I am amused by the extraordinary effort that routinely goes into super-analysing the BNP's constitution (which, in my view, is about 10 pages too long anyway) and its "programme."

With the possible exception of the first post-war Labour government, I don't know of any political party programme that has ever been implemented following their election. So, to argue over the fine detail of the BNP's "programme" is a nonsense, as we know they will be unable to realize it. Parts of it, yes; elements of it, most certainly. But not the whole programme. If the BNP were ever to enter No 10, Downing Street, the realities of power and the impracticalities of implementing the more contentious parts of their programme would quickly become apparent.

Kapitein Andre could repeat his detective excercise with the published programmes of all the mainstream parties, and still find particular issues we could then rhetorically shred. So if the can BNP offer up the same ... so what?

I still believe most people's initial response to the BNP is entirely Pavlov in nature ... in that the spectre of "Adolf Hitler and the Nazis" is immediately recalled by the mind's eye. Which just goes to show how successful the leftist policy of associating Naziism with right-wing politics since 1945 has been. Quite a feat when you consider that German Naziism was essentially a left-wing project.

The fact is, British politics will be far healthier once its Parliament contains 10 to 50 BNP political representatives. Only then could we at last begin to see honest debates about all issues.

I wonder if by posting those three elements of the BNP programme, Kapitein is offering his reasons for banning the BNP, a step he alluded to earlier. A rather tenuous justification to say the least.

Now, let's take a quick note of the "elements" hightlighted by Kapitein:

If Membership of the party is restricted to "Indigenous Caucasians" then that stipulation needs to be respected, and indeed celebrated. What a wonderful idea. And it corresponds (as I wrote in my previous 2 comments) with the stances taken by a considerable number of political parties in countries all around the world.

If the BNP is "committed to stemming and reversing the tide of non-white immigration and to restoring, by legal changes, negotiation and consent the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948," then I don't see why we must use the word racist in response. It is a noble goal. The first part (stemming and reversing the tide of none-white immigration) is what we already know must happen. The second part could be interpreted as restoring a sense of community and national identity the indigenous majority once unself-consciously enjoyed, prior to 1948.

If the BNP "stands for the preservation of the national and ethnic character of the British people and is wholly opposed to any form of racial integration between British and non-European peoples" then it would find the second part of this policy too difficult to implement. For example, many otherwise nationalist British men have discovered the delights of Asian women, and they aren't likely to give that up. With today's global communications and accessible travel, it isn't going to happen. But, by implementing the first part of their policy, the levels of miscegenation would fall down to sustainable levels, last seen during the 1960s. The most important goal is to end the embarrassing insanity of English middle-class women marrying grass-skirted citizens of Kenya, Cameroon, Sierra Leone, etc.

Singapore became Chinese because the British once encouraged Chinese economic migrants to settle there. If you truly wanted to emulate Hong Kong on, say, the Isle of White, the last race of people you'd want to invite in would be black African immigrants. It's just the way nature has worked out. Hence, the BNP's contribution to Britain is vital.

There will now be short musical interlude when all white contributors to BJ will join hands for a chorus of "Tomorrow Belongs To Me":

The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
The stag in the forest runs free.
But gather together to greet the storm.
Tomorrow belongs to me.

The branch of the linden is leafy and green,
The Rhine gives its gold to the sea.
But somewhere a glory awaits unseen.
Tomorrow belongs to me.

The babe in his cradle is closing his eyes
The blossom embraces the bee.
But soon, says a whisper;
"Arise, arise,
Tomorrow belongs to me."

Most people are already aware of the BNP's stipulations on membership: "Membership of the British National Party is open to those of British or kindred European ethnic descent."

So what exactly is wrong with that? You obviously consider that racist, right?

Initially, the African National Party (ANC) had only one white male member -- Joe Slovo: a known Communist Jew. There were a few outspoken Communist sympathizers of the ANC, mostly white women. But in truth and reality, it is a Blacks-only political party and focuses on advancing the interests of one ethnic group (usually at the expense of non-Whites). You offer your deep emotional support to the ANC, Jordan?

The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) is a party founded in 1975 by Gatsha Mangosuthu Buthelezi. It is for Zulus and Zulus only. In other words a black only party, excluding whites (and even other Black Africans).

The Bloc Québécois (founded 1991) is a separatist political party representing the French (white) speaking peoples of Quebec, Canada. I don't see that party stating in its constitution: "We welcome the membership of all economically depressed asylum seekers, especially those from Afghanistan, Somalia, Nigeria, and Algeria, in our quest for a sovereign French nation in North America."

Perhaps you imagine they do. The "colours of the rainbow" is your only colour right? How sweet of you.

Now let us take the example of Malaysia, that frequently eulogized example of (alleged) multicultural racial harmony in SE Asia.

United Malays National Organization (UMNO) is what its title says it is: exclusively for people who are indigenous Malays. They don't allow whites (yes, there are White Malaysians) and they certainly discourage Chinese membership. UMNO has been the ruling party since independence, which makes Malaysia a de-facto one party state.

The Malaysian Chinese Association (Persatuan China Malaysia, MCA) is another one-race only political party, and (I believe) the MCA is the principle opposition to UMNO. MCA leaders have been intimidated frequently, especially around election time.

Then there is the Malaysian Indian Congress (Kongres India Se-Malaysia, MIC) which, as the name suggests, represents only the Indian ethnic group within Malaysia.

It is so revealing to consider the hypocrisy of left-wing thinking. It tells us much about the weak side of the human condition. Malaysia's best known leader, Mahathir bin Mohamad, was often feted by Multicultural advocates, The Economist, and the United Nations. Yet, the Malay-only party he led for over 30 years, UMNO, is known for being a major proponent of Malay (ethnic) nationalism or the ketuanan Melayu (alongside some Islamic ideology) which holds that the Malay people and other Muslims are the "definitive" people of Malaysia and thus deserve special privileges as their birthright.

In several respects, the bulk of Malaysia is more civilized, peaceful, and socially efficient than Britain is today. So, such "hard" political attitudes cannot be such a bad thing, right? So, where were your squeals of indignation these past 30 years? All I heard was silence. Because, in your language, the so-called multicultural jewel of the world is actually being led by a racist party with a specifically racist constitution.

Yet, as soon as someone attempts to establish a political party in Britain, to pursue the rights of the disenfranchised majority, people like you push their hysteria button.

Let us briefly survey other parts of the world.

In Thailand, none of the political parties forming coalitions allow membership by non-Thais.

In Japan, none of the political parties allow membership by non-Japanese. Nor do they debate about, or legislate for them.

It is only in the Western world, since the 1970s, that the established political parties have been re-configured (or corrupted) so that they feel duty-bound to devote a disproportionate amount of time and energy to the affairs and exclusive interests of ethnic groups (primarily people with non-white skin), and to the construction of racist legislation that disadvantages the indigenous whites in some way or other.

Whilst I have already acknowledged at the B.J., that a small population of blacks have been part of the British population since the 17th century (which they should be respected for) it is nonetheless still true to say Britain is, as it always has been, a white, Judeo-Christian country.

But, you and your kind (it would seem) care little for such matters; matters I would remind you that pertain to real identity and authentic rights ... not the plastic versions dreamt up by socialist thinkers.

[continued ...]

Don't worry, Jordan. Poor old MI has got a complete blind spot when it comes to believing that the BNP actually mean what they say in their Mission Statement and other stuff they publish on the website.

with regard to this: I think people should be able to enjoy the ballet (or watch a movie, etc..) without concerning themselves with the private lives of the performers. (of course, there is a hypothetical limit to this argument)

Let's be consistant, here....Do you feel the same way about the Dixie Chicks, and their anti-war tirades???....(That I might add they did not have the guts to make in the USA, but made them while on tour in the UK)....

And why should the BNP not be given the time of day?....Is there not free speech in the UK?.....Because you disagree with their politics, they are to be silenced???.... They are probably now the only party in the UK that takes a stand on rampant liberal immigration policies....A stand that you probably view as racist, but some may view as standing up for the British culture and nation as a whole....And for that they shouldn't be given the time of day?....It's amazing what the media does to people like you!.....People like you can't see the forest before the trees, and your country will lose in the long run as a result.......

@Kapitein ... please examine your reflexive tendency to associate the BNP with Naziism. I am not saying you are doing this explicitly, more like subconsciously. Even mild talk of banning the BNP is ridiculous. Ban them for what? Would not the Fabians and the Socialist Workers Party be more deserving of a ban? I am not a BNP member, but I have taken time to read a great many of their articles (including much of their rather long Constitution), and I really cannot identify what the fuss is all about. You are intelligent enough to identify when you may have been subtly brainswashed, so please spend a few introspective moments, to make sure you are not unwittingly relaying leftist propaganda.

@Jordan ... about the BNP you appear to be posting feelings and emotions, which is a poor substitute for evidence and common-sense.

Why should the BNP "not be given the time of day?" All along, they have been correct about Multiculturalism and Islamism in Britain and they were amongst the first to point out the problems caused by those two ideologies.

Can you explain (without getting over-emotional) why they -- according to you -- base their judgements on people's skin colour? Are you saying that you have never modified any of your thoughts according to the race/skin colour of a person or people? Surely by acting as an apologist for non-white people, you are already demonstrating that you do, and in fact you are admitting you are hostile to white culture.

In your opinion, is white culture allowed any autonomy at all, or must all of it be subsumed (by law) by the cultures of other races?

If so, do you realize how sick your own thinking has become?

No single political party is the solution to Britain's problems, but I would wager the BNP (if given the opportunity) would do far less damage than any of the three major parties, who are already contaminated by the most half-baked left-wing ideas ever conceived.

What is really required is a change in thinking amongst the bulk of the population, and a rejection of the delusions that have gripped the majority since the late 1970s.

As for your unsubstantiated and thus childish claim the BNP prevent concerned and honest people from having difficult debates; you are just throwing silly and baseless accusations in the vain hope of making sense. Don't you know anything about the recent attempts, by the New Labour regime, to imprison the BNP's Chairman, and his Publicity Officer, just for speaking out at a private meeting (which was secretly filmed by a couple of Trotskiist students from Liverpool University)?

Their crime? They said: "Islam is vile and wicked faith."

May I remind your leftist brain that Islam is NOT a race. It is an ideology.

A person has to be either blind, stupid, or a Labour Party member to deny that it has been New Labour, and only New Labour, preventing concerned and honest British people from having difficult debates, aided and abetted by the Prosecutor General.

As for honesty, I don't see much of that flowing through your brain cells when it comes to issues like freedom, debate, dignity, and democracy in Britain today. But I do detect a great deal of naivety and an unwillingness to understand what is actually going on in your own country.

This is about freedom. Democracy means nothing without freedom of, by and for the individual. Democratic models in prevelance today are suppressive while attempting to provide an atmosphere of messianic purpose.

Equality is earned and is not a commodity to be granted at the expense of the existing community and the individuals whose collective efforts and vision have built that community. The existing structure attempts to tear down the community and the values on which it rests. The leftists are interested in maximizing their power and influence and giving profit to the international corporate raiders who subsidize them. Their interest is in warehousing their own people and marginalizing the benefits which should go to the citizens so that they and their oligarchy of supporters can impose their utopic visions while taking full advantage of the immigrants and the citizens.

The British political system is little different from the one in the USA or other places. It is by control of a minority, who pretend to represent the wishes of the majority, while manipulating the elective processes and access to them. They perpetuate that control through media which is sympathetic to and controlled by them while they pass laws that make it easier for them to plunder public coffers and pass laws to deny freedom to their individual citizens. A "democracy" with that power and intent needs no label, but is closest to communism in its collectivist policies.

I doubt that the UK could rightfully be called a liberal democracy in the sense that individual freedoms are being safeguarded and their citizens being protected either from the looting of the public treasury or looting by invading hordes of poor immigrants who are providing vastly cheaper labor resources for the corporate backers of the leftists.

This differs from communism only by our historic perception of it being imposed by physical force and violence. A benevolent communism will not long exist as might be possible with a benevolent dictatorship of a totalitarian government. I advocate neither. I suggest a return to a government controlled by the citizens for the benefit and protection of its citizens while preserving the rights of the citizen.

The USA is so committed to individual liberties because without that committment there is no USA. It is the rightful freedom of the individual that is being tied by the government and governmental hands are reaching into the pocket of its citizens for the benefit and power of a minority. The case of Timothy McVeigh is an example of how the government did not act on information which it had in its possession because its intent was not to protect its citizens.

Why should any group which is lawful and utilizing lawful means be suppressed? I suspect the voices against groups such as the BNP are those which fear the truthful parts of any story that they may tell. I don't think it is known for its violent actions. Informed citizens can choose which groups represent their own interests and do not need the government or pressures from collective society to make choices for them. All such groups have some elements of truth. Collectivists hate truth. They despise individual choice.

But you weren't talking about soldiers, policemen or firemen. You were talking about ballerinas.

Oh well, never mind eh...

Dchamil, why does that surprise you? You're not a ballerinaist, are you?

Ballet dancing as a profession requires great courage. For one thing most ballet dancers conduct their professional life in excruciating pain.

That's not to say that they're always the sharpest knife in the political drawer...

While I cannot understand what Ballet has to do with politics....Again, ballet is not a political activity.

And what do movies, and rock concerts have to do with politics???...yet many a movie actor/musician has used their position to put forth their leftist politics on the buying public.....If you don't like it, then you don't have to go to the ballet....Just like I choose not to patron many movies...and I can't remember the last rock concert I attended.....Actually I can...It was Jimmy Buffett....A singer from the conservative south!..No political rhetoric there.....Just go out and play....and keep your politics to yourself.....

Brave indeed. Why doesn't the sane population of the UK turn out to support her?
Is there a "sane" population left in the UK?

Not in the media, that's for damn sure!.....