On the importance of ethnicity

 One of the most misunderstood aspects of the debate on the BNP is the issue of how we define British. According the the UN charter, an ethnicity can define itself how it likes. There are no hard and fast rules and outsiders have no right to dispute or regulate the definition in any way. This is sensible.

The BNP does not define British ethnicity by skin colour. That is in the same way that the Chinese nation are not defined by skin colour, the Jewish nation is not defined by skin colour and neither is any ethnic nation. Skin colour is but a small detail amongst many making up and ethnicity. To make it entirely about skin colour can only mean that the many other aspects are rendered meaningless.

The British are ethnically northern European with the addition of shared language, history and culture. (We have had waves of northern European warriors adding to our genetic character and having a eugenic effect). This is because genetic studies show that these people share a relatively homogenous Germanic origin. The detractors of the BNP, on the other hand, wish to insist that the British are not a people and do not have ANY ethnicity which is a nonsense. It is known that there is far more genetic diverstiy in any African tribe by contrast, and yet an African tribe is a "people".

What is the consequence of having our right to be an ethnic people taken from us? The consequence is that we lose many rights and protections afforded legally to ethnic groups and so we would lose any claim to our country itself for example. (Excellent for the internationalist Capitalists). Also when our people are convinced by these arguments that we have no ethnic identity we lose our way as a people. "A people without a vision perishes" as the Bible says. And you can be sure that a people WITH a vision will take full advantage of our disarray. 

Golda Meir, once Prime Minister of Israel, made the remark that the Palestinians are "not a people" and this has been used as justification for Jews to take their land.

Our population in Britain today has such an apathetic death wish that I expect the response may well be to shrug, say "so what?!" and go and indulge in some kind of escapist painkilling degeneracy rather than face facts.

Why does the BNP criticise Leftists while claiming to also be on the left in many respects?

 I can explain why it is that the BNP denigrates "leftists" while at the same time actually being "leftist". This is because the "leftists" who are denigrated are really phony leftists and we should always write that but do not do so because it is tiresome to bother. Since everyone knows who we are talking about it seems redundant to put "phony leftists" or "Leftists [sic]" and in fact doing so might confuse people who understand the term "leftist" in the way it is most commonly used in modern politics.

However the UAF, for example, are phony Leftists because they are pro Islamic (which embraces homophobia and oppression of women) and are racist against whites, as well as supporting the importation of cheap slave labour from the 3rd world. Karl Marx, Lenin and Trotsky would disagree firmly with all of the UAF's purpose for existing. And it is the case that Tory leader Cameron actually funds them too!

The BNP have policies objecting to the power of bankers, objecting to globalist capitalism and championing the rights of the British working class. These are what one may as well call "Leftist" policies. In addition, the anti-war stance and the demand for similar ethnic-based socialism in every nation in the world qualifies as left-wing in essence.

Socialism, to a Nationalist, is really just another word for Nationalism. Socialism is a system based upon natural bonds between the people of a nation. Blood is thicker than water. Socialism emerges from the family, and extends to tribe and nation. It is lost in attempts to make it internationally universal unless national diversity is preserved in so doing - as with the BNP policy of supporting the concept of ethnic sovereignty for every nation.