What's this about
Chamber Of Debate
10 December 11
Chamber of Debate
PARTY POLITICS - Eurosceptic parties
The anti-EU vote is being fragmented by this apparent choice of 2 parties neither of which is likely to win a seat, but who both want a more rigorous immigration policy and to withdraw from the EU.
UKIP is favoured by the middle classes while the BNP has its natural constituency in the working class.
The middle classes are for social reasons more restrained in their complaints against foreigners while the working classes who are directly competing with them for housing, welfare payments and living space tend to be more forthright in the expression of how they could be made to go.
Neither party has the means to completely subjugate the other. While the BNP are a grassroots movement, UKIP have one MP, 9 MEPs and 2 Members in the House of Lords.
Together they could rival and surpass the LibDems. Apart they are impotent.
To merge, however, the BNP *MUST* change their constitution declaring their intention of returning the country to its pre-1948 racial composition and lift its colour bar.
Perhaps a constitution such as the one found at
could be an acceptable compromise?
(a) rules out the introduction of anything like apartheid (to address the fears of non-white supporters)
(b) promises to repeal all anti-discrimination legislation (to address the fears of white members fearing the playing of the race card by non-white members)
(c) promises not to impose any form of legislation that is
(i) in favour of discrimination
(ii) against discrimination
(iii) forbidding any sort of discrimination
so we can all have freedom of association!
Its endorsement of direct democracy or government by referenda allows the conduct of referenda on any issue that is arguably in the national interest.
For the diehard Tyndallites, this means they can as party members PROPOSE to conduct a referendum on the repatriation of non-white British citizens, if that is what they wish to do.
But they won't win it, will they??
So honour is satisfied all round and no one need worry too much.
This seems a rather elegant solution to the problem of intra- and inter-party bickering over policy that they will never be in a position to implement anyway.
Should UKIP and the BNP merge to concentrate the vote of those who want to withdraw from the EU?
Our Unique Parallel Polling System
(One Member One Vote)
(One Member Multiple Votes)
AAA Awarded members only.
I think the answer at the moment must be 'no'; UKIP and the BNP must not unite, at least yet. Any decision should be driven by pragmatism rather than any ideas of principle. The UK's very existence is now threatened by immigration combined with the slow motion coup which has culminated with the signing of the reform treaty/Constitution.
If one looks at the policies of UKIP and the BNP they are identical in all important aspects. But the BNP has an image of racism and violence much of which might now be undeserved but which is still sticking. If the BNP can first carry out some reforms and include members of ethnic minorites in its party provided they sign up to key principles then perhaps a merger might be considered.
But not before then.
I think that the best way to approach this question is to first ask - what are the most pressing problems facing Britain?
To my mind, the answer to that is - to stop the tide of Islamic immigration, and to remove Britain from the yoke of Europe.
If both parties could agree on that as their joint primary aim, I believe it would appeal to huge numbers of voters - and that constitutes a most cogent reason for the two parties to at the very least, cooperate - even if only temporarily - in order to concentrate on achieving those two objectives.
If the BNP are dedicated to remaining a Caucasian party, that is their choice, and clearly prevents it actually amalgamating with UKIP, but I do not see why that policy should stand in the way of cooperation on broader matters. That would involve agreeing not - at this stage - to run candidates against each other, agreeing which party would run in any given constituency, and supporting each other's candidates.
The jury’s out on whether the BNP should remain a racially exclusive club or not. This depends on the members, and whatever political advantage may be gained by remaining so. Personally I can’t see blacks joining the BNP in large numbers even if they were invited. Athough some of them may be opposed to mass immigration, the majority would recognise that the dynamic of an anti-immigration party would tend to work against them as well.
You say nationhood is greater than race consciousness as the former is a state of mind that can be acquired, the latter an accident of birth that cannot be changed. This argument leads nowhere. Everything is an ‘accident of birth’ – one’s culture as much as one’s race. Indeed the type of thoughts one has about one’s race largely depend on the surrounding culture.
Ideologies are ideologies, religious or political.
They have the same effect of causing loss of life through violence and wars and can be pursued with the same degree of ruthlessness and cruelty. It would be a distinction without a difference.
Islam is certainly not "indigenous" to this country, but then neither was Christianity, which also has origins in the Middle East.
Islam is not restricted to either race or nation while British nationalism is currently narrowly confined to white Europeans only.
May I remind you that nationhood is greater than race consciousness? The former is a state of mind that can be acquired, the latter a mere accident of birth that cannot be changed.
I think is extremely misleading to compare a political party of any size with a religion, whether Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Not even the most fervent BNP member would equate party membership with a religious faith.
What is a "Fascist"? It has no real meaning these days, except as a term of general abuse.
Perhaps we should just take it to mean "someone who is unnecessarily aggressive and bossy, likely to be violent when defied". This could conceivably apply to ANYONE, even "anti-Fascists" and "anti-racists".
As regards Le Pen's failure at the polls despite opening out Frenchness to non-white French nationals, that was more due to his age and Sarkozy's relative youth, clear blue water between the Socialists and looking good astride a horse.
The BNP have a right to racial exclusivity but it is a dead-end if they are interested in more than just making a point that they have a right to exclude other races, just as if they were some sort of a private club.
Notice that Judaism was raciallly based. Jesus believed this was a dead end and paid with his life to end this racial exclusivity of monotheism. Observe Islam and its 5 Pillars. Do the Muslim thing and you ARE a Muslim. "The one who speaks Arabic is an Arab." The concept of a worldwide "umma" that is above country and above race is an effective proselytising platform. Notice, too, how much better they are doing than either Judaism and Christianity!
I'm not clear exactly how the BNP is 'fascist' and UKIP isn't. Personally I don't think either party is fascist. You could certainly point to the fact that UKIP is a civic-nationalist party (open to all) while the BNP is ethno-nationalist (open only to white British and kindred Europeans).
In many respects, of course, it’s true that Le Pen's party have achieved much more than the BNP. But is this purely because they are civic nationalist? There are other reasons – superior organisation, for one. However, I believe their lack of a clear racial identity weakened them in the recent French elections. For - just as they had been trying to appear more 'moderate' in order to win more mainstream votes - the right-of-centre Sarkozy was able to enter the same territory and successfully win votes from Le Pen's traditional supporters. Moreover, many civic nationalist parties tend to have a short shelf life - Pim Fortuyn's party in Holland is just one example. Whereas parties like the BNP, the National Front, even Oswald Mosley's BUF and Union Movement, are (or were) more like a long-term movement than merely short-term parties with short-term objectives. Still, I do think BNP and UKIP supporters have a lot in common, and it would be great if somehow they could work together in future. But whether a ‘merger’ would be on the cards or not, I really don’t know.
The BNP is a fascist party, and UKIP should stay clear of that.
All comments are subject to approval.
- My Profile
- Edit My Profile
- Reset My Password
- Quick Search
- Advanced Search
- Name Search
- Saved Search
- Who is Online
- List of Correspondents
- Blocked Members
- Refer a Friend
- Chamber of Debate
- Classified Advertisements
- AAA Award
What's this about
, All Rights Reserved