! We want a great friendship with our European
neighbours. The real 'anti-Europeans', are the ones determined to strip
the unique peoples of Europe of their democracy and freedom and hand
their destiny over to unelected bankers, Eurocrats and international
financiers. We share a common ethnic identity with the various European
peoples, all we oppose (like all the peoples of European countries) is a
European Superstate run by a liberal élite who want to flood Europe with
immigrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What would the BNP do about crime?
A: The BNP is the only party in Britain that offers any practical
solutions to the growing problem of crime. We would simply adopt a
policy of "Zero Tolerance, replacing liberal concern for the rights of
criminals with a proper emphasis on the rights of victims, and on the
rights of people not to become victims. We would toughen up the courts
to apply stricter sentences, put the necessary resources behind the
police and release them from the paralysing straightjacket of political
correctness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What about Trade Unions?
A: We are not against trade unions at all, contrary to the lies of the
Far-Left. Ideally, we believe that as much of industry as possible
should be owned directly by those who work in that particular factory.
This "owners should work, and workers should own" solution, principally
involving workers' co-operatives , would, of course, make unions
obsolete in the workplaces involved. Where, however, the existing method
of industrial organisation continues, we believe that strong trade
unions are vital to protect the workers from exploitation (something
that the leftist leaders of too many unions now are failing to do,
especially when it comes to standing up against foreign imports, the
importation of cheap immigrant labour, and the shifting of productive
capacity to the Third world). We believe that there should be one union
in each industry, so as to avoid demarcation disputes and such like.
Apart from that, the only thing wrong with trades unions is that too
many are still dominated by 'former' Marxists who, although not now
aiming to impose a Soviet tyranny on everyone else, are still fixated on
nonsensical Marxist dogma about equality and anti-racism - something
that makes these time-servers a menace not just to their members but to
the whole of our society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What is the BNP's stance concerning religion?
A: The BNP takes no particular religious position. The BNP would
preserve the long British tradition of separating Church and State. The
dangers facing the British people are so great, that it would be crass
criminality to allow our people and our race to be divided along
religious lines. We have to save our country first! We are, however,
opposed to the growth and increased militancy of the various Asiatic
religions that have been brought to this country by mass immigration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What would the BNP do about the environment?
A: The BNP is the true Green Party! The BNP is the only party in Britain
with the will to take action to prevent environmental disaster, and halt
the forces behind environmental destruction, namely the scramble for
profits causing unfettered pollution and the short-term attitudes of
materialist politicians. Our ideal is that of a clean, beautiful
country, free of pollution in all its forms, where nature, agriculture
and industry work in balance, with long-term considerations taking
precedence over profit and convenience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What about agriculture, the countryside and rural issues?
A: The BNP is the only party to stand firm for the independent British
farmer. We oppose the forces of free-trade and globalisation which are
wreaking havoc on our beautiful countryside, and the farming and fishing
industries. We will switch farming emphasis onto maximum national
self-sufficiency, encouraging farming to supply a much greater part of
the nation's need in food products. We will revive the UK's fishing
industry with the reestablishment of the former exclusion zones and the
introduction of new rules to prevent depletion of fish stocks. Priority
must be switched in farming policy to encouraging organic production,
with its clear health and environmental benefits. I support the use of a
graduated land-tax designed to encourage family farms and highly
productive smallholdings, and to stop and reverse the present trend
towards agri-business monopolies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What about the European Union?
A: The European Union is a corrupt, totalitarian beast gobbling up the
independent and free nations of ancient Europe. We want a Europe of
traditional white nations, free and independent, not a multicultural,
multiracial, dictatorial and bureaucratic European Superstate. Britain
must secure its proud one-thousand-year-old freedom as an independent
country by withdrawing from the European Union. If we do not, Britain
will become a mere province, ruled from Brussels, with no influence
whatsoever and no control over its own affairs. This is not the future
we want, it is not the future the people want, it is not the future the
people of Europe want. Only the self-serving liberal-left elite want it,
and it's time for the British people to tell them where to put their
federal European dream!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What is the BNP's view on the Single European Currency?
A: The Single European Currency is the foundation for a European
superstate. It is a stepping stone towards that end. We will retain the
pound as our sovereign currency, and will withdraw from EMU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Walker
Steve Greene <stephen...@hotmail.com.invalid> typed (subject to
snippage)>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<SNIP SNIP SNIP>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Are the BNP nazi scum.?
A: Yes.
--
Alan
hw...@freeispshares.co.uk
Just heard some searchlie groupie on R4, complaining about BNP
councillors not working for the local people so not being "democratic".
How the hell has someone like him got the nerve to complain about the
BNP not being democratic?! If the British political system had been
democratic we would never have had mass colonisation and there would
have been no need for the BNP! Those ruling class racists and their
sycophants just love twisting the knife and rubbing salt in the wound -
and the more they do it the more they show themselves for the filth
they are.
Ken
"Alan Walker" <lord....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:iET0g.39407$Ph2....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
Nazi scum...................indeed, and the moron that wrote the "BNP FAQ"
apparently cannot grasp the fact that the ridiculous "policies" of UK neo
nazi's have quite a lot in common with those of Hitlers Germany!
k
>
>
Nuclear Winter
"Steve Greene" <stephen...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> Q: What is the BNP's view on the Single European Currency?
>
> A: The Single European Currency is the foundation for a European
> superstate. It is a stepping stone towards that end. We will retain the
> pound as our sovereign currency, and will withdraw from EMU.
>
Where would the BNP stand on the following
(1) speeding offences
(2) prostitution
(3) non-payment of council tax (e.g. by pensioners)
(4) glorification of terrorism
(5) DNA database
(6) ID cards
Farmer Giles
Writes a 'moron' who cannot even work out how to use an apostrophe.
Instead of the usual tactic of childish name-calling, perhaps you could
try and tell us which of those policies listed would not benefit, and be
welcomed by, the majority of British people?
FJ
"Alan Walker" <lord....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:iET0g.39407$Ph2....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
Fuck off ya lilly-livered, bottleless, liberal shit-stain!
FJ
BNP BNP BNP!!!!!!!!!
> lord....@ntlworld.com
>
FJ
"Ken" <k...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:4444...@212.67.96.135...
Fuck off ya lilly-livered, bottleless, liberal shit-stain!
FJ
FJ
"Farmer Giles" <Gi...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:GN2dnbQQPb3...@brightview.com...
So common sense does prevail ~~~~~~ (statement not a question)
FJ
FJ
"Nuclear Winter" <ar...@bad-poo.com> wrote in message
news:jLCdne3pa5N...@pipex.net...
>
> "Steve Greene" <stephen...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> Q: What is the BNP's view on the Single European Currency?
>>
>> A: The Single European Currency is the foundation for a European
>> superstate. It is a stepping stone towards that end. We will retain the
>> pound as our sovereign currency, and will withdraw from EMU.
>>
>> ...........
>
> the offenders!
> (2) prostitution = Execute the offenders!
> (3) non-payment of council tax (e.g. by pensioners) = Execute the
> offenders!
> (4) glorification of terrorism = Execute the offenders!
> (5) DNA database = Execute the offenders!
> (6) ID cards = Execute the offenders!
>
>
Just kiddin. I'm sure that as a viable political party they will take a
more sensible approach to the above issues which will be more in the
interest of Britain than the mainstream scum that existsts now. But joking
aside. The above joking remarks are how the press try to show the BNP to
the electorate. The BNP today are less right wing than the government of
Winston Churchill in the period of WW11, yet he's viewed as a national fukin
hero!
Get a grip lefties!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FJ
Ken
Contrary to what you seem to believe the majority of "British" people are
not racists, so dont have a lot of interest in the racist tosh, that seems
to form the basis of BNP "policy"......................
k
chippy
Which part of stopping mass immigration do *YOU* consider racist?
Contrary to what *you* think, the majority of "British" people have not
been asked anything, so you wrong to presume. By far the majority of
people I talk to about it, express concern, and a wish to reverse it.
No doubt you will now say the opposite and give one example that proves
your point.
We have been taken to war without asking, we are facing the biggest
danger for decades now, and we are asked our opinion when?
labour keeps promising to stop it, do they? or do they simply continue
to make silly laws which make lawbreakers out of innocent people and
criminals simply ignore.
When was the last time we were asked anything? 1975.
--
wigwambam
hw...@freeispshares.co.uk
And what is your opinion of the racism which has deprived a native
people of its right to its homeland, bred ethnic clearing, is trying to
rob the natives of the opportunity to organise into community groups,
and oppressing them by, among other things, threatening their
livelihoods and arresting them, to stop them complaining?
Have you ever voted for either of the political parties that instigated
and promote this racism - Labour and Tory?
Uno-Hoo!
"Steve Greene" <stephen...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Q: What solutions does the BNP offer to the immigration problem?
>
> A: The first thing a BNP government would do is to stop all further mass
> immigration into Britain. Then we would put in place a system of
> voluntary resettlement whereby those foreigners resident in Britain
> would be encouraged to return to their lands of origin.
I take it then that the BNP would support foreign governments (Spain in
particular) if they decided to throw all the ex-pat Brits out of their
countries and send them back to the UK (in order to maintain their cultural
identity)?
Uno-Hoo!
kj
kj
kj
war in 1939, but we all see that the defeating of a facsit Nazi scum
country was a good idea.
Politics haven't changed....they are the same as ever, what has changed
is the sneak tactics of the right wing 'political parties' and its
popular media
kj
vote BNP
Humble Scribe
writes
>We have been taken to war without asking, we are facing the biggest
>danger for decades now, and we are asked our opinion when?
>labour keeps promising to stop it, do they? or do they simply continue
>to make silly laws which make lawbreakers out of innocent people and
>criminals simply ignore.
>When was the last time we were asked anything? 1975.
Almost like Hitler's Germany in the early 1930s? No wonder the BNP is
rubbing its collective hands!
--
John
West Stand Bowler
> not racists, so dont have a lot of interest in the racist tosh, that seems
> to form the basis of BNP "policy"......................
How do you know that?
--
WSB
dan
> Winston Churchill in the period of WW11, yet he's viewed as a national
> fukin hero!"
it wasn't winstons churchills goverment in WW2 he was merely the leader of
the emergency war cabinet, a coalition of labour, tory, liberals and
independents.
kj
Richard Miller
>Which part of stopping mass immigration do *YOU* consider racist?
The part which involves not picketing Earls Court and demanding the
immediate repatriation of all the Aussie bartenders. They and Americans
make up probably the largest immigrant group in this country.
--
Richard Miller
FJ
"Uno-Hoo!" <Uno-Hoo@NOSPAMbigfootdotcom> wrote in message
news:fqGdnYvQiKf...@pipex.net...
Prai Jei
<n90842d34ch9gha87...@4ax.com>:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Q: The politicians and the media call the BNP "racist"? Is this true?
>
> A: No. "Racism" is when you hate another ethnic group. We don't 'hate'
> black people, we don't 'hate' Asians, we don't oppose any ethnic group
> [ & mucel mo vpon this wyse ]
Cripes, how big's the long version then?
--
They should put out an email to say that the email system is down.
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Johannes
Hehe, but it just shows that the poster was right in assuming that you have no
policies apart from alienation of non-whites.
Steve Greene
<jo...@stop-spam-sizefitter.com> wrote:
>Hehe, but it just shows that the poster was right in assuming that you have no
>policies apart from alienation of non-whites.
Here's proof that your allegation is complete rubbish!
Read and then apologise.
Rebuilding British Democracy
General Election 2005
Manifesto
Contents
Introduction: Freedom; Security; Identity; Democracy
1. Leaving the European Union – The sine qua non
2. Democracy – Resolving the crisis of our highest value
3. Immigration – A crisis without parallel
4. Abolishing multiculturalism, preserving Britain
5. Culture, traditions and the civil society
6. Tough on the causes of crime – Criminals
7. Social inclusion – One healthy nation
8. Education for a British future
9. Britain-first economics – The antidote to globalism
10. Extending ownership and responsibility
11. Abolition of income tax
12. Public service, not corporate profit
13. Transport – Life's too short to spend in a traffic jam
14. Food production – A radical shift
15. The environment – Our ‘blessed plot’
16. Britain and the world – Good fences, good neighbours
Conclusion: Popular nationalism – The idea whose time will come
Introduction
"Rebuilding British Democracy" is the title of our general election
manifesto for a very good reason. As British voters, we are repeatedly
told that we live in an elective democracy; whereas in truth what exists
is a sham and an illusion. Genuine democracy, where the population's
will is given expression by the elected representatives, is starkly
absent from Britain.
Decisions are made by institutions over which the electorate has little
or no control. National parliaments and assemblies in Westminster,
Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast are little more than rubber-stamping
closed shops for rule by diktat from Brussels and Strasbourg. In
addition, decisions are rarely made by those representatives with the
interests of the majority of British voters in mind. Vociferous
lobbyists and pressure groups blackmail and cajole to get their way; the
corporate industrial and commercial giants have the money to buy and
influence individual representatives and entire political parties.
A whole raft of repressive legislation has been enacted in the past
thirty years to stop the social experiment of multi-culturalism from
falling apart. Even more repressive legislation is planned as the
reality that multi-culturalism cannot work, sinks in to even the most
ideologically blinkered politician.
It is the "average" man and woman who suffers from the failings of our
politicians to grasp the issue and restore genuine democracy. It is the
taxpayer who funds the vast State instruments of repression and the
wasteful paperwork that keeps unproductive bureaucrats in their
positions.
It is the pensioner who suffers by living isolated, behind bolted doors,
fearful of being a victim of crime. It is the schoolchildren who suffer
from obesity and ailments associated with a poor diet. It is the hourly
paid worker who suffers when he or she is sacked as their job is
exported to a call-centre in India.
Freedom
The British National Party exists to put an end to this injustice. We
will return power to the men and women of Britain, the taxpayers,
pensioners, mums and dads and workers, and remove it from the unelected
commissioners in Europe. We will provide a safe environment for all,
where there is freedom from fear of crime, freedom from repression of
the State, freedom of association and freedom of speech.
Security
The British National Party believes that security means the well being
of life, limb and property. This means safe neighbourhoods with vibrant
communities, working towards a common goal; it means security and safety
while using our transport systems. It means security of long term
employment after a decent education without the fear that factories,
offices and shops will be closed and jobs exported to the third world.
Identity
The British National Party believes in genuine ethnic and cultural
diversity and the right of ALL peoples to self-determination and that
must include the indigenous peoples of these islands. The British
peoples are embroiled in a long term cultural war being waged by a
ruling regime which has abandoned the concept of " Britain " in pursuit
of globalisation. We are determined to win that cultural war, and to
that end, we must take control of our national borders. We must also
stop further attempts to enforce multi-culturalism on an increasingly
sceptical and unwilling populace. The future of our culture is not up
for debate - it is part of our individual and collective existence on
this planet and we are under an obligation to pass on to generations yet
unborn, the collected knowledge, wisdom and lore, which we ourselves
have inherited.
Democracy
The wishes of the British electorate cannot be made manifest until we
have the powers restored to our national parliaments and assemblies and
put an end to the blackmail and underhanded tactics to buy influence.
Honesty, integrity and transparency will be restored to civic and public
institutions.
Summary
This is the largest and most comprehensive election manifesto the
British National Party has compiled. It clearly illustrates that we are
neither a single issue party, nor an ephemeral protest group. The BNP is
serious about winning our nation back and this manifesto sets out our
plan to achieve this goal.
Leaving the European Union – The sine qua non
The European Union is an aspiring super state which would deprive the
British people of their right to democratic self-government; subject us
to alien rule in the interest of a bureaucracy which has no loyalty to
the United Kingdom and bring about the eventual liquidation of Britain
as a nation and a people.
The federal European project is incompatible with many of the most
deep-rooted of our traditional national and personal freedoms, and our
hard-won democracy: The fundamental basis of a democratic national state
that its people elect their own representatives, whose job it is to rule
in the national interest; the principle that no Westminster parliament
may bind its successors; trial by one’s peers; the presumption of
innocence, habeas corpus; our currency and the ability to reward or
replace our political masters for their handling of the economy – these
are just a few of the most important rights we will lose forever unless
we withdraw from the EU.
Even today, our elected national parliament is little more than a
rubber-stamp for rule by diktat from Brussels. This is why we have
placed this section first in this manifesto: The freedom of action of
the governing party at Westminster is so restricted by European rules
and regulations that there is effectively no point any party putting
forward any proposals in any important area of policy. Whether these
concern ambitious schemes for the economy, or Tory promises to ‘get a
grip’ on the asylum shambles, all are essentially empty soundbites
because our own elected government no longer has the power to act on our
democratically expressed wishes.
Withdrawal from the European Union would therefore be the most important
single foundation stone of our rebuilt British democracy. Without it,
virtually nothing can be achieved.
Fortunately, the present price of withdrawal would not be anything like
as high as the Europhile scare-mongers claim – although it will become
higher the longer and the deeper Britain is immersed in the EU. The
present regime claims that membership is necessary to our prosperity is
a myth. European nations such as Switzerland and Norway sustain higher
standards of prosperity than Britain without belonging to the European
Union. In fact, the EU is a liability to our economy because of its
tendency to strangle business with unnecessary regulations whose sole
purpose is to increase the power of the Brussels superstate that wishes,
for the purpose of aggrandising its own power, to rule Britain. This is
wholly unacceptable.
It is also untrue that leaving the EU would cut Britain off from the
commercial markets in which our industries sell their goods. Not only
does the EU have free-trade arrangements with several non-member states,
but its average tariff on non-EU trade is approximately 1.5%, an
insignificant barrier. Furthermore, the EU would not be permitted, under
World Trade Organisation rules to which it is signatory, to discriminate
against British products in retaliation for Britain leaving the EU.
It is estimated that complying with the vast thicket of EU regulations
costs Britain approximately £40 billion per year. This is 2% of GDP,
roughly half what we spend on the NHS, and could fund numerous
improvements in public services if it were recaptured. The Common
Agricultural Policy alone is estimated to impose a 26% tax on food.
(source: Labour Euro-Safeguards Campaign Bulletin , Sept. 2004).
Unaccountable
The EU is spectacularly corrupt, as is only natural in an unaccountable
institution. According to Marta Adreasen, former Chief Accounting
Officer of the EU, 95% of EU funds are not properly accounted for and
there has not been a proper audit in 14 years. (Source: Ashley Mote
press release , 21 October 2004).
Britain’s net contribution to the EU is now widely estimated to run at
around £1.2 million every hour of every day of the year. In simplistic
terms, this endless haemorrhage of wealth goes a very long way to
explaining how the transport systems of France and Spain are so much
better than ours, or why British pensioners are among the worst provided
for in Europe. How could the situation be any different, when our
Masters have spent decades giving our money away in pursuit of an
unworkable imperial fantasy?
Finally, the greatest single threat posed by the European Union comes
from the plans (supported by the Conservative Party) to expand further
into Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, and subsequently into Turkey. The
former expansion would give eight million Sinta gypsies the right to
move into Western Europe, the latter would at a stroke increase the EU’s
Muslim population by more than 75 million. This would mark the end of
Europe's ancient and historic close identification with Christendom, and
the beginning of the end of secular democratic government in the West.
From Edward Heath onwards, our political and liberal media ‘elite’ have
lied and conned us into “ever greater union” with a federal European
superstate. That deceit will end on the day the British National Party
win a British general election and ceremoniously tear up the Treaty of
Rome on the following morning.
Democracy – Resolving the crisis of our highest value
This country is the birthplace of modern democracy. This is no surprise;
it is clear from what is known of the way in which free men and women
among Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Norse ancestors had a significant say in
the running of their societies that personal freedom has deep and strong
roots among the native peoples of our islands.
Even when those freedoms were suppressed, as under the time of feudal
darkness that followed the Norman Conquest, and again during the
pauperisation of the yeomanry and creation of an urban proletariat
during the Enclosures and Industrial Revolution, our people have always
fought and even died to secure them again. From Magna Carta to the
Peasants’ Revolt, through the Levellers, the Chartists, the early Labour
movement and the suffragettes, we have defied the executioner, the rack,
and the prison door to wrest liberty of conscience, speech, action and
political association from monarchs, barons and bosses, and from popes,
priests and censors.
Now our dearly-bought birthright of freedom is under mortal threat once
more. The political elite are nearing the end of a process which will
outlaw any expression of opinions deemed to be politically incorrect.
This despite the fact that it is central to the very idea of democracy
that all views be allowed to be espoused and that they stand or fall
only in the marketplace of ideas.
In addition to this savage attack on free speech, recent decades have
seen an unprecedented increase in the power and ‘reach’ of the State.
The surveillance technology which theoretically protects us from the
nihilistic tyranny of terror in fact threatens to subject us to the
perpetual tyranny of Big Brother.
Fortunately, a variety of the policies proposed later in this document –
particularly British neutrality vis-ê-vis the Middle East and the US-led
‘Clash of Civilisations’, our rejection of mass immigration, and the
reintroduction of the death penalty for terrorists – will so reduce the
threat of terrorism that it will no longer be plausible for us to be
asked to submit to this monstrous growth in State power in order to
avoid becoming terrorist targets.
Our forefathers fought two World Wars partly so as to ensure that,
except for the duration of those wars, they and their families would not
have to prove who they were to any agent of the State who decided on a
whim to ask for such information. This is an enormous difference between
the traditional British system whereby the police and similar officials
are the servants of the people, rather than the hired hands of the
central State with power over the law-abiding, which is the underlying
norm which helped make possible all the excesses and horrors of
totalitarianism on mainland Europe throughout the 20thcentury.
Just as the terrorist threat which their actions have largely created is
used by the political elite as an excuse for taking away our freedoms,
so they use the lack of faith in politicians for which they are
responsible as an excuse to subvert our democracy. The widespread use of
electoral fraud by Labour activists - recently described by a senior
judge as behaviour suitable to a corrupt banana republic - was made
possible by a massive expansion in the availability of postal voting
which was ‘justified’ in part as a means of increasing the proportion of
electors voting.
The reality is that falling turn-outs can only be reversed by efforts by
politicians to show that they can make a difference, and that between
them they provide a real range of genuine alternatives. The prevailing
choice of “More of the same or none of the above” is the reason for
voter apathy, and the problem that must be addressed if the low turnout
trend is to be reversed.
The ‘justification’ offered by Labour peers as they struggled in 2004 to
persuade even the crony-packed House of Lords to introduce all-postal
voting across the whole of the north of England was even worse: In this
case it was openly admitted that the main reason for the change was that
the higher turnout would help to “stop the BNP.”
Making artificial changes to electoral boundaries or procedures carried
out in order to disadvantage one particular party is known as
‘gerrymandering’. Resentment over the practice when carried out against
the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland in the 1960s is widely
regarded as having been a key factor fuelling the growth of the IRA and
thirty years of terrorism there.
It is utterly unacceptable that law-abiding majority communities on the
mainland are now being subjected to the same denial of their democratic
rights. And while the British National Party has no intention of being
provoked or driven into any kind of illegality, the fact remains that by
showing such contempt for democracy in England – while simultaneously
giving way at every turn to terrorists in Ulster - New Labour are
inviting angry young men in multi-cultural cities to conclude that
violence pays.
Dismantling the repressive State
Add to this the growing and relentless persecution of the BNP, both
collectively and as individuals, in ways ranging from denial of banking
facilities to dismissal from jobs and unions, and it is clear that
Britain is already a long way down the slippery slope to being a fully
blown totalitarian state. Even if we inherit the mechanism of such a
repressive State on our election to national power, we pledge to
dismantle it by the following means:
1. All laws against traditional free speech rights will be repealed,
starting with the vague, politicised, and hypocritically-enforced laws
pertaining to race and religion, which are virtually never enforced
against foreigners attacking the racial and religious groups indigenous
to Britain.
2. Guarantee the right of organisations and individuals who espouse
unpopular opinions but have not broken any laws (other than illegitimate
laws against free speech) to organise and campaign free from
interference from or discrimination by, the police, other state
institutions, and bodies such as trades unions, employers’ organisations
or commercial entities.
3. Guarantee the rights of individuals to join, and organise according
to their political beliefs in, trades unions and professional bodies.
4. All political parties should be protected by a new law which makes
the employment of violence or intimidation for political purposes a
serious offence carrying a minimum of two years in prison, or a doubling
of the usual sentence for the offence, whichever is the greater.
5. We will disband all government-sponsored attempts to exploit ethnic
minority voters by means of such programmes as Operation Black Vote.
6. A ban on postal voting for all except the seriously sick and elderly.
No use of electronic or other non-polling booth voting systems, as none
will yet command the confidence of the electorate in the way which the
traditional ballot box does.
7. Instruct the Electoral Commission to deal as a matter of urgency with
the way in which organisations which do not themselves contest elections
are at present permitted to denigrate individual candidates or parties,
thereby allowing their rivals to circumvent the proper spending limits
on election material.
8. Ban the conducting or publishing of opinion polls in the last three
weeks of an election campaign, as these can be used to ‘stampede’ voters
and manipulate the democratic process.
9. In order to ensure that vested interests cannot ‘buy’ political
parties, we will legislate to ensure that political parties must
organize and function only with such funds as they are able to raise
from their own members and supporters. State funding, corporate
donations by businesses or pressure groups, and political dues from
trades unions will all be outlawed.
10. The rejection of ID cards – the core technique and expression of the
repressive Surveillance State.
Democracy and the media
A separate danger to genuine democracy comes from the concentration of
ownership and control of the mass media in too few hands, particularly
when the hands concerned are those of foreigners whose primary loyalty
is not to Britain, or media barons who have so much wealth that they can
seek to turn it into political influence and power.
The great problem with the power of the media, the ‘Fourth Estate’, is
that it is at present not subject to any democratic check or control. We
will address this danger as part of our campaign to strengthen and
extend genuine democracy.
The BNP stands for the revolutionary principle that the printing presses
and broadcast channels of the media must tell the truth in their
reports. We will enact laws that will ensure that the dictatorship of
the media over free debate in our society is dismantled and a truly
democratic system is created that allows all sections of our society
free and unfettered access to the media.
The era where the big media barons and news corporations could control
public opinion through printing lies has to end. The abuse of the free
press by the media corporations to propel political parties to power
through promoting them in their papers subverts democracy itself. We are
very reluctant to deal with this problem through expropriation, since
such interference with legitimately acquired property rights – however
justified on one level – would create an immensely dangerous precedent
on another level.
On the assumption of power we would therefore hold meetings with the
proprietors in question in an effort to thrash out ways in which they
would agree to ending any possibility of abuse of their power, in
exchange for being left to enjoy the purely financial benefits of their
ownership, albeit probably at more realistic levels of taxation than
they are allowed to get away with at present.
The BNP has been the victim of media lies and smears and has been denied
justice by the Press Complaints Commission. We will replace the PCC – an
organisation dominated by those upon whom it is supposed to sit in
judgement – with a truly independent body with the power to grant the
victims of media falsehood the Right of Reply with equal prominence,
plus financial compensation.
For particularly bad cases, we will create a new criminal offence of
“The deliberate dissemination of falsehoods about an individual or
organisation for financial or political gain” by any media outlet.
Bringing power closer to the people
In addition to defending democracy against creeping totalitarianism, we
also intend to introduce sweeping reforms to strengthen and extend it.
Once again, we reiterate that it is essential to withdraw from the
European Union, but unlike most other Eurorealist groups we are not
content with repatriating power back from Brussels just to hand it back
to a group of inherently distant politicians in Westminster – not even
if we are the dominant party within that body.
A key factor is that we no longer have the luxury of just returning
without much thought to straight-forward London-based government. From
the moment it took office in 1997, the Blair regime set about
demolishing the traditional British constitutional settlement. The
combination of this giant act of vandalism with pressure from the
European Union intended to break the United Kingdom up into bite-sized
pieces, has left the old UK as broken as Humpty Dumpty.
For all the resentment against the soaring costs of their Parliament and
Assembly buildings, the Scots and Welsh now have devolved
administrations wielding very significant powers (albeit within a tight
EU straight-jacket) as, whenever Sinn Fein/IRA aren’t robbing too many
banks, does Northern Ireland. Such devolution of power is,
to an extent, in keeping with the democratic nationalist principle of
subsidiarity. Furthermore, even if that were not the case, any attempt
by a central BNP government – which will almost certainly be elected
primarily by voters in England – to abolish these local parliaments
would probably spark a powerful reaction in their favour. Returning to
rule from one British parliament in Westminster is not an option.
Neither, however, is muddling along with the wholly unsatisfactory
situation which pertains at present, whereby the elected representatives
of English voters quite rightly have no say over many decisions
affecting the people of Scotland, Wales and Ulster, whereas MPs from
those places are able to vote on issues which affect the English. There
is also the problem that much of the power wielded by these local
parliaments has not been devolved down from Wesminster, but concentrated
upwards by robbing it from our traditional counties. Thus this is not an
exercise in bringing power closer to the people, but in putting it in
the hands of a faceless and relatively remote bureaucracy and a class of
minor but pompous and overpaid professional politicians.
Such a typically New Labour shambles is a recipe for friction and for
future division among the British Family of Nations, particularly if
Labour’s plan to carve up England into artificial areas of regional
government goes ahead, thereby arousing English nationalist anger at the
fact that “everyone else gets recognition and self-government, but not
us.” Knowing the terrible damage caused by such division on the island
of Ireland, we must at all costs deal with this problem to everyone’s
mutual satisfaction.
Meanwhile, of course, there still remains the Irish Question itself,
waiting to explode into bloody life once again on account of a bogus
‘Peace Process’ that rewarded terrorists and institutionalized
sectarianism at the very heart of government.
Starting, as all true democracies must, from the grass-roots up, our
solution to this interlocking group of problems is as follows:
1. Devolve all the powers properly capable of being exercised at local
level to revived County Council government, returning to the traditional
pre-1974 boundaries. These powers to include control of Planning
applications;
2. Add a specifically English parliament, sitting in Westminster, to the
family of devolved parliaments already in being, including Stormont.
Each of these should deal with such functions of the present devolved
administrations as cannot sensibly be given to the county Councils, plus
as many of the powers repatriated from Brussels as can be dealt with at
this level. We envisage a particularly strong brief in terms of cultural
development for this level of government;
3. Create a pan-British parliament to deal with overall economic policy
and provide the authority and accountability required for the Ministry
of Finance, and matters such as foreign policy on which it is clearly
essential for the British nations to speak with one voice. This body
would have its formal base on the Isle of Man, though it would sit in
rotation in each of the national parliaments.
The role of a House of Lords stripped of its Blair cronies as a revising
chamber is still in need of assessment. At this stage, however, we can
state that we see an opportunity to bring in not a simple elected
duplicate of the Lower House, but a body which gives more weight to
experience in certain fields, involvement in charities and community
groups and such like. This offers the opportunity to bring to bear on
government the objectivity of non-party political experts and
individuals chosen on the grounds of talent and service. Clearly further
work is needed on this concept in order to make the most of this
opportunity for better government at the expense of the present bastard
offspring of ancient and modern patronage and cronyism.
There would be a permanent standing invitation for Eire to join the
pan-British parliament as an equal partner. It would be a matter for the
citizens of each of the British nations to decide for themselves if they
wished for the reigning head of the House of Windsor to be their Head of
State, but he or she would not be head of the pan-British parliament,
thereby making it realistic to hope that the Irish would find it
possible to rejoin the British Family of Nations, taking their rightful
place side-by-side with the representatives of England, Scotland, Wales
and Ulster, and ending for ever the Brothers’ War which has been our
Achilles Heel, tragedy and shame since our Masters set us at each
others’ throats generations ago.
Citizens’ Initiative referenda
We believe that such constitutional changes would lead to significantly
better government. That said, history warns the prudent, and those who
love freedom, to beware of all governments and all ruling elites – not
least those that strive towards perfection.
Accordingly, we propose as a vital check and balance on the political
class the introduction of Citizens’ Initiative Referenda on the Swiss
model. Under this, individual citizens only have to collect the
requisite number of electors’ signatures on any given petition – the
wording of which they decide themselves – in order to compel either the
local or national government to hold a referendum on the subject.
If passed by between 50% - 66% of those voting, such a referendum result
would in turn trigger a full-scale council/parliamentary debate on the
subject, with heavy moral pressure on the politicians to follow the
wishes of the majority. If passed by more than 66% of those voting,
however, the result of such a referendum would automatically be binding
on the authorities, who would have no choice but to accept the will of
the people and enact their wishes as law.
This is the vital factor which turns the Citizens’ Initiative referendum
into a sword for genuine democracy, as opposed to the government-created
plebiscite beloved of dictators from Hitler to John Prescott.
The Armed People – the ultimate protection against invasion or tyranny
The exploitation of the 1996 Dunblane Massacre of sixteen
school-children and a teacher by a homosexual paedophile to provide an
excuse to disarm many thousands of law-abiding citizens was one of the
most breath-takingly cynical acts of the Blair regime. Put simply, guns
do not kill people, criminals kill people – especially when innocent
people do not have guns with which to defend themselves.
We would restore to the legitimate and law-abiding sportsmen the right
to possess and shoot all the varieties of weapon they were entitled to
before New Labour’s 1997 totalitarian gun-grab.
That, however, is only the start. In a world where modern technology
automatically and almost irresistibly gives the State powers of
surveillance, analysis and potential repression that past dictatorships
could not even have managed, it is more important than ever that the
citizens of a modern Britain have at their disposal the means, in
extremis, to resist any totalitarian government that has managed to get
control of those powers.
This would be all the more necessary once we have re-established the
once taken-for-granted fact of significant government direction (albeit
through a non-party political Ministry of Finance) of the commanding
heights and overall direction of the economy.
Such an increase in the power of the State is clearly necessary if we
are to compete against Far Eastern economies whose use of similar
organisational techniques gives them a long-term edge over old-fashioned
Western capitalism. But if we are not to drift towards an over-mighty
State which could all too easily lose sight of its own limitations and
role as facilitator rather than master, then such an increase must be
balanced by a corresponding decrease in the authority of the State
elsewhere. It is primarily for this reason – although defence against
violent criminals and some at present unforeseen potential foreign
aggression are also important considerations – that we advocate the
adoption of the modern Swiss model for a responsibly armed citizenry.
Under this all law-abiding adults who have successfully completed their
period of military service are required to keep in a safe locker in
their homes a standard-issue military assault rifle and ammunition.
It is clear that this system contributes to Switzerland's very low rate
of burglary and violent crime, as well as having helped make that tiny
country extremely unappetising to foreign aggressors throughout the last
century. The people of Switzerland have not had occasion to use their
arms to bring to heel any home-grown tyrants either, and the fact that
the State does not possess a monopoly on the potential use of force in a
struggle between slavery and freedom means that they are unlikely to
have to do so. This state of affairs has a great deal to commend it.
A Bill of Rights
The rights of British citizens as they are confirmed emerge from the
details above must be set down in a formal Bill of Rights, the starting
point for which should be those parts of Magna Carta and the Bill of
Rights of 1689 which are still relevant to modern times.
We propose this not because we believe that a written document
necessarily prevents future governments from seeking to undermine or
distort the guarantees. The point is that, by setting everything down in
readily accessible print in a document of universally-known importance,
it provides a tripwire to alert a future generation to the fact that,
as is the way of the world, a ruling class has arisen that has once
again come to think of itself as more important than those in whose name
it governs.
Immigration – A crisis without parallel
Britain’s very existence today is threatened by immigration. As a nation
we must rebuild trust in the immigration system amongst the British
electorate whilst simultaneously ensuring that National Security is
maintained in this era of global terrorism.
We are proud of the fact that at a time when several other political
parties and many sections of the media are finally awakening to this
issue we alone of all the political parties have a decades-long record
of pointing it out. If even Tony Blair can say that it is "neither
racist nor extremist" to raise "genuine concerns" about the flood of
asylum seekers, then it is no longer feasible to pretend that this
crisis does not exist. All those persons and organisations who have
endured years of abuse for telling the truth are owed a serious apology
by their critics.
To take just one example, it is a hard fact that, according to official
figures, 15% of the UK’s male prison population is black, despite black
people accounting for only 2% of the total population. Victim-reported
figures concerning the race of criminals give the lie to the leftist
argument that this is due to discriminatory prosecution. It is an
inescapable statistical fact that immigration into Britain increases the
crime rate.
Figures for unemployment, welfare dependency, educational failure, and
other social pathologies tell a similar story for most other foreign
ethnic groups. There is simply no escaping the fact that choosing to
admit such persons into the country in significant numbers means
choosing to become a poorer, more violent, more dependent and
worse-educated society.
Our programme:
1. In any society claiming to be based on the rule of law, it must be
beyond serious controversy that all illegal immigrants must be deported
as soon as they are discovered. We will increase the funding and
political will behind such operations by the police and the courts.
The present regime propagates the myth that such deportation could only
be accomplished by authoritarian police tactics, alien to British
values. This is obviously false, as even under the present unacceptably
lax deportation policies, tens of thousands of people are deported from
the UK annually without incident.
2. Every nation, no matter how open or closed its immigration policy may
be, has the right and duty to maintain sovereign physical control of its
borders. We will begin by increasing the funding of existing border
controls by 500% and shall continue to increase budget and personnel
until our borders are secure against significant intrusion. In
particular, the first company of British troops to be withdrawn from
Iraq on the day a BNP government assumes office would be redeployed to
secure the Channel Tunnel and Kent ports against illegal immigration.
The regime propagates the myth that Britain cannot, in the face of
modern international travel and trade, secure its borders at reasonable
cost and convenience. This is also obviously untrue, as the border
control example of other advanced nations (the most relevant being that
other great island state, Japan) proves.
3. Under present circumstances we would abide by our obligations under
the 1951 United Nations Convention on Refugees. We recognise the
existence of legitimate international refugees from persecution and war,
but point to the fact that international law provides that such persons
must be given – and must seek - refuge in the nearest safe country. So,
unless a flood of refugees from a civil war in France or Denmark shows
up on our shores, these refugees are simply not Britain’s responsibility
and have no right to refuge here.
This is not a position of callousness: it is a principled stand that all
the problems of the world are neither Britain’s fault nor our
responsibility – or even in our capacity - to solve. In order to further
the proper handling of refugees in the appropriate place (not in the
advanced Western societies to which they gravitate out of economic
self-interest) we will be prepared to contribute funds to refugee relief
programmes which respect these principles.
4. We will reform the laws and law enforcement of the UK so that, with
respect to refugees and illegal immigrants, there are no blind eyes
turned to violations, no amnesties to reward law-breaking, and no
extensive appeals against legal decisions. We will place the burden of
proof upon the claimant to prove his or her legitimate presence in this
country. We will require persons whose cases are pending to be held in
refugee centres, not at large in the community.
5. We will impose a permanent lifetime ban on re-entry into Britain for
any reason on any person found guilty of having violated British entry
or immigration laws, enforced by instant deportation.
Our Agenda for Change
On current demographic trends we, the native British people, will be an
ethnic minority in our own country within sixty years. By 2020, an extra
5-7 million immigrants will have entered Britain, whilstimmigrant
communities already resident here are having more children than the
indigenous British people. The estimates for the numbers of illegal
immigrants resident in the country vary from 250,000 to over a million.
To ensure that we do not become a minority in our own homeland, and that
the native British peoples of our islands retain their culture and
identity, we call for an immediate halt to all further immigration, the
immediate deportation of all bogus asylum seekers, all criminal entrants
and illegal immigrants, and the introduction of a system of voluntary
resettlement whereby those immigrants and their descendants who are
legally here are afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of
ethnic origin assisted by a generous financial incentives both for
individuals and for the countries in question.
We will abolish the ‘positive discrimination’ schemes that have made
white Britons second-class citizens. We will also clamp down on the
flood of ‘asylum seekers’, the vast majority of whom are either bogus or
can find refuge much nearer their home countries. Britain is full up and
the government of Britain has as its first responsibility
the welfare, security and long-term preservation of the native people of
Britain.
One of the most important rights that any nation possesses is the right
to decide who shall enjoy citizenship and residence within its national
borders. In a time of global terrorism, asymmetric warfare and open
trade borders, the issue of illegal immigration must be considered as an
aspect of National Security and not just an issue of social policy.
The liberal consensus on immigration must be balanced by the interests
of National Security. Recent arrests of cells of Islamic terrorists
living in the country plotting mass murder in Britain illustrate the
link between illegal immigration and terrorism. The link between illegal
immigration and crime in our communities – including the ruthless
exploitation of the immigrants themselves - is also well documented.
We are the only political party that is pledged to take action on
illegal immigration. We do not dodge the issue by using vacuous sound
bites and shallow headlines, as the old parties do with their ‘promises
to do something’ but intentions of doing next to nothing. We will do
what it is required and we have firm plans as regards our policy on
ending illegal immigration immediately, and reversing the tide of
immigration in the longer term:
1. Our first step will be to shut the door. A BNP government would
accept no further immigration from any of the parts of the world which
present the prospect of an almost limitless flow of immigration: Africa,
Asia, China, Eastern and South Eastern Europe, the Middle East and South
America would all be placed on an immediate ‘stop’ list. This would
later be subject to review in the case of genuine students accepted for
training as part of our long-term policy of helping to build up Third
World economies in order to facilitate the voluntary return of their
nationals or their descendants under our long-tern resettlement
programme.
2. Inform the general public of a BNP government’s immigration policy.
This Primary Information Phase will consist of a full year of
information and education publicity campaigns to explain to all sections
of the British public exactly what the policy is going to be, and why it
is needed. These high-profile information campaigns will
be community-based and will use the languages of all the ethnic
communities resident in the country, as well as English. This will also
create the time to prepare the necessary state structures and resources
that will be used to actively enact the policy once it is in operation.
The intention of the BNP Immigration Policy is to remove all illegal
immigrants present within the United Kingdom in an orderly, lawful and
humane manner through a planned Two Phase procedure. The First Phase
will be dealt with by the Civil Courts and regarded as a civil matter,
whilst the Second Phase will be dealt with by the Criminal Courts and
regarded as a matter of National Security.
The First Phase: Voluntary Registration
Those illegal immigrants who truthfully declare their illegal status to
the authorities during the registration period will be able toclaim, in
the case of skilled and key workers, extended leave toremain in the
United Kingdom as long as they are benefiting the UKeconomy and stay as
residents until such time as we have had time to train British personnel
to replace them.
During this period we would also strive to provide these regularized
illegal key workers with extra training intended to increase theirvalue
to their home countries on their return.
All other illegal immigrants, including visa over-stayers, casual
workers and exstudents will have one year to register their presence and
assets they wish to liquidate and take with them. Upon registration they
will become entitled to free flights home, and time before they leave to
put their affairs here in order, including selling property and other
legally acquired assets so as to be able to take the full value of their
property (less any unpaid taxes and medical bills) with them when they
and their families return home. This voluntary registration policy will
last for a year. There will be no extensions.
Voluntary Registration cases will be dealt with by the Home Office
through the Civil Courts in the event of any disputes arising over asset
liquidation.
The Second Phase: Assisted Registration
Those illegal immigrants resident in the UK who fail to register with
the authorities and declare their illegal status when the First Phase of
the policy ends, will be dealt with solely by the Ministry for National
Border Security and the Criminal Courts.
Registration will be an issue of National Security as regards those who,
for whatever reason, do not declare their illegal entrant status to the
authorities before the First Phase deadline expires. Those assisting
illegal immigrants to stay in the UK will also be dealt with under the
criminal law. Those who have failed to declare their illegal
status will be immediately arrested and held in police custody until
they are deported. Those illegal immigrants arrested with children born
in the UK will be able to apply to be tagged in their own homes until a
hearing in court as to the citizenship status of the children. No
appeals on decisions of the Courts on matters of national security
will be allowed.
The lack of registration status also involves the withdrawal of access
to all civil legal remedies and procedures available to those with
Registered Status and also withdrawal of the right to use State welfare
provisions and institutions. All persons resident in UK territory from
the expiry date of the First Phase who cannot provide a legitimate and
verified National Insurance number on demand and provide full
citizenship status or registered status documentation will be liable for
immediate arrest and to be held in custody until proof of citizenship is
proved.
Those who have been arrested will not be allowed to remove any assets
from the country when they are deported.
Abolishing multiculturalism, preserving Britain
The present regime is engaged in a profound cultural war against the
British people, motivated by the desire to create a new ethnic power
base to replace the working class which they have abandoned in pursuit
of their enthusiasm for globalisation, justified by a quasi-Marxist
ideology of the equality of all cultures. We intend to rebuild the basis
of democracy in Britain , which is the right of all free-born Britons to
debate in public the facts as they see them by restoring true freedom of
speech to Britain.
Furthermore, when we speak of ‘British democracy’ we do so in an ethnic
as well as a civic sense. We do not accept the absurd superstition –
propagated for different though sometimes overlapping reasons by
capitalists, liberals, Marxists and theologians - of human equality.
Whether the now totally discredited feminist argument that men and women
are innately the same, to the partly refuted egalitarian
claim that everyone within a given population is born as a blank slate
with the same innate potential, or to the still dominant Politically
Correct denial of the existence of differences on average between
members of different races – we reject all these irrational myths.
This must not be taken to mean or imply that we believe that any
particular ethnic group or race is ‘superior’ or ‘inferior’; we simply
recognise that – as any biologist would be able to predict, and the new
medical science of pharmacogenetics is now confirming – human
populations which have undergone micro-evolutionary changes while being
separated for many thousands of years have developed differences in many
fields of endeavour, susceptibility to health problems, behavioural
tendencies and such like.
To deny such differences on the grounds of egalitarian dogma has always
been wrong, but to continue to do so in the light of the latest medical
evidence is to condemn people to unnecessary suffering on account of
racially specific health problems. We therefore believe that the myth
that “we are all the same under the skin” will soon be as discredited as
its feminist equivalent, and that all political parties will have to
drastically amend their thinking to reflect the new reality in the not
too distant future.
Taking these facts into account, we believe that it is far more likely
than not that the historically established tendency (and we do not claim
that it is any more than that) of the peoples of Western Europe in
general - and of these islands in particular - to create and sustain
social and political structures in which individual freedom, equality
before the law, private property and popular participation in
decision-making, is to some extent at least genetically pre-determined.
Such tendencies would, naturally, both shape our culture around such
institutions, and in turn tend to be reinforced by
that culture.
If this is the case, then the idea that it is possible to allow large
numbers of people from very different ethnic groups and cultures to
settle here, on the assumption that it is just something about our
bracing sea air that tends to make us natural born democrats, is fatally
flawed. Just as is the idea that we can export our enthusiasm for
representative government to other peoples, either by example or by
carpet-bombing their countries into giving up their penchant for strong
government or theocracy.
Hence, in order to guarantee the continued existence of our British
democracy, we also intend to take long-term steps to guarantee the
continued existence, as the clearly dominant ethnic, cultural and
political group, of the native peoples of these islands – the English,
Scots, Irish and Welsh – together with the limited numbers of peoples of
European descent, who arrived as refugees or economic immigrants
centuries or decades ago, and who have fully integrated into our
society.
Multi-racialism – a recipe for disaster
We are further encouraged to see this as essential by two other factors.
The first is the truly gruesome record of multi-ethnic societies
breaking down into hatred and mass murder. From Bosnia to Rwanda,
Indonesia to Northern Ireland, one only has to scratch most of the
conflicts in the world – ranging from low-level loathing to outright
genocide – to find that at the root of the problem is the juxtaposition
by past migration or strategic decision by a ruling class of two or more
different peoples in the same piece of territory.
Again, this is no surprise. Scientists studying various primates have
now discovered that murderous ‘wars’ against different groups of the
same species are as frequent among our non-human relatives as they are
among us. The tendency to conceive of our relationships with other human
populations in terms of ‘in-groups’ and ‘outgroups’, is older than
humanity itself. ‘Racism’, in other words, is not a consequence
of ‘false consciousness’, economics, imperialism or the work of evil
agitators, it is part of human nature.
The last idealistic egalitarian attempt to ignore and override human
nature, Marxist economic determinism, led to disaster and human misery
on an almost unimaginable scale. The lessons of history, and the growing
tensions in the multi-ethnic society that the left-liberal elite have
imposed on us in recent decades, all point to the likelihood that the
closely-related egalitarian ‘multi-racial experiment’ will end in the
same way. Our determination to avoid such a human tragedy is what drives
us to risk imprisonment and persecution, and it is what allows us to say
with confidence and sincerity that we are not ‘racists’, but realists.
Multi-culturalism – the enemy of human diversity
Even if, against most prior historical experience, it proved to be
possible to assimilate and integrate huge numbers of immigrants from
other ethnic and cultural groups into Western societies without mayhem
and bloodshed, we would still oppose it. This is because we believe that
the principle that bio-diversity is an innate good – accepted
by liberals for every form of life on this planet except Man – also
applies to human cultures and populations.
There is clearly a deeply ingrained human need to ‘belong’ and to
identify with people with whom one shares special things in common; we
all have a need to feel ‘at home’. While this is generally met at one
level by membership of a family, this is clearly not enough. But the
idea that this need can be fulfilled by identification with the entire
human race is an intellectual fantasy.
The human need to belong is best met at a ‘tribal’ level, and the best
way to avoid such tribalism leading in turn to clashes with other tribes
is to encourage its realization at the level of a genuine nation-state,
particularly one whose dominant political elite regard their primary
duty as being to mind their own nation’s business and looking after
their own people. This half-way house between the expansionist Empire
and the nihilistic football gang is the best hope for peace.
This is not something we desire only for ourselves, we recognise the
right of all people to belong to a specific culture and to preserve the
local particularisms which make us truly and fully human.
For most of human history, the existence of such ethnic and cultural
diversity among humanity was so obvious and apparently unchallengeably
natural that the political theorists and philosophers of past
generations simply took it for granted. Only in the last few decades has
this been changed forever by the advent of mass passenger travel, the
insatiable desire of the globalised capitalist economy for cheap labour,
and the worldwide reach of US consumerist culture through film and
television.
As a result the entire world – or at least every nation of predominantly
European descent – is now in the grip of a set of assumptions and
prejudices about race, culture and integration that, however
well-meaning in theory, are increasingly antihuman and even genocidal in
practice.
While the often subtle differences between similar cultures make it hard
for an outsider to tell where one ends and another starts, it is
generally easier to distinguish between languages. Hence these are a
very good indicator for the health or otherwise of human cultural and
biological diversity.
So it should be deeply worrying to anyone who values traditional
cultures and the rich patchwork of human variety to read what Prof. Bill
Sutherland, Population Biologist at the University of East Anglia, has
discovered about the status of the 6,800 languages
of the world: Over the last five hundred years, they have been
disappearing faster than species - 4.5% of total number have been lost
over the last 500 years, compared with 1.3% of bird species and 1.9% of
mammals.
None of which sounds too drastic. The real problem, however, is from
here onwards. According to Prof. Sutherland at least half of mankind’s
6,800 living languages will be dead by 2050, and 90% of them will be
extinct by 2100. Every one of those extinctions will mean another group
of people who are cut off from their roots and their ancestors by an
unbridgeable chasm. Every single one diminishes the variety which makes
our world such an interesting and wonderful place.
Among those at gravest risk are Welsh, Scots Gaelic and Irish Gaelic.
And although English is one of the 10% of ‘safe’ languages, the fact
remains that all the vanishing tongues should alert us, like so many
miners’ canaries, to the existence of an invisible but deadly poison
which threatens every culture and distinct ethnic group in the world.
That poison is in large measure the blind economic force of global
capitalism, with its insistence on the unrestricted flow of goods,
capital and labour to wherever in the world they will make the maximum
short-term profit. This, rather than a misty-eyed post-Christian fantasy
about ‘equality’, post-Marxist fixation on turning refugees and
immigrants into a surrogate proletariat, or post-Holocaust suspicion of
European consciousness, is the real driving force behind
multi-culturalism. It is not about ‘love’ and ‘tolerance’, it is about
profit.
There is no conspiracy of wicked plutocrats or sinister Elders of Zion
at work here, the unique cultural and ethnic groups that are being
destroyed are not so much specifically targeted for elimination, they
are just in the way of a conscience-free global money-making machine.
If this juggernaut is to be resisted, and the diversity which does so
much to make us fully human preserved, then politicians of all hues have
to rethink their attitudes to culture and identity. The natural
resistance of all native peoples to the arrival of huge numbers of
outsiders in their territory – whether loggers in the Amazon jungle or
Third World settlers in Europe – must cease to be demonized as ‘racism’
and understood as a natural and laudable survival mechanism.
We must learn to avoid the temptation to allow arguments about
short-term economic expediency to prevail over the rights of indigenous
cultures and peoples to preserve their territorial and cultural
integrity.
These considerations, rather than intolerance and bigotry are what
informs the British National Party’s determination not simply to stop
any further mass immigration into the British Isles , but also to
reverse the tide which has transformed vast areas of our country out of
all recognition over the last fifty years. We, as the sole political
representatives of the Silent Majority of the English, Scots, Irish and
Welsh who formed and were formed by our island home, have one overriding
demand: We want our country back!
The proposals outlined below represent the only practical way to move
towards that long-term goal. We recognise that a reversal of the tide of
immigration can only be secured by negotiation and consent, and that it
is probably now too late to anticipate a return to the status quo ante
1948.
On account of that, and also in the understanding that genocide through
integration is a threat to all peoples across the world, we also intend
to develop a model of ‘multi-culturalism’ which combines peaceful
co-existence with the maintenance of cultural and biological separation.
In parts of the world where mass immigration is irreversible, the only
thing that can prevent human diversity vanishing into an antheap of
rootless coffee-coloured consumerism is the celebration of difference.
Simply put, relationships between different ethnic and cultural groups
sharing the same places need to settle down on lines closer to those
practiced for centuries in Persia or India, than to those preached in
Hollywood and on MTV. Different groups can live side-by-side and at
peace for generations. They can even enjoy each other’s cultures, but
they must stick to their own, or ‘diversity’ will be but a short-lived
stepping stone to nothingness.
Our proposals:
1. We would repeal the Race Relations Acts and all other restrictions on
free speech in Britain.
2. We would abolish all targets and quotas for ethnic representation in
all areas of employment, public and private.
3. We would abolish all politically-correct indoctrination of the
police, teachers, and other public employees.
4. We would abolish all government-sponsored ethnicity-specific
professional bodies, housing associations, and other organisations.
5. We would abolish all departments, agencies, or other units of
government whose sole and specific purpose is to deal with ethnic
issues, grievances, or crimes. Such organisations deliberately seek out
the maximum quantity of "racism" in order to justify their own existence
and expand their power and budgets. The law is the law and must be
enforced equally upon all without being politicised over ethnic
differences.
6. We would abolish all laws against racial discrimination in employment
and the government bodies associated with enforcing them.
7. Except for purposes of teaching foreign languages to native speakers
of English, the only languages permitted in official documents,
government business, and schools will be English, Scots, and Welsh. The
use of other languages by ethnic minorities in their own homes, school
and institutions will also be encouraged.
8. A Clause 28-style proscription against the promotion of racial
integration in schools and the media would be introduced.
9. In order to make it clear that the “celebration of diversity” is
something in which the native peoples of our islands can share, each of
our traditional Saints Days would be made Public Holidays in the nations
in question, with Trafalgar Day being an additional Public Holiday
throughout the entire UK.
10. A massively-funded and permanent programme, using and doubling
Britain‘s current foreign aid budget, will aim to reduce, by voluntary
resettlement to their lands of ethnic origin, the proportion of ethnic
minorities living in Britain , for as long as the majority of the
electorate are willing to fund such expenditure. Since the chief impact
of such a programme would be the assistance it would render to
Developing Countries in the Third World, this is described further in
Section 16 – Britain and the World.
11. While accepting the right of law-abiding minorities, in our country
because they or their ancestors came here legally, to remain here and to
enjoy the full protection of the law against any form of harassment or
hostility, we will also seek to emphasise the importance of the prior
status of the aboriginal people. This would be a national extension of
the ‘Sons and Daughters’ policy in priority on housing and school places
lists which BNP councils seek to implement at local level.
We will publish a list of these British nationals preference proposals
before the next major election.
Culture, traditions and the civil society
We believe that the character of daily life in Britain is being corroded
by the gradual but inexorable loss of many of the things that make
Britain civilized. We believe that these things cannot be reduced, as
the fake-conservative Thatcherite ideology fatally supposes, simply to
economics. Nor can these things be provided, as Labour and the left
imagine, by the expensive meddling of a socialist nanny-state.
Tradition, heritage, and civility must be understood as goods in
themselves, to be defended for their own sake.
This entails the following:
1. We demand the right to be proud of Britain again, and for the
English, Scots, Welsh, Irish and Ulster peoples to be allowed to
celebrate their identity and heritage with as much right as is accorded
to other native peoples. We are entitled to a government that does not
show, with everything it says and does, that it despises our country and
urgently wishes to reshape it into something else.
2. We demand the right to preserve our culture, heritage, and identity.
Our national character and native institutions are a precious
inheritance, for which our ancestors have paid a high price over the
centuries. They are not to be casually thrown away in the name of a
"modernisation" that is often no more than a thinly-veiled cover for a
quasi-Marxist cultural war against all things white, European and male.
3. We reject the idea that culture is just something to be bought and
sold by corporations. Such a view, while pretending to evince the mere
operation of free public choice in a free market, in fact imposes upon
us whatever culture - frequently of low quality and alien provenance -
multinational media corporations wish to impose, whether we like it or
not.
4. We support a return to traditional standards of civility and
politeness in British life. Standards of politeness must be taught in
school, demanded of government employees in their interactions with the
public and exemplified on the BBC. Soap operas, for instance, should
seek to portray slightly ‘higher’ than real-life behaviour as the norm,
rather than setting out to show ordinary people – in particular the
white working class - in the most negative and unattractive light
possible.
5. We support the restoration of our town centres and a return to
traditional architecture. Broadly speaking, we are in agreement with the
views expressed by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales in his book A
Vision of Britain. We will aim at the gradual elimination of tower
blocks and the development of wasteland in our urban centres, according
to traditional British urban forms. We will not allow the proliferation
of out-of-town shopping centres to destroy traditional high street
shopping areas. We will impose a special tax on the supermarkets, the
proceeds of which will be used to help small businesses resist their
efforts to monopolise the retail trade, and to keep our town centres
alive.
6. We will ensure that appropriate areas of public life, including
school assemblies, are based on a commitment to the values of
traditional Westernised Christianity. Levels of religiosity have always
fluctuated in Britain, and while our great inheritance of cathedrals,
churches and liturgies has less resonance with the broad mass of the
population at present, the wheel of faith will one day turn again and
they will be fully valued once more.
Art and Culture
Schools in England will be encouraged to celebrate May Day and other
ancient festivals, whilst the other folk nations of the British Isles
will be encouraged to resurrect their ancestral folk traditions.
We will introduce the requirement that all children will be taught
English as their first language in Britain , but also learn about their
local ancestral language as well. This will apply to Welsh, Cornish,
Manx, Scots Gallic, Doric or Lallans in Great Britain, and Ulster
Lallans and Gaelic in Northern Ireland. English children will also be
given an appreciation of the language of the Anglo-Saxon folk and to
appreciate the beauty of Anglo-Saxon culture, such as its poetry, art
and the meaning of citizenship.
Those from foreign ethnic backgrounds resident in Britain will be given
the choice of either having their children educated in Faith or Folk
schools that will teach them the traditions and heritage of their
ancestral cultures, or of attending classes in schools that educate them
about their ancestral heritage. We believe that all children suffer when
deprived of their right to an ancestral identity and contact with their
cultural roots.
We will encourage black and ethnic minority schools and religious
schools run by parents and staff that educate those children as to their
ancestral heritage and instil pride in their culture and ethnicity.
The handing out of National Lottery funds to so-called ‘modern art’
projects that insult and degrade (as of course they are intended to) the
very name of art, has become a minor national scandal, almost as bad as
the way in which money from the same fund is repeatedly handed to
politically correct rather than popular causes. The boards which decide
on lottery grant applications should be picked by ballot from lists of
individuals who have raised significant sums of money for local
charities, not appointed by the government or other members of the
out-of-touch liberal elite.
Music, including training to play a musical instrument, should be
compulsory in schools between the ages of five and fourteen. From
fourteen upwards, every effort should be made to encourage those
children who have shown musical talent to play for their own and their
peers’ entertainment.
Tough on the causes of crime – Criminals
Despite the unprecedented sums being spent on the police, Britain today
faces record crime rates. Traditional and effective bobby-on-the-beat
policing has been abandoned in favour of expensive and intrusive
technological toys, such as CCTV cameras and over-reliance on patrol
cars. Police management has lost its focus on preventing crime and has
become a variety of politically-correct social work more concerned with
the rights of criminals than with those of their victims.
We intend to rebuild the social contract where the criminal was afraid
of the police and decent citizens were protected by the law. The liberal
consensus which sees the criminal as the victim and the victim as the
criminal will be abolished, and Politically Correct senior police
officers, who clearly prefer helping the Exchequer squeeze extra stealth
taxes out of Middle Britain to catching burglars, will be replaced.
1. We will ensure that the main priority of the police be returned to
that of the prevention and punishment of crime, and we will abolish all
politically-correct distractions from this mission.
2. We will return, so far as conditions permit, to traditional foot and
bicycle patrol policing and reduce reliance on police cars.
3. We will end the legal system’s harassment of fathers by means of the
Child Support Agency and change the outdated presumption in favour of
maternal custody in divorce cases to one of joint custody.
4. We support the re-introduction of corporal punishment for petty
criminals and vandals, and the restoration of capital punishment for
paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases
where their guilt is proven beyond dispute, as by DNA evidence or being
caught red-handed.
5. We believe in ‘Restorative Justice’ - all fines imposed by the Courts
will be given to the victims not the government. Criminals will be
forced to repair any damage they have done in the community.
6. We will abolish the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) rules,
whereby the last Conservative government placed the handcuffs of
bureaucracy on the police. We pay police officers to deter crime and
catch criminals, not to fill in forms or act as uniformed social
workers.
7. We believe that there is a strong argument for making entire families
financially responsible for the cost of crimes committed by one of their
members. This was the ancient Anglo-Saxon system, and would apply a huge
amount of pressure on young tearaways in particular to mend their ways.
Would it be unfair? Sometimes, perhaps, but not as unfair as the present
shambles where millions live in fear of crime, most of which is
committed by a relatively small number of serial offenders who have very
little fear of the present weak criminal justice system.
8. We will return to traditional police uniforms, as opposed to the
militarised and pseudo-hi-tech costumes that have undermined this
powerful symbol of traditional unarmed civil authority. It must be
remembered that the police are the servants of the people, not of the
State.
9. Directly linked to point 8, we will reverse the trend of recent
decades whereby the State has sought to grant to the police a total
monopoly on the enforcement of the law and acceptable standards of
behaviour. This will entail changes in the law and the ‘culture’ of law
enforcement.
Such changes will range from accepting that adults in a community may,
on rare occasions, clip badly behaved kids around the ear (subject, of
course, as they always were, to commonsense interpretations of Common
Law restrictions and obligations) through to the introduction of a ‘Tony
Martin’ law permitting householders to use any force they deem necessary
to deal with a burglar in their own homes.
10. Criminals should be made to serve their full sentences, with time
added for bad behaviour. The only way out of prison ‘early’ should be a
maximum 20% reduction in return for a clear demonstration of the
acquisition of genuinely useful skills, or full rehabilitation in the
case of drug addicts, whereupon Parole Boards should have the power to
release such model prisoners, tagged and under tight restrictions doing
restorative work within the community.
11. Given the role of drugs and addiction involved in so much crime, the
present pitiful provision of a mere 2,500 drug rehabilitation places
nationwide is a false economy, as well as a national shame. We would
oversee a one hundred-fold increase in this figure, to be in place
within six months of coming to office. The staff and money for this
vital social service and anti-crime measure will be provided from cuts
made in various of the parasitic and useless public sector
jobs identified later in this Manifesto.
12. While every effort will be made to help addicts to recover,
individuals convicted of the importation and large-scale dealing of hard
drugs will face the death penalty.
Social inclusion – One healthy nation
As nationalists we are committed to caring for and nurturing all
sections of our national community. We also oppose the tendency of the
other, non-nationalist, parties to set different sections of the
community against each other over problems for which they themselves as
politicians are largely responsible. The creation and maintenance of an
undercurrent of national solidarity is one of the cornerstones of a true
national democracy.
The NHS
We are wholly committed to a free, fully funded National Health Service
for all British citizens. Contrary to popular political and ‘right-wing’
myth, the British NHS is actually very good value for money – the
problem is that we do not put enough money into ‘front-end’ staff. The
key reason that our health service is in many ways inferior to those of
other leading industrial nations is that we spend less on it that they
do.
In 2001, for example, we spent 7.6% of GDP on health. The figure in
France was 9.5%, in Germany 10.7% and in the ‘privatised’ USA a
mind-boggling 13.9%. (www.gao.gov/cghome/hccrisis/img11.html )
It is clear that the American system of privatised health care is
extremely wasteful in terms of the cost of fragmented administration and
paying for a vast system of private health insurance companies.
The figures above give the lie to the efforts of assorted old party
politicians and monetarist ideologues to ‘talk-down’ the NHS and push us
towards a national switch to private health care. The real reason for
such efforts is that such people have already made their minds up to be
opposed to the NHS in principle.
This position is also widely spread within both the Labour and
Conservative parties. Since they know, however, that open talk of
dismantling the NHS would lead to catastrophic election defeat, they
dare not advocate it openly. Instead, the plan is to run down the
existing health service until it is in such a state that the public
themselves demand radical change – at which the privatisation ‘option’
will be brought out into the open.
“How hard is it to keep a hospital clean?” Very hard, when the last Tory
government replaced ward-based staff cleaners with contract cleaning
staff as part of their disastrous ‘marketisation’ policy, and the Blair
regime continued with the same dangerous system in order to keep down
costs.
Once again, however, it is necessary to remind ourselves that the
driving force behind such partial privatization and cynical exploitation
of problems to impose desired solutions, is not any actual financial
need, but the complete commitment of the entire Westminster political
Establishment to globalisation in general, and the World Trade
Organisation rules in particular. Under these, all signatories
(including Britain) agree to ensure a ‘level economic playing field’
between different countries by removing all ‘subsidies’ on labour in
their own countries. Many of the social welfare provisions won for the
working class by social democratic parties in the last century – council
housing and state-funded healthcare in particular – fall foul of this
agreement.
In addition, of course, the giant for-profit corporations which are
poised to move into such potentially lucrative ‘markets’ have their own
ways of persuading previously ‘principled’ politicians and media pundits
to come round to their way of thinking and start to promote the bogus
case for such services.
Our belief is that dealing with sickness is not something that can
either morally or economically be done for a profit. As the only serious
party in Britain to oppose globalisation, the BNP utterly rejects such
chicanery, and gives the British people a real choice by putting the
case for a fully-funded NHS, while dealing with the genuine problems
that will otherwise give the globalist politicians the opportunity they
are looking for to do away with it. We will ensure that Britain has an
effective, sustainable and free National Health Service by enacting
legislation to ensure that
1. There is an immediate end to the counter-productive ‘culture’ of
targets in healthcare. All these achieve is to push staff and
administrators to cut corners, find ways to fiddle the statistics and to
deal with insignificant but easily dealt with health problems while
leaving the smaller numbers of the chronically sick to wait for even
longer. All health care should revert to being assessed on the grounds
of patient need, not bureaucratic targets.
2. Staff numbers are boosted, slashing unnecessary bureaucracy and by
addressing the root cause of low recruitment and retention - low pay.
There is no shortage of beds in the NHS, only of staff to look after the
patients who should be in them.
3. Doctors and nurses are given interest free mortgages from the
government to buy houses in areas where their services are needed.
4. The hospital creches which were done away with under the last
Conservative government are re-established, making it much easier for
nurses to return to work after taking time off to have children.
5. Experiments are carried out into the opening of ‘term-time’ wards,
run mainly by staff with school-age children. This would be used to
clear backlogs of minor operations.
6. The asset stripping of the doctors and nurses of the developing world
ends, and all future British doctors and nurses – except for rare
experts required to teach new skills and techniques - are recruited and
trained within Britain.
7. Abolish the bursary system for student nurses and pay them a decent
wage during their training.
8. More emphasis is placed on healthy living with greater understanding
of sickness prevention through physical exercise, a healthier
environment and improved diets. All multi-choice school canteens should
be closed down as soon as enough catering staff have been trained to
return to traditional school meals eaten in properly supervised dining
halls. Hospitals should wherever possible buy locally produced food,
which will be fresher and healthier as well as supporting local
businesses and strengthening the links between hospitals and their
communities.
9. Introduce a programme whereby sophisticated new equipment comes
automatically with proper training for sufficient operators to make the
best use of it. At present it is common for items such as MRI Scanners,
often bought thanks to great efforts by League of Friends groups, lie
unused because there are no staff available to them.
10. We extend the ‘polluter pays’ principle from environmental damage to
the impact of processed foods as well. The link between highly processed
products such as white sugar and flour and a wide variety of
degenerative diseases is so well proven as to make it entirely
reasonable to insist that the producers and vendors of such junk should
pay extra tax to help society as a whole cover the cost of the damage
that goes hand in hand with their profits.
11. An effective fight against MRSA by the immediate replacement of
contract cleaners with ward-based auxiliaries. Also a return to
in-hospital laundries for all staff uniforms, which are rarely washed at
a sufficiently hot temperature now that staff are forced to take their
dirty uniforms home and wash them themselves as part of yet another
short-sighted cost-cutting exercise which typifies what happens when
health services are run by bureaucrats rather than experienced medical
staff.
12. The burden imposed on our NHS by treating imported diseases such as
TB and the new wave of heterosexual AIDS is removed forthwith. In
addition to refusing to allow their carriers entry into Britain , or
deporting those already here, we would also introduce a massive public
health awareness campaign on the danger of choosing high-risk groups as
sexual partners. This may be Politically Incorrect, but it would save
many innocent lives and save huge amounts of money which are needed for
other patients.
13. We support wholeheartedly the nursing unions’ campaign for Zero
Tolerance for violence directed against NHS staff. Such incidents should
carry an automatic prison sentence, and the withdrawal of all medical
care from the culprits for a period which should vary according to the
severity of their attack on NHS staff.
14. Medical research facilities researching the potential for global
pandemics of deadly viruses, and ways in which to combat them, must
receive immediate and massive increases in funding. Finally, there
clearly is a problem building up in the long-term as a result of new
medical technologies making it possible to keep people alive well beyond
previously realistic expectations – albeit at huge cost and often with
very limited quality of life. To state that this issue needs to be
debated and addressed is not to propose euthanasia in any way, but
merely to recognise that death is a natural and unavoidable end for us
all, and that there comes a point at which fighting it is neither humane
nor affordable for society as a whole. This, however, is not a matter
for political manifestos or parties, but for a full and informed
national debate and decision by referendum.
A fair deal for our pensioners
It is a national disgrace that people who have worked all their lives,
paid in to the system and raised families forced to live on the lowest
state pension of any Western European nation except Portugal. There is
also a potential danger in that, if unresolved, the growing pensions
crisis and the steady ageing of the population could lead to damaging
friction between pensioners and people of working age. This would be
particularly dangerous if the pensioners are overwhelmingly native
Britons and the workers are immigrants with no ties of blood or
sentiment to the older generation. The long-term solution to this
problem is the recreation of a manufacturing base capable of generating
the national wealth required to pay for the social benefits which are a
mark of a civilised society and a united nation.
1. We pledge to ensure that all our pensioners receive a minimum £10
increase on the current (April 2005) weekly basic of £79.60 and to
rebuild the national housing stock so as to enable them to live in
comfortable, adequately heated homes. A major part of this increase
could come from the £2–3 billion annual cost of the asylum system.
2. We would also restore the link between pensions and the rise in
national earnings – abolished by the last Tory government and not
restored under Labour - as the current system whereby annual pension
increases linked to the cost of living index has meant that our
pensioners’ quality of life has fallen further and further behind.
3. We would ensure that no-one has to sell their home to pay for nursing
care. This would also remove a source of discontent among those
pensioners who have saved during their working life to look after
themselves in old age and feel that under the present system “they need
not have bothered”. To be forced to sell the family home is yet another
disincentive to work hard and save for the future.
In 2004, £4.26 billion was spent by Social Services for
residential/nursing home provision. However, £1.63 billion was recovered
from pensioners who had to pay all or part of the charges. Therefore,
this is the very maximum amount that it would cost to implement the BNP
policy of eliminating the requirement that pensioners are liable to sell
their home for residential care. It is expected that those pensioners
with adequate private pensions would be expected to make a contribution
to residential care or nursing home costs. The extra cost to Social
Services that ensuring the continuity of the family home would entail
could well come out of the £8 billion Britain would save annually by
withdrawing from the EU.
4. In implementing the above new deal for pensioners we would eliminate
the present means-tested Pensions Credit system. This involves an
expensive bureaucracy to implement and is felt to be degrading by many
proud elderly people. Means testing also hits medium income people the
hardest, as the rich do not need pensions and benefits such as winter
fuel allowance – which the BNP would continue.
5. In order to help to alleviate the alleged labour and skills shortage
which is used by Establishment politicians as a propaganda excuse for
continued mass immigration, we would allow active pensioners to continue
working beyond retirement age without paying any income tax on their
earnings, while that tax is being phased out.
Once the reduced burden of taxation on ordinary people has been shifted
from falling on their income to their expenditure, it will obviously be
necessary to compensate pensioners by giving them very substantial
increases in their pensions. These will be financed with some of the
savings made by not having to operate the massively expensive system
required to collect income tax.
Education for a British future
We are against the ‘trendy’ teaching methods that have made Britain one
of the most poorly educated nations in Europe. These are based upon
neo-Marxist egalitarianism, which has done untold damage both to the
fabric of our nation and to an entire generation whose average level of
attainment is now lower than before the introduction of universal state
education.
We reject egalitarianism, and base our plans for the education system on
the scientific fact that different individuals are born with different
abilities and potentials. All are entitled to the same chance of
realizing their own potential, but this cannot be done be forcing them
all into a low-grade ‘one-size-fits-all’ education system.
Under the present regime Britain is rapidly becoming the worst-educated
major nation in Europe. This threatens us with economic decline, a
barbaric culture, and a citizenry that cannot think well enough to
govern itself. We intend to rebuild the entire British educational
system in order that future generations of British children are not lost
to illiteracy and selfish ill-discipline.
This has not come about by accident or due to mysterious forces like
"permissiveness" or "the 60’s." It has been the result of deliberate
attempts by the left to abandon the traditional purpose of schools – to
educate – in favour of using them as instruments of social levelling and
politically-correct indoctrination, combined with the right’s
economics-obsessed lack of interest in the problem.
We will end the practice of politically correct indoctrination in all
its guises and restore discipline in the classroom, give authority back
to teachers and put far greater emphasis on training young people in the
industrial and technological skills necessary in the modern world. We
will abolish student tuition fees – which are a stealth tax
upon education, and create apprenticeships in our rebuilt manufacturing
industry.
We will also seek to instil in our young people knowledge of and pride
in the history, cultures, and heritage of the native peoples of Britain.
Prior to our forming a government, we will fight tooth and nail against
the looming catastrophe of forced integration within secondary schools.
As a result of the recommendations in the New Labour-sponsored reports
into the riots in northern English towns in 2001, a massive programme of
social engineering is about to begin. This will involve the demolition
of dozens – in due course probably hundreds – of perfectly good schools,
and their replacement with brand new premises in which pupils from
different ethnic minorities are mixed through bussing schemes which will
rightly be resented and resisted by all communities.
We are opposed to this entire scheme on three grounds: The huge sums of
money involved would be far better spent upgrading existing schools; it
will add to the racial tensions, hatred and violence that various other
old party policies have fostered in these areas, and it is based on the
destructive and anti-human extermination through integration model of
community relations we have already condemned in our section on
multi-culturalism.
Key Policies on Primary & Secondary Schooling
1. All staff at teacher training colleges will face compulsory
re-evaluation and retraining. The egalitarian and anti-British dogmas
that have betrayed a generation will be rooted out and replaced with a
commitment to competition, excellence and British culture.
2. We will reopen every closed grammar school, and will allow every
community that wants such a school to open one.
3. We will restore all of the old exams that have been abolished,
starting with the "A" and "O" Levels, and will reverse the dumbing down
of those that have not been dumbed down.
4. We will reverse the dumbing down of school curricula and teaching
aids, and raise expectations back to the levels of the past.
5. We will replace the study of world history and cultures with a
predominant emphasis on the history of the British Isles, English,
Welsh, Scottish and Irish culture, and their relation to Western
Civilization as a whole. We will prohibit all curricular pandering to
the cultures of immigrants.
6. PSE lessons, which are nothing more than left-liberal indoctrination
sessions, will be scrapped. When it comes to decisions about civic
matters, children should be taught how to think, rather than what to
think.
7. We will systematically eliminate bureaucratic positions in the
schools and reallocate their salaries to hiring actual teachers, buying
textbooks, and other direct needs.
8. We will eliminate nonsense subjects and reallocate funding and the
time of pupils to traditional subjects like reading, writing, and maths.
9. We will inculcate a meritocratic attitude in the education system so
that pupils of all class backgrounds can rise as far as their abilities
will take them. We will prohibit the promotion of an expectation of
failure for working-class pupils.
10. We recognise that the Labour policy of closing special needs schools
and forcing their pupils through the mainstream education system is a
policy imposed for reasons of egalitarian dogma and short-sighted
cost-cutting. It is harmful both to the special needs children who are
unable to cope in conventional schools, and to normal children whose
education is disrupted or held back by the extra strain
imposed on teachers by having to cope with such mixed abilities. We
would therefore reverse the closure of special needs schools.
11. We recognise that especially gifted children also have special
needs, and would make extra resources available to enable them to reach
their outstanding potential.
12. We will end the dumping of anti-social expelled students on other
districts. Exclusion policies should be in the hands of head teachers
and governors, not bureaucrats.
13. Council education authorities should be abolished and the money
swallowed up by their bureaucracies given instead to each individual
school. Co-ordination between schools should be organized on a county
basis by the head teachers.
14. Competitive sport must be reintroduced and encouraged at all levels
of the education system.
15. In order to combat unhealthy eating, including eating disorders and
the consumption of over-processed junk food, all schools will be
required to provide proper traditional meals, using locally-sourced
ingredients wherever possible. This is an ideal use for the less than
aesthetically perfect fruit and vegetables produced by organic farmers
which supermarkets claim are unsaleable.
16. We will aim to make a good high-school education sufficient for many
professions, eliminating the need for expensive university degrees where
they are not called for.
17. We will re-introduce assemblies based on traditional Christian
values and worship.
Key Policies on University Education
1. We reject the idea that the left is entitled to institutionalised
control of higher education and through this means impose its ideas on
the rest of the nation. We will require ideological balance on
university faculties.
2. We will abolish the Access Regulator and all other
politically-correct attempts to undermine university standards in the
name of social leveling.
3. On satisfactory completion of their period of National Service, all
suitably qualified youngsters will become eligible to receive a
university education (just as the less academic will be entitled to
proper paid apprenticeships or training and aid in running their own
businesses) without fees or debts.
4. We will systematically de-fund nonsense disciplines and will not
provide grants or loans for such studies.
5. We will increase funding for areas of value to the nation, like high
technology and traditional culture. We believe higher education must
serve both our economy and the maintenance of our culture and national
identity.
6. We will use bursaries to encourage students to study difficult,
unpopular, or longcourse subjects that are in the national interest,
such as science, technology and medicine.
7. We will fund industrial-incubator laboratories and other means by
which university research is made useful to industry.
Britain-first economics – The antidote to globalism
The BNP stands for a British national economy and is opposed to
globalism, international socialism, laissez-faire capitalism and
economic liberalism. We stand for rebuilding a strong national economy
operating solely in the national interest. We favour as much national
self sufficiency as is practicably possible. We will trade with
other nations when it is the best interests of our people and nation to
do so.
Although Britain in 2005 enjoys a fragile prosperity redolent of the
"you never had it so good" years of the 1950s, thoughtful citizens
realize that this is built upon a foundation of rising debt and record
trade deficits and is therefore unsustainable. The present regime and
its Establishment opponents have without exception abandoned the attempt
to run the economy for the benefit of Britain, surrendering
simultaneously to the strangling statism of Euro-regulations and to an
international free market that has no loyalty to this country.
We are economic nationalists, and we believe it is the duty of the
government to proactively run the economy for the benefit of the nation.
We reject the current myth that this is impossible, and point out that
there are many examples of nations who follow precisely such a policy.
Economics is a highly-structured body of thought, and this can be
achieved by systematically thinking through what economic nationalism
means and how it differs from the policies of the current regime.
Therefore we present the following Twelve Axioms of Economic Nationalism
as the core of our thinking:
Axiom 1: Economic policy is not a matter of inevitabilities; there is
room for choices and the right choices can be effective.
The reigning myth of economics – which goes under names like
"Thatcherism," "neo-liberalism ," "the Washington Consensus," and
"laissez-faire," is that there is very little a government can do about
its economy other than submit to the dictates of the international
marketplace and its one-size-fits-all model. We observe, however, that
in truth many nations around the world have thrived economically while
defying this model, the most brilliant examples being the tiger states
of East Asia like Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. No sane nation
simply accepts the hand dealt to it by the forces of international
capitalism, but rather seeks to play the game of the world economy to
its own advantage.
Axiom 2: The fundamental concern of the government’s economic
policy-making must be the material well-being of the British people.
This sounds obvious, but recent governments have not believed this. The
Tories have simply surrendered to an international free market that
doesn’t care a whit about Britain over Timbuktu, and Labour is primarily
interested in preparing Britain‘s economy to be soldered into a European
super state.
Axiom 3: The material well-being of the British people is similar to,
but not identical with, Britain ‘s economic well-being.
The key point here is that not all aspects of material well-being are
part of the economy. For example, a home-cooked meal may be superior to
one eaten out, but the economic statistics record the labour of
preparing this meal in a café but not at home. The same is true of a
child cared for at home rather than in a day-care center. This creates
the illusion that we have a higher material standard of living when we
purchase things that used to be produced within the traditional family,
which illusion has been a key part of the attack on the traditional
family.
There are other examples of how the fetish for GNP misrepresents our
material well-being. The fact that environmental degradation doesn’t
show up in the figures is one. Another is the fact that a safe
neighborhood that needs no private security guards shows a lower level
of economic output than a dangerous neighborhood where every business
has to hire them. Hordes of lawyers settling disputes by expensive
litigation are another.
We reject the mistake the current economic establishment makes of
confusing economic output with material well-being.
Axiom 4: The economic well-being of Britain is more-or-less a function
of per-capita GNP, not aggregate GNP.
This little point undoes a huge amount of sophistry that is currently
being put about in economic policy, principally with regards to
immigration. The current Establishment keeps yapping about how
immigration is supposedly good for the economy. All this means is that
immigration increases Britain‘s aggregate GNP, a natural consequence of
increasing the number of persons working here. It does not mean that
immigration increases per-capita GNP. In fact, because immigrants tend
to be cheap laborers who are less productive than the average Briton,
immigration actually decreases per-capita GNP. Furthermore, because
productivity is a function of capitalisation-per-worker, immigration
dilutes productivity by increasing the number of workers dependent on
the given capital stock. We will not try to expand our economy by
dumping foreign labor into it.
Axiom 5: The economic well-being of Britain is more precisely a function
of the income of the average British family.
It is no secret that since Thatcher, economic growth in this country has
tended to flow to the top of the income scale. While this does increase
per-capita income, it means that the beneficiaries of this income do not
include a large portion of this country. Britain has a much higher level
of economic inequality than comparable countries, and this is
inexcusable.
Of course, it is no secret that the old-style socialist methods of
redistributing income down the scale turned out to have harmful effects,
so unfortunately it is not just a matter of taxing income away from the
rich and towards the working class. But there are other policy tools
that can be used to reduce income inequality. The BNP will use all
non-destructive means to reduce income inequality.
Axiom 6: Economic well-being must take inflation accurately into
account.
Rising incomes mean nothing if the cost of living is rising just as
fast. The present government is lying about inflation by excluding
housing costs, which are a significant part of the average family’s
budget, from the inflation rate. House prices in Britain, particularly
in the southeast, have been allowed to skyrocket in recent years to the
point where many ordinary people who don’t own houses cannot afford to
acquire them and those who pay rent must spend an excessive portion of
their income. Can this possibly have something to do with the fact that
over 300,000 foreigners have moved into the southeast since 1990? Of
course it can. Immigration also drives up the cost of everything else in
the economy that has a real-estate component -- everything from shop
rents to car prices - - as our supply of land is finite. The BNP will
fight these immigrationdriven rises in the cost of living and report a
truthful inflation figure.
Axiom 7: The income of British workers is a function of how big the
“profit pie” is at the companies where they work and how big a “slice of
the pie” workers get compared with management and owners.
This sounds obvious, but the major parties have tended to forget this.
Tories and New Labour only care about the first, and old-fashioned
socialists care about the second and take the first for granted. Unions,
for example, can fight to extract a bigger share of the pie for their
members at the expense of management, but they generally don’t do much
to make the pie itself larger. The BNP supports strong unions and strong
industries, and the kind of unions that work for the health of their
industries.
Axiom 8: Sustainable income is what counts.
Unlike the old parties, the BNP wants Britain to still be here for our
children and grandchildren. Economic “quick fixes” abound, but they all
exact a price in the long run. For example, unions that exact wage
increases which their employers can’t afford, just produce corporate
bankruptcies and redundancies. Governments that spend borrowed money
just saddle future taxpayers with the need to pay interest. The BNP will
not pursue quick fixes, unlike Labour leftists like Gordon Brown,
who wants to borrow his way to better public services.
Axiom 9: Wages are set by the supply and demand for labour, so
immigration drives down wages by increasing supply.
Establishment economists have this odd quirk: they teach all day that
the price of any given commodity is determined by its supply and demand,
and then they conveniently forget this when it comes to labour. Why?
Because obviously the establishment wants labour to be as cheap as
possible. It is in the interest of the average British worker to
minimize the supply and maximize the demand for his labor. The BNP will
not allow immigration to Britain and will implement the orderly
repatriation of past immigrants.
Axiom 10: Sustainable income is a product of the investment in British
industry.
What makes Britain a first-world country, rather than an economic
basket-case, is the fact that British workers have hundreds of years of
accumulated capital equipment to work with. This means the long-term
prosperity of this country is a matter of having the highest possible
level of capitalisation. Unless the capital flows in from abroad, which
just means that the profits must flow out again, the capitalisation of
British industry is a function of how much money Britons save.
Furthermore, a high savings rate is a good thing because it helps
provide for people in their retirement. The BNP will support policies
designed to raise the national savings rate, like the replacement of
income tax with a progressive consumption tax.
Axiom 11: Owners should work, and workers should own.
If ordinary Britons increase their savings rate and invest the money in
British industry, it will over time transpire that they are the owners
of British industry. This has been called “pension-fund socialism,” and
it combines the efficiency of capitalist private ownership with
socialism’s ideal of worker ownership of the means of production. It
also gives workers an incentive to care about the long-term health of
the companies they work for, as they are part owners. It is also a
pro-nationalist policy, as it tends to bring the ownership of British
industry into British hands. The BNP supports the gradual assumption of
worker ownership through their pension funds.
Axiom 12: Well-educated workers get better paid.
No serious person disputes this, but Britain’s education system still
doesn’t reflect this insight very well. Britain suffers from a
class-based bias in favor of impractical education and against
technology education that is absent in more prosperous nations like
Germany, Japan, and the United States. The BNP supports better
education, particularly in those disciplines and institutions most
relevant to the bulk of British industry, like the polytechnics. We
support the systematic rebuilding of the pure and applied scientific
prowess that supports industrial research.
Extending ownership and responsibility
The current pensions crisis was created largely by Gordon Brown’s
smash-and-grab tax raids on pension funds. But even without that it is
clear that the cost of providing for a steadily ageing population is a
major concern that responsible politicians must address. The facile UKIP
or Sun answer that all such difficulties can be addressed by spending
and re-spending the massive but finite amounts of money at presented
wasted on EU membership or asylum seekers is no real solution.
In the end, decent pension provision can only be financed from the
productive capacity of the generation which is working at that moment.
Money saved during a worker’s employed life has to be invested
somewhere, and the return which pays the pension comes from the extra
wealth that money generates now.
The provision of long-term sustainable pensions therefore depends on the
rebuilding of profitable and sustainable British industry. This in turn
cannot be achieved simply by assuming that our foreign competitors will
concentrate on traditional manufacturing and leave the high-tech
computer for us to use as our passport to prosperity. The idea -
implicit in the old parties’ tunnel vision on this sector as the source
of future employment and profit – that people in the Far East are
incapable of seeing and acting on the same opportunity is, curiously,
fundamentally racist.
The truth is that Britain will only be able to sustain the social
welfare benefits that are recognised by all parties as the hallmarks of
a stable and civilized society if we rebuild a broad-based manufacturing
economy.
The starting point for this must be the election of a nationalist
government that has not bought in to globalist dogma and which
recognises that it is a primary responsibility of government to create,
preserve and strengthen the overall framework within which individuals
and companies working in a general atmosphere of private
enterprise competition can thrive.
In calling for a nation in which responsibility is prized, we begin with
the fact that the government itself must accept responsibility for the
overall well-being and direction of the economy, rather than hiding
behind the decisions of independent banks, currency speculators and the
people running other nations’ economies.
In the run-up to this General Election, the loss under New Labour of one
million manufacturing jobs has been compounded by the shattering blow of
the collapse of one hundred years of British car-manufacturing at Rover.
Foreign competition from companies with good designs, excellent
products, supportive governments and often lower wages than ours is the
obvious reason, but the real reasons for the slow death
of British manufacturing is to be found at home:
Bad management; high taxation; workforces without a real stake in their
companies; chronic under-investment (largely as a result of a taxation
system that penalizes productivity and saving, and rewards spending); an
education system and salary differentials that push most of the nation’s
best brains into essentially parasitic professions such as the law, the
management of bureaucracies and advertising, and
a succession of governments with a positive aversion to anything which
smacks of a patriotic procurement policy or even national pride in
general.
Turning these problems around and reviving the industrial and
technological base on which our survival as a First World country
depends will require an enormous effort. The resources required can only
be mobilized by a government that sets out to play the guiding role in
our national revival, rather than managing our continued decline and
pretending that tourism and selling each other imported consumer goods
will allow us to keep ourselves in careless luxury.
There is a great deal for us to learn in the way in which the Japanese
Ministry of Finance has overseen and helped to create the conditions
which enabled the tiny, over-crowded and almost resource-free island of
Japan to recover from being utterly crushed in 1945 to being the global
economic super-power which she is today.
Obviously there are many differences between our situations, our peoples
and our cultures, so we do not envisage a direct carbon copy of the
Japanese system, rather the creation of a Westernised version of it. As
nationalists we expect to “do things our way”, but we are not too proud
to learn from others who have enjoyed success in areas where our Masters
have delivered us only demoralizing failure.
In keeping with our commitment to parliamentary democracy, it will of
course be necessary for the British National Bank (based on the Bank of
England) to be directly responsible to the pan-British parliament.
Further details of how this system will work will be published before
the next major election, once our Economic Strategy Group has had the
time to research this crucial matter much more thoroughly.
Britain? Whose Britain?
Past nationalist proposals for reviving British industry have tended to
begin and end with a plan to protect British industry by erecting tariff
barriers, and then leaving conventional capitalist businesses to take
advantage of the newly favourable trading conditions to rebuild our
manufacturing base while making themselves huge profits.
We, however, are acutely aware that tariffs on foreign manufactured
goods are also an added tax on the ordinary families who buy those
goods. And as radical nationalists we do not intend to tax our own
people white in order to benefit the selfsame companies and businessmen
who have spent the last few decades maximizing profits by shipping in
cheap labour and shipping out British jobs. Our new industrial and
technological revolution must benefit the Many, not just the few.
Since we are not egalitarian socialists, it is not our intention to run
around expropriating existing businesses, but we are determined to
ensure that social justice is done, and the incentive value of personal
ownership is built-in to as much of our rebuilt manufacturing economy as
possible.
Wherever new industries are created, therefore, worker-ownership schemes
will be implemented as far as is practical. In smaller concerns the
presumption will be in favour of workers’ co-operatives; in larger ones
for share-ownership, profit-sharing and management board places.
This plan to extend personal private ownership is not an optional whim,
but an integral part of our entire vision for Britain. Nor is it
confined to the means of industrial production. The fresh food sections
of supermarkets, in particular, are a prime target for conversion into
owner-run ‘urban markets’. And in view of their bosses’ long record of
exploiting British consumers and farmers, and of financing political
parties and unhealthy technologies guaranteed to give them even more
clout and profits, the supermarkets are entirely legitimate targets for
radical and legally enforced change.
The same is true of land ownership, particularly arable land. As noted
in our section on Agriculture, the creation of an entire new class of
independent family farms is at the core of our plans for Britain’s
countryside, food production and increased health.
We have no intention of setting the disastrous precedent of
expropriation of existing landowners – with the exception of speculators
and such like who are actually guilty of crimes such as tax evasion and
fraud against present laws. But we will undertake a
series of measures intended to create the circumstances in which large
numbers of young people can obtain the training, experience, land, homes
and capital they need to return to the land of their ancestors as
productive owner-farmers.
Apart from the many health, long-term economic and environmental
arguments in favour of such moves to expand the ranks of the owners of
productive property, there is one very important political reason: This
is the fact that the assumption by the government of the responsibility
of directing (though not running) the commanding heights of the economy
will inevitably lead to a very significant growth in the power of the
State.
In order to keep under control the State’s inherent tendency to add more
power to existing power (yes, even our State, for it is the nature of
the beast), it is necessary to look for ways to balance an increase in
the power of central government with an increase in some other area in
the power of ordinary people.
Turning growing numbers of ‘hands’, ‘wage slaves’, ‘workers by hand or
brain’ or middle class contract workers – call them what you will – into
the personal owners of their own tiny share of our national productive
capacity, is one such way to increase the average level of independence
and hence freedom among our people.
A return of pride and purpose
In deciding where to locate new industries, the Ministry of Finance and
the other government agencies and private investors with which it will
work will do their best to ‘match’ the new developments to the
traditional industrial roles of specific areas. Thus, for example, a
plant to build the structure of off-shore wind and ocean current power
rigs would be set up in a community once known for its shipbuilding
yards, while the turbines for the same system would be built in one of
the cities which used to turn out engines when British cars, bikes and
planes were the best in the world.
Such developments must of course be economically viable, but there is
much more to our vision that simple economics. As ordinary people, not
members of the leftliberal elite or the tired remnants of the old ruling
class, we know all too well the terrible damage done by the old parties’
decision to allow British industry to wither and die. We see it in the
health problems of redundant workers, in the divorce and crime rate in
their communities, in the hurt and bitter eyes of hopeless young men who
turn to crime and drugs in a desperate attempt to give their lives
meaning, and in communities where old ladies once scrubbed their
doorsteps sinking into decay and dereliction in their own squalor.
In our burning passion to undo that wrong, our greatest motivation is
not to see Britain climbing back up the world tables for GDP or balance
of payments’ surpluses or for harnessing genius to productivity. More
than anything, we want to see men and women who can hold their heads up
high and say to the highest and mightiest people it is their misfortune
to meet: “Well, I’ve got a proper job.”
Abolition of income tax
Under the present regime, the state’s total take in taxes from the
British people has risen by approximately 50%, and now stands at more
than one third of our entire GDP. We are not a Thatcherite party and do
not propose deep cuts in government spending, although we would
massively reallocate it, eliminating entire national and local
government departments which gobble taxpayers’ money to finance
Politically Correct social engineering schemes and State interference in
matter which are not its proper concern.
We nonetheless believe that the present level of taxation is roughly the
limit the economy can bear and we pledge not to increase total taxes, as
a percentage of GDP, above this level. Naturally, we may alter the mix
of taxes so that some activities are taxed more than they are now and
some less, but the total will not be allowed to
increase.
The only exception we must make to this rule is if there is a recession,
which naturally diminishes tax receipts and forces tax increases to
satisfy rising demands for social benefits due to increased
unemployment, or an international emergency beyond our
control similarly impacting the British economy. To keep our pledge on
taxes, we embrace a similar pledge on total spending levels.
However, within this framework of a constant percentage level of
taxation, we propose several key reforms in the mix and manner of taxes.
Any reforms we introduce will be imposed gradually, not precipitately,
in order to allow evidence of their consequences to correct any defects
in the initial scheme. Having seen the fiascoes of the present and past
government, we are not going to rush into untried
schemes.
Income tax – the ‘temporary’ solution that became a menace
One such scheme rushed into by a previous administration is income tax.
This was first introduced in 1799 to finance the war against
revolutionary France. After being abolished and reintroduced, it was
finally imposed in 1842, again as a ‘temporary’ measure.
When it was first introduced, the burden fell largely on the unearned
income of the very wealthy, and thereby had some moral justification. As
it was extended by successive governments, however, more and more people
fell victim to what is in general a tax on the hard work or ingenuity of
each individual. Today we have the ridiculous situation when even people
below the official poverty line pay income tax.
Such obvious injustice, however, conceals far deeper moral and practical
problems with income tax:
The moral point is precisely that it is a tax on people’s labour. There
is actually very little difference between the feudal mediaeval serf,
who was compelled on pain of eviction or violence to work one day in
three for the Lord of the Manor in order to be entitled to till his own
patch of land and to pay for the lifestyle of his ‘Lord’, and the
position of the modern wage slave who must work half the entire year
before reaching his ‘tax freedom day’.
It is one thing entirely to tax people for the use of facilities built
by the wider community, or for taking advantage of opportunities to
profit which are generated by the fact that they belong to a community.
Such taxes are morally entirely justified, for no man is an island and
all should contribute to the commonweal.
The practical problems with income tax, meanwhile, are even greater.
The first is that it can be – and very often is – evaded. The feudal
serf could take the risk of running away and hoping not to be caught
within the year and a day in which he could be dragged back to his
Lord’s village, whipped and mutilated, and set back to work. The modern
wage slave simply slips into the black economy. Of course, the
risk of fines and possibly a term in prison is not as much of a
deterrent as used to exist, but that does not excuse breaking the law.
Tax evasion is not a victimless crime. If Person A dodges paying tax,
then Persons B & C have to pay more tax. Tax evasion robs our neighbours
and undermines the national cohesion that underpins our democracy.
Perhaps most corrosive of all, it inculcates a contempt for the law and
a resentment against legitimate authority.
If income tax evasion was a minor problem, none of this would matter too
much. But Britain now has one of the largest black economies in Western
Europe. It is estimated to involved between 5% and 13% of our total GDP
(Professional Oversight Board for Accountancy, Feb 2005).
According to the Construction Confederation, citing the last available
figures (2001) black economy work in the building industry alone cost
the Exchequer – and hence other taxpayers - £500m in lost tax revenue.
By its very nature the true figure is impossible to obtain, but Prof
Colin Talbot of Nottingham University suggests (February 2004) that the
black economy is worth between £53 billion and £137 billion a year. That
involves somewhere between 1.4 and 3.6 million workers evading £27
billion in taxes.
In addition to this staggering cost, the collection, and legitimate
avoidance, of income tax is also a huge burden on the productive economy
and the opportunity to do something better with our time and money. The
Inland Revenue employs 82,180 people. Of course, some of these spend
their time collecting other taxes, such as Corporation Tax, with which
we do not take issue, but a huge number are employed
to collect income tax.
On the other side of the line there are 252,000 chartered accountants,
plus a further 140,000 student members of professional accountancy
bodies. There are even more ancillary office staff and book-keepers
working for them, and on top of all that there are the untold millions
of man-hours wasted by individual small businessmen struggling with the
accountancy records. A massive proportion of all this work is
generated by the need to pay – and efforts to avoid paying – income tax.
Finally, there is the problem that to tax peoples’ work and productivity
is the biggest disincentive possible to hard work and economic
efficiency. To allow workers of all levels to keep the fruits of their
own labour would in itself spark an unprecedented productivity upsurge
which would dovetail with and help to finance the massive economic
rebuilding programme which our overall plan for the reconstruction of
Britain requires.
The reforms we propose are:
1. We will introduce, phased in over five years, a consumption tax on
non-essential goods in place of the income tax. The purpose of this is
to raise Britain‘s savings rate, which is the basis of our capital
formation and thus investment in economic growth. This consumption tax
would be very similar to the present income tax, except that the basis
for taxation would be income spent, not income earned, during the year.
It would be collected by the present VAT authorities, who could do the
relatively limited extra work with only a small proportion of the
workforce currently employed one way or another by the income tax
monster.
2. We are aware that a consumption tax, unless adjusted to compensate
for this fact, favors the rich because they save a higher percentage of
their ncomes. Therefore we will alter the tax code to maintain present
levels of progressivism in taxation by income bracket. In essence, this
means that the spendthrift rich (who spend most of their income) will
pay more tax than they do today, the thrifty rich (who save most of
their income) will pay less, but that the rich as a group will pay the
same as today, and similarly for other income brackets.
3. A relatively small number of the bureaucrats freed from shuffling tax
forms would be redeployed as Customs Officers to guard all points of
entry into the UK. These would primarily prevent attempts to evade
consumption tax through smuggling, but they would incidentally provide
us – at no extra cost – with the proper security on our borders to
protect us from illegal immigration and international terrorists.
4. The hundreds of thousands of professionals and office workers
released by this reform from essentially unproductive income tax-related
jobs would be systematically redeployed to more productive areas of the
economy.
We are aware of the theoretical and practical complexities of the
consumption tax, but given the complexity of the present tax system, we
believe they are no greater and we will address them in a forthcoming
document on our tax policies.
Other tax policies
1. While the present Council Tax system (introduced by the Tories and
increased by 76% under New Labour) is far from perfect, the same is
certainly true of the other likely alternatives, including the
unworkable Poll Tax and the Liberal Democrats proposals for a Local
Income Tax which would be subject to all the criticisms of its national
big brother. We believe that the key to making council tax
bearable is simply to eliminate at a stroke the vastly expensive network
of Politically Correct social engineering projects and unnecessary (and
often EUimposed) bureaucracy which all councils maintain.
Such operations are the mechanism for both New Labour patronage and for
the long-term development of what Hilaire Belloc rightly termed the “
Servile State ”. As well as their abolition allowing us to slash council
tax, our country would be a better place without them.
No one minds paying a fair price for essential council services; the
problem is not the tax itself, but the amount of tax being levied by
councils which have expanded into areas which it is not the business of
government, national or local, to interfere. We will conduct a full
audit of the extent and cost of such operations once we take control of
our first Unitary Authority council and so have proper and ready access
to the information required to begin to make a proper
assessment.
1. In order to strengthen the traditional family, we will restore the
married man’s tax allowance, which we will raise to £20,000.
2. We will abolish nuisance taxes such as the BBC license fee and car
licence discs.
3. We will introduce a special ‘level playing field’ super tax on
companies that evade paying other taxes in Britain by out-sourcing jobs
to factories and call centres overseas. If they want to do business
here, they must pay their full share of taxes here.
4. A further major source of central government tax revenue would be the
tariffs placed on foreign-manufactured goods of types which the Ministry
of Finance identifies as being suitable targets for replacement by items
made in British factories. This money would be ploughed into the
rebuilding of our manufacturing base.
Public service, not corporate profit
The present regime has increased public spending by approximately 50%
since 1997, and yet the average citizen is painfully aware that the
quality of public services like the NHS, schools, and public transport
has not improved.
We believe the answer to this paradox lies in the fact that Labour has
spent the additional money, not upon direct providers of services like
teachers, policemen, and nurses, but upon tiers of bureaucrats. It is no
accident that these middle-class public administrators are the core
supporters of New Labour.
The present regime has engaged in a ridiculous pantomime of
pseudo-management in its empty attempts to duplicate the management
techniques of the private sector, such as quantitative targets in public
sector fields where they are not appropriate.
Therefore, our primary programme for the reform of public services will
be to eliminate bureaucratic positions and reallocate the funds to
direct providers of services. We believe in the leanest feasible
bureaucracy and the allocation of funds as close to the end-users, the
British people, as possible.
Furthermore:
1. We will not engage in pointless privatisation of services such as
public transport out of a misunderstood admiration for the successful
privatisations of the 1980s. The decision as to whether a certain needed
service should be provided by the public or private sector is not
something to be made on abstract ideological grounds, but must be made
upon considerations of the feasibility of real competition, the public’s
right to universal service and other unprofitable provisions, and
accompanying factors.
2. We believe that it is absurd that 38% of voters are now recipients of
meanstested benefits while public services languish. While we do not
believe in cutting the welfare state as an end in itself, we will reduce
the number of people receiving benefits and reallocate the funds to the
truly needy (especially pensioners) and to public services like the NHS,
schools, and public transport.
3. As already noted in the section on the NHS (see Social Inclusion), we
recognise that the underlying motives of Labour and Tory moves to
privatise every single institution they can lay their destructive hands
on, are globalist dogma and corporate greed.
In the next few years, it will become clear that this privatization
drive extends way beyond targets which have already been clearly
signaled, such as council housing, the health service and the Post
Office.
From July 2005, for instance, Europe‘s largest media company, the German
firm Bertelsmann AG, is to run the council administration of the East
Riding of Yorkshire. 500 council employees, providing services to some
350,000 inhabitants, will henceforth be employed and directed not by
elected representatives of the people, but by a profit-hungry
multi-national company.
The takeover plan set out a timetable which shows the company would,
within months be making a profit from running services, collecting
council tax and paying wages and social benefits.
Not surprisingly, Bertelmann and its subsidiary Arvato regard the East
Riding experiment as “a pilot project of strategic importance.” They
believe that the potential British ‘market’ in this field is £6 billion
per year. The Arvato board has stated that it was in “substantive
discussions” for the takeover of other local administrations in Britain.
This begs the question as to why at least one of the thousands of old
party local councilors, who must have had advance notice of this
outrageous scheme, have not explained what is going on to their
constituents and begun a campaign to stop it. The British National Party
is different, and we will expose and lead the popular fight against such
attempts to turn public services into corporate milch-cows whenever we
find them.
Transport – Life’s too short to spend in a traffic jam
Britain’s overall transport policy will inevitably be shaped over the
next few decades by the growing worldwide energy crisis caused by the
peaking and subsequent decline of oil production coinciding with
increasing demand in the rapidly industrialising economies of Asia.
This subject is dealt with in more detail in the section on the
Environment (Section 15, Our Blessed Plot) although the problem is so
vast and all-encompassing that it will take several years of further
work to finalise and perfect our proposals for dealing with it.
Increased investment is needed in Britain‘s public transport system to
bring it up to the highest standards in the world. The fiasco of rail
privatisation, with different companies running services and tracks, has
led to higher fares and lower safety standards. The BNP would end the
nonsense of private transport companies making huge profits through
public subsidies. Those private services which are unable to
operate profitably in the “free market” will have those subsidies
reduced and removed and operations brought back into public ownership.
The British taxpayer will no longer be fleeced to boost profits for
private companies.
Passenger safety and the safe carriage of freight are paramount and
Britain should once again have a world-leading railway industry and
railway infrastructure. We will seek to bring about the electrification
of all existing and re-laid rail lines. We will phase
out diesel locos unless fuel can be obtained cheaply and efficiently
from biorenewable sources. The introduction of super-efficient Maglev
trains is a nationl transport priority. Transport projects must be in
sympathy with the landscape and historical townscapes, and therefore we
will introduce legislation to ensure the use of road tunnels rather than
overland roads through areas of beauty and close to historic sensitive
areas.
The traffic congestion that makes life so hard for millions, especially
in south East England, is partly the result of over-crowding and
immigration, and partly because British membership of the EU tends to
suck business and investment down into one corner of the country. Our
policies on stopping immigration and encouraging a
gradual fall in the overall population will, over the long-term, reduce
congestion. At the same time, ending the distortion of our national
economy by withdrawal from the European Union will reverse thirty years
of over-concentration of business, people and traffic in the South East.
Proposals
1. A BNP administration would abolish the road fund tax on all private
and commercial vehicles. We view this as an over-bureaucratic and
unnecessary method of tax collection, inherently expensive to collect
and easy for the lawless to evade. In addition, it provides a spurious
justification for the maintenance and extension of the surveillance
state. We would replace the funding acquired from the road tax with an
element built into taxation of the purchase of non-renewable fuels.
2. Congestion of our towns and cities must be eased by the provision of
greater incentives to use rail, bus, tram and Urban Light Transport
(ULTRA) scheme transport instead of private cars. The first step is to
end the crime and squalor that puts so many people off public transport.
3. Our building plans for human-sized cities will also see a general ban
on out-of town retail/leisure developments. They encourage car
dependence and socially disadvantage pensioners, single mothers and
non-car (poorer) families. Such projects need to make use of brownfield
sites within towns, linked by public transport networks.
4. Motorists will be freed from repressive and restrictive legislation;
we want to see overall motorway speed limits raised, and made subject to
variable speed limits depending on surface/weather conditions and volume
of traffic. A motorway may, for example, have a 40mph limit during heavy
rain, but a 90 mph limit during a summer’s night.
5. We are committed to the maintenance of toll free motorways.
6. Speeding and careless driving kills and injures but we seek to save
lives by making drivers more responsible. A tougher driving test is
needed as well as the introduction of refresher driving tests for those
drivers who have held a licence for 25 years and again after holding a
licence for 50 years.
7. Hidden speed cameras will be prohibited. Speed cameras in places
other than documented accident black spots will be made illegal, in
order to prevent motorists being used as cash cows. Local authorities
and highway agencies will be encouraged to engineer solutions to deal
with accident black spots.
8. Far more must be done to encourage the development and use of cleaner
fuels. An integrated transport system and the creation of new transport
technologies such as hydrogen fuel cells are essential to the
development of our environmental transport policy.
9. Our education system must be reconstructed with the emphasis on
mathematics, science and hands-on experience to prepare the new
generation of engineers and technicians needed to design, build and
maintain new breeds of environmentally friendly, safe and efficient
transport.
10. As a maritime nation we are pledged to keep our busy waterways
moving, safe and environmentally sound. We are pledged to bring the RNLI
into public sponsorship. The generous and courageous efforts of those
lifeboat volunteers perform a valuable service for marine safety and
should not be left to the vagaries of charity giving.
Food production – A radical shift
A healthy nation depends on a healthy environment and on healthy food.
We see a strong, healthy agriculture sector and vibrant farming
communities as vital to the country‘s wellbeing. Britain‘s farming
industry will be encouraged to produce a much greater part of the
nation’s need in food products. Priority will be switched from quantity
to quality, as we move from competing in a global economy to maximum
self-sufficiency for Britain , sustainable agriculture, decreased
reliance on petrochemical products and more organic production.
In particular:
1. CAP subsidies will be phased out following our withdrawal from the
EU. The New Zealand experience will be studied closely and we will work
on the principle that if anything is to be subsidized, it will be
increases in food quality (nutritional quality) rather than the quantity
produced as well as environmental sustainability and rural communities.
2. The first five years of BNP government will see extensive effort put
into researching, running pilot schemes and establishing training
facilities designed to facilitate a massive and irreversible long-term
shift away from giant, mono-cultural agribusiness land-holdings. A
graduated land-tax related to the size of holdings and the quality of
land involved, incentives to new young farmers, and the extensive use of
National Service labour will all be employed to transform the south and
east of England in particular. The current unsustainable practice of
‘mining’ our soil for what little remains of its fertility in the
industrial production of low quality arable food will be replaced by
sustainable, mixed agriculture based on family farms employing high
technology as well as sound husbandry.
3. We will ensure a major shift to healthier and more sustainable
organic farming. Local farms will supply local schools with fresh
produce for free school meals.
4. Urgent research work will be carried out into the potential benefits
of a massive remineralisation scheme, carried out with National Service
labour.
5. The work of the Countryside Restoration Trust will be publicized and
studied and used as lessons which are more widely applicable in our
pursuit of more sustainable, healthier food production and a more
beautiful Britain.
6. Factory farming and related agricultural practices will be phased
out.
7. Halal and Kosher slaughter, will be banned, following the lead
against animal cruelty given by Switzerland.
8. Animal cruelty and abuse of the land will be punished with severe
prison sentences.
9. We are pledged to ensure the restoration of Britain ‘s once great
fishing industry with the re - imposition of the former exclusion zones
around our coast. The Royal Navy will police the territorial limit and
prevent all foreign fishing fleets entering British waters by force if
required.
10. We will fund urgent research into the replacement of environmentally
disastrous river, loch and estuary fish farms with off-shore deepwater
fish farms, possibly built in conjunction with wave, ocean current and
wind power generation units.
The environment – Our ‘blessed plot’
Our ideal for Britain is that of a clean, beautiful country, free of
pollution in all its forms. We will enforce standards to curb those
practices which pollute the environment, whether by business or
individuals, and which cause environmental damage. "The polluter pays to
clean up the mess" must become a fact of life, not anelectioneering
slogan. We will restore damaged environments and rebuild local pride in
local environments.
In towns, we will work to replace the brutalist modernism of
1960s-style-architecture with a blend of traditional local styles and
materials and ensure that developments take place on a more human scale.
We will balance utility with beauty and make our communities more
aesthetic and accessible.
The BNP is committed to a policy of National Energy Independence based
on, as far as possible, renewable energy sources supplying our national
energy needs. This must be achieved within a decade of the BNP taking
power. We cannot rely on foreign energy sources such as Middle East oil
and Russian gas supplies, and still pretend that we are an ‘independent’
nation.
We are the only true ‘Green Party’ in Britain as only the BNP intends to
end mass immigration into Britain and thereby remove at a stroke the
need for an extra 4 million homes in the green belts of the South East
and elsewhere, which are required to house the influx of 5 million
immigrants expected to enter the country under present trends over the
next twenty years.
The environmental policy of the current regime is an utter fraud, as the
number-one threat to the British environment is the population growth
driven by the mass immigration that they support. At present rates,
immigration requires the equivalent of a city the size of Birmingham to
be built every five years, and implies that by 2050, Britain will have a
population of 90 million people, reducing our country to a tarmac
desert.
We will ensure that the traditional crafts and trades which are needed
to preserve the unique building styles and landscapes of our country
receive all the financial and infrastructure support we as a Government
can provide. The living treasures of thatchers, dry wall stone builders,
masons, carpenters, farriers and gamekeepers will
be seen as key people in our society. Courses will be available in many
more vocational colleges and livelihoods in these crafts and trades will
be made more appealing than moribund university courses which lead to a
degree but no worthwhile employment. Our programme for restoring diverse
family farms to the agribusiness prairies of much of rural England will
provide greatly increased employment prospects for many trades connected
with re creating an environment and landscape which is recognisably
‘English’.
Our Key Environment Policies
1. We will end immigration to the UK and reduce our land’s population
burden by creating firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and
their descendants to return home.
2. We will implement "polluter pays" legislation designed to bring the
costs of repairing environmental damage like toxic waste dumps to the
creators of this damage. We will set up an national ‘Environmental
Court’ with powers to investigate and prosecute all those (flytippers,
bush meat importers, factories which pump dioxins into the environment
and so on) who damage the national environment.
3. We will end all intrusions of new development into Greenbelt areas,
except in clear cases of genuine local need.
4. We will support inner-city and suburban infill development to supply
the needs for new housing and commercial space.
5. We will maintain, though not increase, current high taxes on petrol
to encourage conservation of energy. We will, however, compensate the
traveling public by ensuring that this money is spent specifically on
improving our transport network, and does not vanish into a taxation
black hole.
6. We will implement a "feebate" system in which low-mileage cars are
taxed at purchase and the resulting revenue applied as a subsidy to
high-mileage cars.
7. We will fund research into renewable and quasi-renewable energy
sources and transmission systems, such wind power, solar power, wave
power, hydrogen fuel, and the pebble-bed nuclear reactor.
8. We will end the current government’s policy of meeting Britain’s
Kyoto Protocol obligations by building gas-fired power stations, which
are dangerouslydependent on a non-renewable fuel imported from unstable
and hostile nations, and will promote genuinely-renewable power sources
instead, insofar as feasible.
9. We will properly fund and upgrade Britain’s public-transport
facilities to get people out of their cars.
10. We will not permit the growing of GM crops.
Green, but hard green
We are a "green" party, but we are a "hard green" party, meaning that
our environmentalism, though as vigorous as the irrational left, differs
from it in a number of ways, the main ones being these:
1. We believe in environmentalism based on sound science.
2. We believe environmentalism must centre ultimately on the good of
human beings.
3. We believe in economically-sensible environmental solutions. We
accept the need to count costs and make rational trade-offs.
4. We believe in respect for property rights, subject to the
understanding that property owners have duties, too.
5. We believe protecting the British environment must be done with
respect for our national sovereignty. We reject handing control over our
environmental protection to international bodies.
6. We care about the urban as well as the rural environment. People
habitats matter, too!
Britain and the world – Good fences, good neighbours
Britain’s foreign relations should be determined by the protection of
our own national interest and not by our like or dislike of other
nations’ internal politics. We will be neither slave to the Euro or the
dollar but remain a free nation by keeping the pound.
We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British
interests. We will not act as the world’s policeman either for the UN,
the EU or the United States. We will maintain an independent foreign
policy of our own, and not a spineless subservience to the USA, the
‘international community’, or any other country.
Post-EU Foreign Policy
Planning to withdraw from the European Union naturally raises the
question of what Britain‘s post-EU foreign policy would look like. We
believe that the present regime, despite posturing to the contrary, has
essentially forgotten the very purpose of having a foreign policy: to
safeguard the nation’s security, independence, and interests.
The primary fact which will remain in a post-EU Britain is that the UK
is, despite its superpower past, a medium-sized nation with a number of
key vulnerabilities. Fortunately, these vulnerabilities are easily
identifiable and tractable to feasible policy options.
The number one threat to Britain‘s national independence remains what it
has been since the Romans launched their full occupation of Britain in
43 AD: a united Europe. Since the Norman Conquest, European imperialists
or aspiring imperialists have threatened to invade this country, or
otherwise extend their rule over it. The long list ncludes the
Hapsburgs, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, and now, the EU.
We must assume the pattern will continue as long as continental Europe
remains a large centre of demographic, economic, and political power.
Therefore we need a long-term means by which to resist the
"gravitational pull" of the Continent if we are to remain an independent
and self-governing nation. The prosperous nations of
Norway and Switzerland have shown that we can trade and maintain good
relations with our fellow Europeans without being part of the EU.
From the post-Napoleonic era to WWI, the British Empire largely
fulfilled this role, by giving Britain overseas connections that enabled
us to largely ignore the Continental powers. The sole exceptions were
the mistake of the Crimean War and the 1839 Treaty of London, which
committed us to defend Belgian neutrality in order to preserve a split
balance of power on the continent and thus prevent the emergence of a
hegemonic power capable of threatening us.
Starting in 1917, however, Britain had to resort to an external
counter-weight not under her sovereignty, the United States, in order to
preserve her independence against a dominant continental power. This
became doubly true in 1941, and the whole of Europe fell into our
position vis-ê-vis the USSR in 1945.
Therefore, however much we may dislike the present American regime, and
see the need to resist American cultural imperialism, we still need the
USA as a counterweight against a European super state. Therefore, while
we should politely but firmly refuse to fight America‘s wars, we would
give serious consideration to allowing
the Americans to keep their bases in the UK so long as they refrain from
interfering with our nationalist political agenda along the lines of
what they (and others) did recently in Ukraine.
Under this policy American bases would be essentially hostages to
America‘s good behaviour. (If the Philippines can expel its American
bases, it would certainly be possible for us to do so.) As long as
Britain allows American bases, the American government will have every
incentive to cooperate with a future BNP regime. If Britain threw them
out, they would have every incentive to try to overthrow such a
government to get back in.
Such a policy would, of course, be subject to immediate review if it was
felt that aggressive action or threatened intervention by the USA
anywhere else in the world was turning us into a target at risk of
becoming collateral damage in other peoples’ quarrels.
Returning to our relationship with our former EU partners, we do
envisage certain areas, such as the development of massively expensive
technologies such nuclear fusion and space exploitation, in which we
would engage in joint ventures with other European nations. This
however, would be as sovereign partners on specific projects,
and would involve no diminution of our political, economic or military
sovereignty.
The ‘Clash of Civilisations’
The BNP is widely known as the only British political party warning of
the danger posed to our democracy, traditions and freedoms by the
creeping Islamification and dhimmitude of Britain.
This does not, however, mean that we are against Islam per se. As far as
we are concerned it is simply another foreign mindset whose adherents
are welcome to do whatever it instructs them to do – in their own
countries.
We are utterly opposed to attempts by American imperialists, the Zionist
lobby, the neo-con movement and the US’s British puppets in the Labour
and Tory parties to drag us into a ‘Clash of Civilisations’ with the
Islamic world.
We insist on our right to resist and reverse the Islamification of
Britain, and to oppose the ‘Eurabia’ project of the French and Italian
liberal elites. But we also uphold the right of the people of the
Islamic world to resist the attempts by the political elite to
democratise or Westernise the Middle East.
Assisting the Developing World
We reject the idea that Britain must forever be obliged to subsidise the
incompetence and corruption of Third World states by supplying them with
financial aid. We also reject the policy of ‘asset stripping’ the
Developing World of its doctors and nurses due to under investment in
the NHS.
The Developing World has been robbed of its essential services staff by
decades of ‘people plundering’ by the West. It is time that those
doctors and nurses returned home to take care of their own suffering
people with all the knowledge, training and financial support that
Britain can offer. Mass immigration into Britain is triggered by
suffering abroad. If we can help end the suffering of those people in
their own countries without them coming to Britain and claming asylum or
refugee status, then it clearly benefits us to support the rebuilding of
the Developing World.
1. We will link foreign aid with our voluntary resettlement policy,
whereby those nations taking significant numbers of people back to their
homelands will need cash to help absorb those returning. The billions of
pounds saved every year by this policy will also be reallocated to vital
services in Britain.
2. The biggest assistance we can possibly give is to produce a phased
and financially assisted – to both the individuals and countries
concerned – programme under which their skilled people now being
exploited as cheap labour in this country return to take up vital
positions in their home economies.
3. In the case of countries capable of producing imports which we cannot
produce ourselves – such as tropical farm produce - we would conclude
25-year preferential trade agreements with such nations, guaranteeing to
buy as much as they want to sell us at 10% above the market rate. Such
agreements, together with foreign aid money being pumped into improving
their national infrastructure, would make returning home to thriving
economies an increasingly attractive
option to many immigrants and their descendants.
4. All members of ethnic minorities taking advantage of our voluntary
assisted Homeward Bound schemes would be entitled to receive a British
pension in their own homelands on reaching retirement age. This would be
graded according to how many years they had worked and paid taxes in
Britain.
5. All Homeward Bound settlers would be allowed to take with them all
the legally acquired proceeds of their time in Britain, including the
full profits from any investment in property here.
National Defence
We would have no quarrel with any nation that does not threaten British
interests. We will not act as the world’s policeman either for the UN,
the EU or the US. We will maintain an independent foreign policy of our
own, and not a spineless subservience to the USA , the ‘international
community’, or any other country. We will restore the county regimental
system and also withdraw from the European Union plans for an European
Army. We will invest in creating an integrated defence structure that
can respond to all 21st Century threats.
Successive cuts in defence spending have left Britain‘s armed forces
perilously weak. We will boost Britain ‘s armed forces to ensure that
they are able to deal with any emergency, and defend our homeland and
our independence.
1. We will bring our troops back from Germany and withdraw from NATO,
since recent political developments make both commitments obsolete.
2. We will also withdraw all British troops with immediate effect from
Iraq. We will never again involve British troops in any more American ‘
wars for oil’ or neo-con adventures on behalf of the Zionist government
of Israel.
3. We will refuse to risk British lives in meddling ‘peace-keeping’
missions in parts of the world where no British interests are at stake -
a position of armed neutrality.
4. We will restore the county regimental system and withdraw from the
European Union plans for an European Army.
5. We will invest in creating an integrated defence structure that can
respond to all 21st Century threats.
6. If Britain is attacked by rogue states or terrorists then we will
respond with maximum force until the threat is eradicated.
7. The compulsory National Service system discussed elsewhere in this
Manifesto would begin at the age of 18 with a period of basic training
in the army. This would include full training with the citizens’ assault
rifle. Conscientious objectors who refuse to undertake military service
would be allocated other constructive work for the community, but would
not receive the citizen’s right to be armed, or the right to vote.
8. Individuals would be free to refuse to undertake any form of National
Service, but such a refusal to serve the community for the common good
would result in their not being entitled to free places at university,
on training courses or selfemployment schemes. Whereas some other
politicians mouth platitudes about there being “no rights without
responsibilities”, we mean it.
Conclusion: Popular nationalism – The idea whose time will come
The material contained in this document has been written by a team of
highly qualified experts in their own fields who support the BNP and who
have the political awareness to create and develop a solution to the
problems in our society. The manifesto you have read is very much a
working document. As political, economic and social changes occur, or as
new technological advances are implemented and new knowledge is
uncovered, the material which fleshes out our fundamental core values
may change.
We will however never betray nor change our fundamental core values
which call for national and cultural regeneration. Those values are our
commitment to the principle of national sovereignty, our commitment to
ensure that these islands in the North Atlantic remain our homeland for
all time and that all economic and social structures, institutions and
legislation must be built or developed around the fundamentals of
ensuring the freedom and security of our people and maintaining our
unique cultural and ethnic identity.
We believe that the material contained in our manifesto will strike a
chord with ordinary British folk who are deeply concerned about the
future of their country and the way it is being run today.
Never before are so many Britons awaking to the idea that they are being
betrayed and short-changed; fleeced to pay for public services which do
not deliver, lied to by politicians and ministers, strangled by
bureaucracy and gagged by the repression of political correctness.
Never before have so many Britons contemplated the notion that the mere
acquisition of material goods at great cost to health and family life is
not enough; that the quality of life in their communities is
deteriorating and that the imponderables such as a good education, clean
streets, safe parks for the children to play as well as a green
and clean environment are vital for life and that the quest for
happiness in gadgets and consumer tat is futile, costly and destructive.
Those Britons who feel this way are ready for our radical but
commonsense program for change.
So despairing of the status quo are the majority of Britons, that time
for a radical change in political thinking is being demanded and
actively sought. The British National Party with its comprehensive,
articulated and common sense approach seeks to be the vehicle for that
change.
Our time is approaching.
British National Party
General Election Manifesto 2005
Published by the British National Party, PO Box 14, Welshpool, Powys,
SY21 0WE
FJ
"Johannes" <jo...@stop-spam-sizefitter.com> wrote in message
news:44468AD2...@stop-spam-sizefitter.com...
I am *NOT* so narrow-minded as to discriminate peole for the colour of their
skin. I disciminate the scum for the fact that they are not ENGLISH! I
also discriminate my ancestors for being bog-trotting micks, so it works all
ways wankers!!!
FJ
FJ
"Prai Jei" <pvsto...@zyx-abc.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e23ac2$j66$1...@emma.aioe.org...
> Steve Greene (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
> <n90842d34ch9gha87...@4ax.com>:
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Q: The politicians and the media call the BNP "racist"? Is this true?
>>
>> A: No. "Racism" is when you hate another ethnic group. We don't 'hate'
>> black people, we don't 'hate' Asians, we don't oppose any ethnic group
>> [ & mucel mo vpon this wyse ]
We hate *ANY* imigrants that are coming to our shores, purely for financial
reasons (Like most pakis!),..
Morris Finsbury
> We hate *ANY* imigrants that are coming to our shores, purely for
> financial reasons
As opposed to The Weather?
Morris Finsbury
> I am *NOT* so narrow-minded as to discriminate peole for the colour of
> their skin. I disciminate the scum for the fact that they are not
> ENGLISH! I also discriminate my ancestors for being bog-trotting micks,
> so it works all ways wankers!!!
"And his father a cunt before him! So you see, Headmaster..."
FJ
"Morris Finsbury" <qrnq_znat...@zfa.pbz> wrote in message
news:44453fd4$0$215$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Fukin ell!!! You make less sense than PM*CUNT*!!!
FJ
Farmer Giles
The 'majority' as in more than 50%. Do you have trouble with words of
more than one syllable?
chippy
> course not, they all get the vote in Britain as well and would
> probably vote BNP
Do they really, get the vote when they pay no taxes in the UK?
--
wigwambam
chippy
Really? what lies exactly?
Do these lies exist in the mainstream parties?
--
wigwambam
kj
Mein Kampf was longer
Thank god for democracy...its means you lot will never get into power.
kj
kj
kj
nut
> Ken wrote:
>> Nazi scum...................indeed, and the moron that wrote the
>> "BNP FAQ" apparently cannot grasp the fact that the ridiculous
>> "policies" of UK neo nazi's have quite a lot in common with those of
>> Hitlers Germany!
>
> Writes a 'moron' who cannot even work out how to use an apostrophe.
> Instead of the usual tactic of childish name-calling, perhaps you
> could try and tell us which of those policies listed would not
> benefit, and be welcomed by, the majority of British people?
Guess that makes me part of the minority... i fell at the first hurdle :
> A: The first thing a BNP government would do is to stop all further
> mass immigration into Britain.
Why shouldn't every human being have the right to roam free anywhere on the
planet?
Ramapriya D
> Which part of stopping mass immigration do *YOU* consider racist?
> Contrary to what *you* think, the majority of "British" people have not
> been asked anything, so you wrong to presume. By far the majority of
> people I talk to about it, express concern, and a wish to reverse it.
Know what? As an outsider, I find it quite hard to understand the ado
over a segment of the populace that's barely 1 in 15.
Can you disagree that "Headlong rush into ethnic majority Britain" as
the FAQ puts it is nothing short of sensationalism?
Ramapriya
kj
'people'...not because they don't listen or they don't care....simply
because it doesn't matter because they are never going to be a
successful political party, even compared to the Monster Raving loony
Party. The people of Britain may be stupid enough to re-elect Blair but
enough people will never vote BNP to let them even keep their deposits.
Greg Preston
> news:iET0g.39407$Ph2....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> In news:n90842d34ch9gha87...@4ax.com,
>> Steve Greene <stephen...@hotmail.com.invalid> typed (subject to
>> snippage)>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> <<SNIP SNIP SNIP>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Q: Are the BNP nazi scum.?
>>
>> A: Yes.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alan
>>
>> lord....@ntlworld.com
>
>
> apparently cannot grasp the fact that the ridiculous "policies" of UK neo
> nazi's have quite a lot in common with those of Hitlers Germany!
>
While the opposition to them come straight from the old communists who were
a far greater threat to the world than the nazis.
Johannes
Steve Greene wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:06:14 GMT, Johannes
> <jo...@stop-spam-sizefitter.com> wrote:
>
> >Hehe, but it just shows that the poster was right in assuming that you have no
> >policies apart from alienation of non-whites.
[...]
> 1. We will end immigration to the UK and reduce our land's population
> burden by creating firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and
> their descendants to return home.
It's obvious that you don't like non-whites, why else do you want to deport them?
Greg Preston
Where does deporting unwanted immigrants refer to non whites, most of the
current crop of unwanted wasters come from the balkans, poland, Allbania etc
as well as africa and asia.
Johannes
Immigrants and their decedents aren't necessarily wasters more than
non immigrants. In fact, many are very successful.
Chris X
That isn't the point - the point is Britain is full, and there must be no
more immigration here from anywhere outside of the EU-17. Skin colour is
NOT a factor in this. Illegals already here will be immediately deported.
That is simply all there is to it.
Johannes
But your paragraph doesn't speak of illegals:
"1. We will end immigration to the UK and reduce our land's population
burden by creating firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and
their descendants to return home."
On the contrary, it speaks of descendants of immigrants! It cannot be
clearer who you really have in mind.
Chris X
So what ? A similar scheme already operates today, and has done for a long
time.
kj
kj
kj
kj
bigger country where your right wing ideals will be appreciated.
Chris X
"kj" <ke...@orchardcroft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_NSdnSWikPK...@bt.com...
What a pathetic "argument".
> and live in a bigger country where your right wing ideals will be
> appreciated.
You still believe in "Left" and "Right" ? LOL ! Sad, sad, sad ...
MrBlueSkye
In the days of old
when they dug up the gold
in the days of forty nine.
Lindy Chamberlain
>> If Britain is full why don't losers such as yourself go
>
>What a pathetic "argument".
The BNP ate my baby.
Andrew Scott
Steve Greene wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 19:06:14 GMT, Johannes
> <jo...@stop-spam-sizefitter.com> wrote:
>
>> Hehe, but it just shows that the poster was right in assuming that you
>> have no
>> policies apart from alienation of non-whites.
>
> Here's proof that your allegation is complete rubbish!
>
> Read and then apologise.
>
<SNIP>
Mein Kampf was longer
Thank god for democracy...its means you lot will never get into power.
Spot the difference?
Andy
Richard Miller
<jo...@stop-spam-sizefitter.com> writes
>
>
>
>Immigrants and their decedents aren't necessarily wasters more than
>non immigrants. In fact, many are very successful.
We could get rid of immigrants and the descendants of immigrants like
Madonna, Sir Trevor McDonald, Sol Campbell, Stephen Fry, Meera Syal,
Michael Howard and Adrian Lester, to name just a tiny number.
Then we could close down all the convenience stores around the country.
Then we could worsen the shortage of doctors and nurses in the NHS.
Yes, this country would be so much better off if we removed all the
immigrants and their descendants.
--
Richard Miller
m...@privacy.net
<jo...@stop-spam-sizefitter.com> writes
>
>But your paragraph doesn't speak of illegals:
>
> "1. We will end immigration to the UK and reduce our land's population
> burden by creating firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and
> their descendants to return home."
>
>On the contrary, it speaks of descendants of immigrants! It cannot be
>clearer who you really have in mind.
It also said something about the indigenous people having been here for
40,000 years! So presumably the policy is 'voluntary' repatriation, for
everyone who can't trace all their ancestors back 40,000 years.
--
Timothy
Humble Scribe
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <4447E347...@stop-spam-sizefitter.com>, Johannes
><jo...@stop-spam-sizefitter.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>Immigrants and their decedents aren't necessarily wasters more than
>>non immigrants. In fact, many are very successful.
>
>We could get rid of immigrants and the descendants of immigrants like
>Madonna, Sir Trevor McDonald, Sol Campbell, Stephen Fry, Meera Syal,
>Michael Howard and Adrian Lester, to name just a tiny number.
>
--
John
MrBlueSkye
"Humble Scribe" <humble...@nocraphere.please> wrote in message
news:JKiGpqAQ...@nocraphere.please...
Madonna let her stay she's a hard worker, but up her tax levels to really
hear her scream
Trev Mac he's an Institution we love him.
Stay
Sol Campbell hard working great defender.
Stay
Stephen Fry complete tosser / symbol of repressive upper class twitishness
/ waste of good fresh air deport to Australia immediately
minus all acquisitions (excepting speech mannerisms / accent)
Michael Howard leave him to dissapear up own pompous self
believing bottom (not to be notified that he is the only member of his fan
club)
Most Professional footballers:
Limit of £300,000 a year earnings after accounted expenses. Any knocking up
hugeley implanted bimbos resulting in taxpayers burdens to be forced into
court ordered lifelong close contact fatherhood.
Morris Finsbury
>>>We could get rid of immigrants and the descendants of immigrants like
>>>Madonna
>> And most of the professional footballers?
> Madonna let her stay she's a hard worker, but up her tax levels to really
> hear her scream
Up her what to hear her scream?
By the same token, do we have to take back the descendants of the arseholes
we shipped off to the southern hemisphere?
That argument might allow Merkins to buy seats in the House of Lords.
Humble Scribe
<qrnq_znat...@zfa.pbz> writes
already!
--
John
Richard Miller
<humble...@nocraphere.please> writes
Certainly most of the Premiership footballers, yes. And most of our pop
stars.
--
Richard Miller
Hot Pants McCracker
"Richard Miller" <ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> Certainly most of the Premiership footballers, yes. And most of our pop
> stars.
Not Kylie.
Richard Miller
McCracker <som...@microsoft.com> writes
Yes, even Kylie. Sorry, but that is what happens if you decide to get
rid of immigrants.
--
Richard Miller
MrBlueSkye
Mind you it would be a blow to the new special Taskforce who reputedly are
zeroing on 198 gangs in the London Area alone, deport the africans and your
left with the cosa nostra boys possie and the south side latinos. Mind you
within 6 months our hospitals would be most likely clear of the scourge of
mrsa and clean to boot.
MrBlueSkye
"m...@privacy.net" <m...@Privacy.Net> wrote in message
news:kO3nhbCx...@town-village.demon.co.uk...
The entrepanurial sp? mind sees the future in genealogical investment,
should the BNP succeed. Mind you wasn't erm what's his name big
on geniology. short fella Austrian
painter
MrBlueSkye
> nut wrote:
>> Farmer Giles wrote:
>>> Ken wrote:
>>
>>>> Nazi scum...................indeed, and the moron that wrote the
>>>> "BNP FAQ" apparently cannot grasp the fact that the ridiculous
>>>> "policies" of UK neo nazi's have quite a lot in common with those of
>>>> Hitlers Germany!
>>> Instead of the usual tactic of childish name-calling, perhaps you
>>> could try and tell us which of those policies listed would not
>>> benefit, and be welcomed by, the majority of British people?
>>
>> Guess that makes me part of the minority... i fell at the first hurdle :
>>
>>> A: The first thing a BNP government would do is to stop all further
>>> mass immigration into Britain.
>>
>> Why shouldn't every human being have the right to roam free anywhere on
>> the planet?
>>
>>
>>
> I figure out I'm just wasting my time talking sense to BNP 'people'...not
> because they don't listen or they don't care....simply because it doesn't
> matter because they are never going to be a successful political party,
> even compared to the Monster Raving loony Party. The people of Britain
> may be stupid enough to re-elect Blair but enough people will never vote
> BNP to let them even keep their deposits.
A "B" movie sado becomes leader of the most powerful nation
A steroid enhanced musclebound Austrian becomes the Governor of California.
You think that the ruling white majority are happy with the state of affairs
in this country when it comes to immigration and multiculturalism? If your
answer is yes then you are sadly mistaken. Be prepared for a very big shock
to your system over the next 5 years. Any populace that can be whipped up to
war fever pitch by a few over patriotic headlines (Falklands remember: kill
the Argies all within a few months of the start of hostilites) and is
increasingly getting fed up of having their security and rights diluted away
on the back of Kow towing multiculturalism is capable of exploding to
greater lengths than just the election of a party that they think will best
serve their interest when all others don't. I know it will happen, it is
inevitable but I have grave concerns as to where it will all lead. I do know
that it will be a direct consequence of the PC multiculturists appeasement
policies at the expense of us the majority white citizen.
The higher they climb the further they fall
joe
vast majority of people are not brain-dead retards. the BNP have next to no
seats for a reason, they are not popular, people can see past what they say,
think for themselves and see their racist identity. Their leader was in the
NF for gods sake.
F'tumpsh
didn't work either.
chippy
> Someone once stood on a beach and commanded the tide not to come in.
> That didn't work either.
Someone replied to some post without quoting to give context.
Which of the two is the stupidest?
--
wigwambam
Humble Scribe
writes
--
John
MrBlueSkye
"Humble Scribe" <humble...@nocraphere.please> wrote in message
Canute remember who it was.
Zachariah
If they're both brits it's a tie.
--
Please promote these fine new froups.
alt.pmd.spank.my.arse.please
alt.pmd.spank.my.big.arse.please
alt.pmd.spank.my.big.red.arse.please
alt.pmd.biggest.spanked.looser.on.usenet
Super Tampon PMD seems confused.
<1097969886.V4JjQY/smgYoAXNIJfWSLA@teranews>
"Watch what?"
<1097969992.D4lAIIGSLP3Kj5qX5xOmVg@teranews>
"A flat what, chest?"
Super Tampon PMD does her hillbilly impersonation.
<1097894344.QuYwdt7ih4q8QhtsM1X72w@teranews>
"Tiddle-ting-ting-tong-plink-plonk-tong-ting... Hehehe...."
Super Tampon PMD...the ironic side.
<1097885566.qF/ECtZdEvt5FZwmaIT/5A@teranews>
"Kearn to spell buffoon dickmunch, only Hucker spells it like that...
?? "
Super Tampon PMD admits having sex with the dead.
<1097883226.fBWHbLTmEPuiPSp5xbqxng@teranews>
"No I shagged your mum"
Super Tampon PMD provides an excellent self-description.
<1098057364.0a29KdzQhLUslm2AVpQ8Vg@teranews>
"usenet stupid."
Super Tampon PMD admits to having man breasts.
<eGPgd.2664$up1...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>
"At least I have some."
******
I love the smell of armpits in the morning, its like victory.
I can still rock like a son of a bitch.
Ozzy
You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to.
So that when they turn their backs on you
You'll get the chance to put the knife in.
Pink Floyd - Dogs
Z-OFM#20
Peter Hucker
> chippy kissed my ass and whined:
>
>> F'tumpsh wrote:
>>
>>> Someone once stood on a beach and commanded the tide not to come in.
>>> That didn't work either.
>>
>> Someone replied to some post without quoting to give context.
>> Which of the two is the stupidest?
>
> If they're both brits it's a tie.
Everyone knows the yanks are the stupidest most childesh race on the planet.
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
You may be a cunning linguist, but I am a master debater.
David Looser
news:k7u952dmps0e94a9iolghhcjlfai0rdarv@zach...
> chippy kissed my ass and whined:
>
>>F'tumpsh wrote:
>>
>>> Someone once stood on a beach and commanded the tide not to come in.
>>> That didn't work either.
>>
>>Someone replied to some post without quoting to give context.
>>Which of the two is the stupidest?
>
> If they're both brits it's a tie.
> --
And the people who won't quote context are, almost to a man, Americans.
David.