funny i dont have any problem obtaining this info at the BNP sitebut do you get the following at a uaf meeting youtube search mandela singing about killing whites theres nothing british about the uaf what the uaf seek to protect labour paedophile and sex scandal asian postal vote fraud muslim rape of underage white girls white slavery islam and the nazis a call to arms for the white man of truth bnp and christian after the show email and phone in you can witness these yourselfs on youtube!
finally go to a BNP local meeting and met the folks before you peresume to judge them. They are mostly middle age hard working people. They speak in the broad spectrum of local accents. Their grievances are real, and THEY ARE NOT A GROUP OF SKIN HEAD YOBS as the media and the communist SWP falsely portray them to be. ASnyone who has reached the age of thirty and has a functioning brain should realize that the mass media is nothing buit a collection of shills,
@johnb66y Thank you for your comments, they seem sincere. But you will note that I did not attack the accents or appearance, age or work ethic of BNP members in my video. Only the Constitution that every BNP member signed up to. I take your point that this video is now dated as the Constitution has been changed, but that was only because the BNP lost a court battle that it fought against every step of the way. I must assume that the majority of BNP members signed up to the old constitution.
People basically need to wake up turn off the TV (permanently) brouse the net do some REAL research and start to think for themselves rather than be a parrot and repeat establishment brainwashing. By all means go to the BNP site and READ everything. Also for those with a brain google the home page of J Orlin Grabbe and read the archives their as wellas their main articles ther is a whole world of knowlege out there for those who will go get it.
This video besides being obsolete is wrong the constitution is on the web site and has been for most of the time the exception were rare second the powers granted the chair under the current version of the constitution are in effect war time powers. That is because the BNP like democracy itself in the UK is under attack. anyone who does not believe that simply needs to read the court ruling against the party. it said the party must allow members who oppose its basic non immigration policy
@thespiritman No. I mean constitution. The constitution is a more important document than a manifesto as it is the constitution which is the glue which binds a political part together. The constitution says what a political party wants to do, the manifesto says how it will do it.
A manifesto is akin to the Articles of Association of a company. A company often changes or updates products and prints new brochures, but the Articles of Association spell out what the aim of the company is.
@whypatcondellisntfun errrr no dumbass a constitution are the rules that govern the government, a manifesto states the policies of a politcal party just like your video does. During the uk election recently, the parties published manifestos not constitutions. fuck tard
@thespiritman 1. Go to the BNP website. 2. Hover your mouse over "Publications" on the top menu. 3. Select "Constitution" (the current version is 12.2). 4. Read it. 5. Go to the BNP website. 6. Hover your mouse over "Manifesto" on the top menu. 7. Read it. 8. Try to figure out what the difference between a political manifesto and a party constitution is (hint, I've already explained it to you).
There is really no need to be rude, I was trying to be polite with my earlier answer.
@whypatcondellisntfun No, you're wrong. The constitution is basically a collection of laws that regulate how a country works. A manifesto is a collection of policies that a political party want to implement. The manifesto would include changing the constitution, meaning that the constitution is merely part of what the BNP want to change.
@thespiritman Gee whizz. You are so persuasive you must be right. All this time and I thought constitutions are the rules which bind a political party, but they aren't, are they?
Quick, tell the UK Electoral Commission to change their procedures as they require political parties to have a *written constitution* to legally register.
Surely this means they all just hand over a copy of the constitution of the UK? Oh, wait, the UK constitution is "unwritten". Oh, it so confusing, isn't it?
@thespiritman Seriously, do yourself a favour and look up constitutions on Wikipedia. Constitutions govern many things, countries, local governments, organisations and, yes, even political parties.
I will not respond to any further denial or disputes of these fact on your part.
I think this video is taking the constitution out of context. This is meerly a way of keeping the party from splitting on disagreements - not as a way of supreme executive power. Having said that, the current parties dont operate to differently to what your worried about from the BNP. If a member of parliament disagree's with the general party consensus they are labelled 'Rebels' and are put on a backbench and very rarely heard from again. Stop trying to expose things that dont exist.
The cumulative effect of your favourites, subscribers, friends list (although you only have one friend, it is still a "friends" list, note it does say "Friends" at the top of the list) informs me that your views are particularly biased against Muslims and homosexuals both strong BNP themes.
You have a BNP friend, and 3 subscribers who all are closely linked to the BNP. You clearly identify strongly with BNP ideas, even though you claim not to support any party.
This is complete crap. No main political party, Labour, Conservative, LibDems OR the Socialist Workers Party (GB) have their constitutions posted on their website either. Even when Clause 4 was part of Labour's constitution they constantly ignored it anyway!
I've noticed a lot of outright lies about the BNP uploaded onto YouTube with comments disabled. Clearly lying propaganda Stalin style.
Please take a look at the more info section to get direct links to both the Conservative and Lib Dem constitution - admittedly, I am about to update it because the lib dem link is out of date but if you had bothered to do even some cursory research you would have found it as quickly as I did.
If you are going to accuse someone of lying, at least get your facts straight. This video was correct in June 2008, and at that time, the BNP constitution was not publicly available.
I did try and couldn't find them available. And anyway, like I said, it doesn't matter anyway, because they are ignored or abided by according to whatever the leadership wants, as with Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution, which was always ignored by the Labour leadership until Blair finally had it abolished.
Now that we have ascertained that the BNP Constitution is finally publicly available, have you anything to say about the content of the constitution which I've highlighted as part of this video? Or is your contribution limited to rhetoric about Stalinist propaganda?
The truth, I find, takes a little longer to unweave from the propaganda, but it is worth the effort, something which you clearly have not gone to.
Re quotes at 1:12, The Labour Party practices this too. Officially, all Labour policy decisions are sanctioned by the NEC, but the leadership can overide it as it sees fit. The difference is that the BNP are more honest and open about it.
1. You are talking exclusively about Labour, is it your position that all parties ignore their constitution? There is a difference between wrongly ignoring your constitution, and having inequality written into the very fabric of it!
2, 3 & 4 The Labour NEC consists of over 20 individuals who represent all aspects of the party. I don't know that they can block proposals, but at least they are discussed by a broad representation of the party rather than under the despotic control of one man.
My constitution? I've not been a member of any party since I left treacherous Labour. Regarding the Labour NEC, it is supposed to oversee and develop policy and direction, but in practice it is a rubber stamp for leadership decisions; it never contradicts the leadership. In other words, the Labour leadership is effectively a dictatorship similar, although more covert, than that of what you claim to be in the BNP. It's not much different from the Bolsheviks' 'Democratic Centralism'.
Regardless of your membership of any political party. My point stands - and you did not address it at all - that there is a difference between *wrongfully ignoring* a written constitution, and having inequality and anti-democratic practices actually written into it.
At least Labour members can point to the constitution and require it to be upheld - it being democratic it just takes enough people to take a stand - but the BNP constitution would not allow members to get even that far.
Constitutions are not worth the paper they are printed on as they have no legal status. When I was a Labour member we in the grass routes were constantly demanded implementation of Clause 4, but we were ignored, and with no legal redress. What other parties, including Labour practice by underhand methods, the BNP practices according to its constitution. Instead of picking on the BNP, you should make a video criticising
Additionally, the recent media furore about Vince Cable formulating Lib Dem policy without consulting Lib Dem members demonstrates that the idea that democracy as the ideal state of affairs is alive and well in other parties, even if it isn't in BNP and, allegedly (though you haven't yet proven your case with any substantial evidence other than requiring me to beleive your say-so), Labour.
Regarding the media furore about Cable and the LibDems, that's all it is, a MEDIA furore. Nothing new there. It's never was put in place as LibDem policy, but rather Cable outlining what he would wish to do if he became Chancellor. No constitutional issues there at all.
With regard to the Lib Dem media furore. My point was that when a top party activist announces a policy that the party has not discussed and not agreed to, the people, and the media understand that this is not democracy. My point was that this is *the normal state of affairs* according to the BNP constitution. No party member has to be asked. Policy can be decided and implemented by one man. Cable does not have that power, and neither should Griffin.
What difference does it make if an individual dictates policy, or a cosy little committee, or a conference? Even the Labour leadership dictates policy - the conference is in reality a toothless talking shop. furthermore, Labout and LibDems even broke their pre-election promise to support a referendum in connection with further EU integration.
Oh. Whilst you may claim not to be a member of any party, you surely lend support the BNP as your friends list, subscriber list and list of favourite videos clearly shows where your affiliation lies.
Your social network speaks volumes.
As does your attempt to apparently defend an indefensible constitution, using the same tired old BNP techniques (chit-chat about propaganda and an attempt to deflect attention elsewhere in order to avoid the a debate about the BNP regime).
I don't subscribe with 'Friends'. that single 'Friend' was an accident I couldn't work out how to delete. My favourites contains no BNP videos, but one 'Multiculturalism and Islamification, others are UKIP, George Carlin, and Mireille Mathieu. So you are again incorrect there, which seems to be a habit with you.
Defend the indefensible? Trouble is, people like you want to act like mind police. You all claim to be for freedom of speech and thought until you don't like what's being said.
Either you agree with the BNP or you don't. Your actions here and on your own channel indicate that you support the BNP. It is my position that the BNP constitution is indefensible. I've not stopped you defending it though, have I? I've engaged you with polite debate and not deleted any of your comments. So as far as "free speech" is concerned, I've already proven I'm all for it. Especially when it exposes bigots.
You, on the other hand, have resorted to personal insults...
as I've said before, there's nothing on my channel that indicates positive support of the BNP, but what is shown is duplicity by Labour and trade union barons. I've also posted comments regarding dual-standards by the likes of the fascist UAF, who would oppress free speech for anyone they don't like. I wish you'd be more explicit regarding this allegation.
Do you seriously expect a rational person to believe that you "accidentally" made friends with a BNP supporter and now can't figure out how to remove him? And for some reason you have 3 subscribers all of whom explicitly support the BNP , and you have uploaded a video apparently against homosexuality and have favourited another decrying the "Islamification" (BNP tactics) of Britain and are here defending the constitution of the BNP and you think that none of this indicates support for the BNP?
Hold on mush. I have no control over my subscribers, nor do I care who subscribes to me. That video you claim to be against homosexuality is a BBC London News report.
So what is it? If I'm against the sexualisation of kids, and I'm opposed to Islamification (who's members far outnumber the BNP and have more influence), and then explained that no constitution has any legality and not worth the paper it's printed on, that makes me a BNP member? You are getting desperate.
Whilst you have no control over your subscribers, as I've said before but you consistently and deliberately have ignored, the cumulative effect of having a BNP friend (sorry, nobody makes friends on YouTube "by accident" and fails to figure out how to un-friendify yourself), 3 BNP subscribers, films against "Islamification" and "homosexual indoctrination" and a dogged defence of the BNP constitution may not make you a member of the BNP, but clearly, you support them.
A constitution may well not be a legally binding document, but it sets out the ideals of why a political party exists and how it will work. It is an important document.
The Labour Party constitution is more democratic than the BNP constitution because the Labour party members can vote for who is on the NEC, but BNP members cannot vote for the 'Advisory Council' which the BNP chairman has final authority over... though it is meant to be made up of BNP officials and organisers.
When you start saying "people like you want to act like mind police" that is a personal attack.
You don't know me. But I would suggest that making a comment like "people like you" suggests that you have placed me into a category of people that you have pre-conceived ideas about.
Clearly, as far as people like you are concerned, if I don't subscribe to the liberal-Left agenda of multiculturalism, of opposing immigration into an over-populated Britain, of not wanting little kids exposed to sexual lifestyles, then I'm to be condemned. I'd say that you do indeed demonstrate a thought police mentality.
I've said nothing about 'condemning' you at all. Are we not having a civil debate? You have failed to prove a single point that you have attempted to make and in addition to that are attempting to widen the debate we are having out to other points that you will also fail to adequately defend.
I think that on certain issues you are wrong. I may oppose some immigration, but recognise that Britain may well need certain types of skills to drive the economy.
I have clearly demonstrated in practice that even the Labour Party, in practice, supports a virtual dictatorship of the leadership. It's for the leadership to decide which policies they wish to enact or go back on, eg. European integration. Yet you criticise the BNP for doing the same, even though they do it more honestly.
So now you've split the discussion into various branches. so be it.
But you have not proven your argument about Labour. You complained that the NEC merely provided a "rubber stamp" for leadership decisions and I've shown that Labour members voted off a person from the NEC who they thought was not supporting them enough against leadership, presumably he was replaced with someone with a mandate, from members, to disagree with Labour leadership! The NEC is made up of democratically elected people. Not so with the BNP Advisory Council.
I have already dealt with this. It is possible for the membership to replace an NEC member, but it is not possible for the membership to force their will over the leadership, ie. the leadership can do whatever it wants.
Even if you were right about Labour, which you are not, your initial argument that a constitution is not legally binding and can therefore be ignored is laid bare by the issue we already discussed regarding Vince Cable. And even if you were right in your counter-arguments - which you are not - that just because the BNP uses undemocratic methods openly that makes it OK! It isn't OK. The BNP is constitutionally undemocratic, but we live in a democratic society, so the ethos of the BNP is wrong.
"Even if you were right about Labour, which you are not" - please explain how I am not correct.
So a fuss was made about Vince Cable's statement, but nothing changed! He is still the LibDem economics spokesman and he stands by what he said. The fuss was supposedly about other MPs not being consulted.
You claim the BNP method is undemocratic - if that's so, then so are the other party's methods, the difference being that BNP don't disguise it as the others do.
You seem to have a problem with children being "exposed" to homosexual lifestyles.
The video on your channel relates to 2 Princes having a homosexual relationship with each other. I'm presuming you don't mind children being "exposed to the sexual lifestyles" of, say, a Prince and a Princess as is more commonly the case in fairy tales?
If so, you don't really have a problem with exposing kids to sexual lifestyles in general, but in exposing them to homosexual lifestyles in particular.
I, like most, including many homosexuals, are against imposing single-sexed parents onto children. Natural reproduction required male and female, tried and tested over billions of years, and all this social engineering is going to do is cause psychological confusion and bullying from other kids. Furthermore, like it or not, if homosexuality were to flourish, humans would die out as a species. You can tolerate it, but not encourage it.
I'm not sure who has 'imposed' single-sexed parents onto children. What are the aims of the social engineering that you are alluding to, exactly? Reading a fairy tale to a bunch of kids about two princes getting married is not 'encouraging' homosexuality. It is simply informing children about it.
Religious education informs us about the lifestyles of Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs without necessarily encouraging anybody to become an adherent of any of those faiths.
Parents are imposed on children, who have no choice in the matter. However, procreation is the result of the sexual act between one man and one woman, therefore this is the natural psychological blueprint for the child to follow, which he would hopefully emulate for the continuance of the human race. To impose an unnatural male + male or female+ female blueprint on the child is imposing a false reproductive example, and that is psychological abuse of the child.
Homosexuality is not confined to the human species, but is clearly proven in other parts of the animal kingdom. Whilst we personally may not understand why this so, the fact remains unquestionable. Additionally, children will understand from mummy and daddy, and all the other examples bombarded at them that homosexuality is not the norm. I hardly think that teaching children about the existence of homosexuality will encourage any more of them to be homosexual then would otherwise be the case.
I completely agree. Whilst it is clearly obvious that perhaps due to the way a brain is developed, some may naturally be homosexual, teaching all children about homosexuality at a young age is likely to result in alot of confusion and as you rightly put it, is a form of mental abuse.
You under estimate kids. If you live in a society where every media outlet bombards you with images of men and women in couples, I hardly think that being told that some men like to be with men, and some women like to be with women, and even sometimes, people can be bisexual, is not going to confuse someone into becoming homosexual or bisexual, or even give the impression that it is the norm.
It will, however, increase understanding that there are differences between people.
@whypatcondellisntfun your right to an extent. But when was the last time you saw any medium show marriage or atleast a relationship with mutual respect.
They are selling the idea of sex and homosexuality. becuase they want the reduce population.
normalising sexual behaviour in any sort can be detrimental. Life is not all about sex. Sex good and normal. But love seems to be out of the picture.
@Unity4allhumans I think I see your point about sex and love... they say that "sex sells" but who are "they"? The media? Governments? Corporations? I think population reduction is not such a bad idea, maybe less sex more love?
The planet has finite resources which we are using up at an increasing rate, the fewer children we have, the better the future will be for them. Of course, this means we have to address some of the premises upon which our economies are based!
@whypatcondellisntfun Look the thing is reducing population with unhealthy and unhappy people is not the solution.
We have to sacrifice for sure but we can do this without killing any1. The thing is if the earth is expanding it needs more humans because trees need our oxygen.
Good fact: The entire worlds population could live comfortably in Australia.
They been trying to kill us long before resource reduction. Also i believe its more about control and less about the planet.
@Unity4allhumans Can I ask where you get the information that led you to believe that the earth's population could "live comfortably in Australia." Is that with or without oil dependence? The current population couldn't live anywhere comfortably without oil which is set to become a scarce resource if not in my lifetime, then in the lifetime of the next generation. The global economy is built on oil and the by-products of oil. Corporations are consumers, but only because we are as individuals.
@Unity4allhumans Industries and corprations actually hold the higest % in resource and pollution consumption. But they preferr to kill us than loose a cent.
Also if you think that promoting certain ideas don't confuse and indoctrinate children.
All you have to do is as a kid if he wants to buy a pair of NIKE shoes or just a good pair of no name shoe to get your answer.
Kids are smart but in the end they are human and those in power positions are exploiting every part of our lives.
With regards to Labour NEC which you say just "rubber stamps" leadership initiatives, this is demonstrably not true.
Clive Soley was voted off the Labour NEC in June 2001 because "Labour MPs felt he had not been robust enough in standing up for their views against the party leadership." according to the BBC. Google it.
If a party can vote out a man they consider weak from the NEC that shows that democratic change is possible within Labour. That is constitutionally impossible within the BNP.
Since when is the BBC the arbiter of truth? They have recently been exposed telling lies on their news website about the UN speech made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, doing their part to justify an unjustifiable attack on Iran. Plenty of people are voted off and on the NEC. so what? The Labour leadership does as it wishes anyway, and there are enough self-serving, brown-nosing careerists on the Labour NEC to do the leadership bidding, a la Stalinesque fashion.
With regards to the BBC being the arbiter of truth, I agree. But is it your position, then, that Clive Soley wasn't voted off the Labour NEC? The point is that the Labour Constitution - a document you claim is worthless - enables Labour party members to vote people off and on to the NEC whom they think will put their point of view across.
Your position was that the NEC just rubber stamped the leadership, but that single BBC story proves you wrong... unless you can prove it wrong. Can you?
While the Labour Party constitution may allow the membership to remove certain individual NEC members (only CLP members) it is worthless with regard to the membership enforcing their wishes on the leadership. The entire NEC is also made up of members representing other affiliated branches; the overall effect is that the NEC always falls in line with the leadership.
The fact that Soley was replaced still leaves the membership unable to enforce its wishes on the leadership.
The point of the NEC is that it represents different parts of the Labour party, who reach a consensus on requests put forward by the various trade unions, constituency Labour Party groups, and so on. That is democracy. And regardless of what you say, it is a whole lot closer to consensual democracy than the Chairman appointing who he wants to the BNP Advisory council.
You seem to be of the opinion that the Labour NEC always falls into line behind the leaders. You have yet to prove this with anything substantial. I've shown that the NEC appears so powerful that members will go to great lengths to remove somebody from it for not doing enough.
If you are right that Labour and the BNP are undemocratic, that still makes the BNP constitutionally *obliged* to be undemocratic, and Labour offering a form of democracy through the NEC which does have its own powers.
Individuals within the NEC may dissent, but the representation on it is so wide and diverse that the constituency members have no effective control over the Labour leadership. Whether you wish to justify it with names like 'consensual' or 'democratic' is up to you, but I'd prefer to call it 'divide and rule'.
Are you for real? Democratic representation can be too wide? Too diverse? Are you seriously suggesting that the NEC can never make a majority decision on anything? I think a voting bloc of 12 trade unionists from a total of 33 members might be a force to be reckoned with.
I didn't say 'too wide", I said "so wide". 12 out of 33 is a minority and would be defeated. There are 7 different interest groups on the NEC plus Leader & Deputy Leader, and within these groups are various shades of Left and Right. Consequently, the odds are that opposition to the leadership is very unlikely -divide & rule. In opposition the leadership and NEC can agree a policy stance, but in government there is no obligation by the leadership to stick to policy, so the NEC is ineffective.
If there are 7 different interest groups on the NEC it is because the Labour party represents those interest groups and must therefore give them a voice at the leadership table. I would suggest that for a bloc of 12 votes to be defeated in a group of 33 votes would require that everybody else in the room disagree with the Trade Unions. I think that is what the Americans call "checks and balances".
Have you yet gathered any evidence beyond your own thoughts to prove your assertions?
Why are we constantly talking about the BNP? They hold 0.2% of council seats, 0.013% of EU seats and 0.00% (i.e. nothing) of parliamentary seats. Stop going on about the BNP - they'll never amount to much. After all Britain is a country where people are so anti-racist that the term 'racist' is used as an insult. And look how the British were wetting themselves with excitement about Obama in the US. Relax people the BNP are practically miniscule.
I've added a link to the 10th Edition of the constitution in the info section. I advise you read it. If you haven't been a member for at least 24 months though it doesn't matter what you think if you are a BNP 'member'.
I'll take your word for it, but the fact remains that the new edition of the constitution was not available on the website within the time frame specified within the constitution!!!
If the BNP cannot follow its own constitution, what hope would they have in government?
Well the constitution is pretty much just a document to make the party legal.
It does greatly need updating though, and I do believe Nick yields too much power on party decisions. But then again, it might be whats kept the party together, instead of having petty internal squobbles. Thus leading to a split.
So what you are saying is that you are not bothered about what is in the constitution? It's just a silly little document that gives the BNP a cloak of legality?
With regards to internal squabbles, if the names Sadie Graham and Alan Smith mean nothing to you, then you should research them and try to figure out why Sadie Graham - a democratically elected BNP councillor - was expelled from the party in favour of Mark Collet, a non-elected self-confessed fan of Hitler.
By the way, the 9th Edition is not the current edition of the Constitution. Changes were made to the constitution of the BNP and I'm assuming that we should be at the 10th Edition!
Hate video? The video outlined one contradiction between the BNP constitution and the BNP website / media output - I wouldn't describe that as hate in any context, but then again I wouldn't vote for a party that is so worrying.
I have no idea what you are talking about. You have been able to make a comment here, no? If you care to view all the comments to this video you will see that I've been engaged in polite rational debate with BNP supporters regarding the content of this video.
Whilst you may have viewed other videos which do not allow comments, that is patently not the case here and so I can only advise that you take up your grievances with the owners of those other videos rather than spamming mine.
Thanks for the support :) One thing I will say is that I'm pretty sure that a lot of people get fed up with the spam from apparent BNP supporters or members. I have removed some pretty rude comments in the past so I can see why people might do it for that reason, rather than a particular desire to stop freedom of speech.
Some BNP people I've read the comments of seem to want a strong leader who can't be easily voted out by communists or lefties who may infiltrate the BNP with the desire to cause the party some damage. I think anybody who has fallen for that particular line needs to read the constitution and consider the full implications of it where the same principles to be applied to a national government.
The BNP constitution strangely directly contradicts BNP policy of giving more power to local people.
It certainly does contradict the BNP "stated" policy of giving more power to local people. I don't think BNP members fully realise the implications of such a constitution, which grants such super powers to the leader. Perhaps they will moderate this in the 10th Edition which "should" have already been published.
This is a complete load of Rubbish, nothing can happen in the BNP without first being put to national advisory commitee and then passed by the membership, period.
MutterUndKind, please read the constitution of the BNP to discover the extent to which the way you think the BNP is run is not in accord with the actual facts of how the BNP is run.
The 9th Edition of the Constitution is available on the BNP site now, although a 10th Edition should have been published following the changes at the RWB in this year, you can read about how that part of the constitution has been breached in the 9th Constitution though.
The quote by Enoch Powell on your profile is an insightful glimpse to Powell's humanity. It's more than a coincidence that BNP supporters make frequent reference to his writings and display his image. The desire to preserve one's identity and customs is not racist, and he would agree.
The desire to preserve one's identity and customs is not racist unless one tries to achieve this by joining a political party which allows only "Indigenous Cacausians" (AKA "white people") to join. It is not racist unless one plans to use political power to deny others of a different race their democratic rights. It is not racist unless you affiliate yourself with White Supremacist groups such as the National Alliance. Unfortunately, I'm describing the BNP.
I think we must agree to disagree concerning the BNP. I may have said elsewhere on this thread that I think racism is irrational and immoral. There are racists in all political parties. The BNP don't perceive race the problem, but rather Islam as the problem. Islam is not a race.
Please read the constitution of the BNP. Section 2 deals with membership and is based upon a legal case Mandla V Dowell Lee (1983) which went to the House of Lords:-
"For a group to constitute an ethnic group in the sense of the 1976 Act, it must ... regard itself, and be regarded by others, as a distinct community by virtue of certain characteristics"
Simply by calling "Islam the problem", you are being racist by the very definition which the BNP uses to define itself.
Firstly, I'm by no measure a "BNP guy". Secondly, I think if the BNP went down the route you suggest, their veneer of respectability would well and truly be blown.
Race isn't a scientific category, so for sure you can put forward as many fallacies of 'race denial' and 'race existence' as you like. It can't be proven either way.
so the black police association is racist. operation black vote is racist. the aboriginee party of australia is racist? No they are not.
when more money is spent on one communit than a one next to it. reallocation of resources isnt racist. they dont want create massive inequalities. more lyk put evry1 on the same level and make it so muslims arn't such a protected species.
The examples listed by you work against you as the black communities in the UK, USA and the aboriginee community of Australia have been segregated for years and still have not as much recognition as the white communities.
What the BNP does is not put everyone on the same level, more like rise once again the supremacy of white people over the other peoples that finally see some well deserved right.
The Labour party Rule book - which contains the constitution - is available to Labour members once they log into 'Labour Members Net' which is part of the Labour website.
I've updated the information section for this video on the right to include a link to both the Lib Dem and Conservative Party constitutions. Take a look.
As I say in the video, the constitutions of the other parties are available for free and are downloadable from the offical websites of the parties.
Please contact your local BNP representative for further in formation on the BNP constitution. They should be able to give you all the information you require. If they cannot, you might want to question why that is.
Every election in this country is blatantly rigged, ballet boxes opened, media whores brainwashing the population for they're bosses in the LibLabCon. Police opppression of the BNP goes on continually, new laws passed each week designed to deny your freedoms.
I didn't mark them as spam, somebody else did, but looking through the comments made here by WhiteridersMcc I'd have to agree with who ever marked them as spam.
I've not removed the comments so people can still read them, as you have proven.
Blacks fight for equality, don't make me laugh, 1000's of years they've been sittn in mud huts like Neanderthals they couldn't be bothered even to evolve. There was more human innovation an industry in Birmingham than in the whole of Africa with all its rich minerals & resources. Simply because they are primitive people.
And no they don't wanna kick the whites out, they just wanna kill them like the Mugabe did to the white farmers but no-one was bothered about them.
Mandela was a terrorist pure an simple, they are not equal now the white have gone the whole place is turning back to shit, the place is now a hell whole, even the blacks there now are wishing the whites would come back an sort the mess out for them.
If it was wrong of our fore fathers to have oppressed Black identity, then it is also wrong to suppress White Identity in our homelands now.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
It's a sham, the state will come down on you hard if you oppose them, Try going to your local council to organise a St Goerge's Festival in your Street & see how far you get.
The time for sitting on the fence and grumbling about the state of our nation is over - it's an indulgence we can no longer afford if we are to survive! We owe it to our forbears - men and women who gave their all in the defence of our island home - as well as to the generations of brethren English, Scots, Welsh and Irish yet to come.
It's time to stand up and be counted and what other possible way than by joining the BNP - the British Resistance!
Mandela was jailed for trying to blow up CHILDREN in South Africa (His own black people on a train) and he tried to blame it on the whites to start a race war, but cos he is Black he must be a victim of white opppression an we must make him a hero, another excuse to beat the white man... an the stupid White Liberals again believe the shit they are fed. Such hypocrisy.
During apartheid, Mandela patently was a victim of white oppression, can you deny this? Mendela was there at the Congress of the People in Kliptown, on 26 June 1955, when the ANC Freedom Charter was adopted which states:-
"...that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and that no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of all the people;"
and also
"The rights of the people shall be the same, regardless of race, colour or sex;"
Read the Freedom Charter, and then compare it to the Constitution of the BNP. Keep in mind that black people had been oppressed by a white minority government, but did they say "lets deport the white people!". No, they adopted a charter that said :-
"All national groups shall be protected by law against insults to their race and national pride;"
Mandela was fighting for equality between blacks and whites, not an inequality where blacks dominated whites.
All lies. Cottage wasn't a councillor, he was member of the Conservatives for 15 years and a BNP member for just 2 years. There's lots of pakies also in bradford & Pendle an everywhere else gettin ready for a race war long before Cottage's amateurishness .
If I was to list all the LibLabCon criminals and perverts I would be here all week. The Liblabcon is stuffed to the brim with every type of scumbag going. They're all traitors to boot.
If you think Britain has Democracy then you must be either stupid on drugs or probably both.
British Democracy is no better than in Zimbabwe, People in the UK & US are brainwashed by TV and the Papers into crazy reversed world where bad is good & good is bad.
Our freedoms are eroded week by week as you sit there hypnotised by beckham or Big Brother. The Resistance has begun, Join The BNP.
rofl; BNP choc full of o' Nazis ? You will find that is more your NF or Combat18 member; Get over it; The BNP moved on and grew up; Pity some never seemed too; ay Lion2Com?! Nazi collaborator;? rofl; This isnt 1945 France!
The BNP was a spin-off from NF, Combat18 is a spin-off from the BNP. The BNP has not "moved on and grown up"otherwise, why is Mark Collett, self-confessed admirer of Hitler, still part of the BNP team?
Keegan343f, if you had a copy of the 8th Edition of the constitution, as I do, you would see it mentions major revisions to sections 1, 4 and 12, creation of a new section 5, and addition of the new section 5 and old section 12 (now 13) to sections 1 and 4 which cannot now be changed without a two-third majority vote at a general members' meeting.
This radical reformation of the constitution took place in 2000, Griffin become leader in 1999.
Keegan343f, if Griffin didn't want to use the power, why did he change the constitution to give him that power?
The point of my video is that if "the party" want to change the constitution, members must first put the required change directly to Griffin, at which point he may veto it.
You would in effect be asking Griffin if he wouldn't mind awfully if he could give up some of his executive powers.
You, as a member of the BNP, believe that it it fine to have a non-democratic party in order to 'fight fire with fire'. You now expect me to believe that this argument wouldn't be used if the BNP came to power? Deporting legal citizens of the UK because they are Muslim, would that be fighting fire with fire?
You think it is fine to have a dictatorship in order to 'modernise'. Give me an example of where a dictatorship has ever resulted in anything but oppression.
whypatcondellisntfun, I for one would be grateful if your next vid included portions of the BNP constitution as a courtesy to those of us desirous of reading in their own words what they're about. I must say that I prefer the BNP over sharia law; 2 date the three main political parties have avoided the problem of the failed experiment called multiculturalism. What are they pretending not to know? If one of them had the courage 2 address this, there would be no reason 4 the BNP to exist.
Check the information section which I updated recently, it has a link to the constitution on the BNP site. The BNP placed their constitution online because they wanted to change it and so had to let people read it. I think it has been slightly changed but maybe you can find an updated version on the BNP site.
You say that multiculturalism has failed, how do you prove this, and can you tell me how Britain could have maintained its economy without importing cheap labour?
Thx for the reference; I'll do my homework. Forgive me, but proof that multiculturalism failed is evident in the streets of Londestan, Birmingstan & other major British cities. Muslims can carry signs saying death 2 non-muslims, but God help a Brit from saying anything negative; Dutch film makers & politicians R murdered or in hiding 4 exercising the right of free speech; Death threat 2 Rushdie 4 writing a novel; Archbishop of Canterbury thinks sharia law a good idea; increase in murder, rape.
Your definition of multiculturalism seems to extend only to the perceived influence of Muslims upon the UK, is that really the limit of multiculturalism?
What if I said that BNP supporters are all simply neo-Nazi skinheads who like to sieg heil pictures of Hitler? Now, of course that is not true of every BNP supporter, but it is demonstrably true of some of them. Please don't tar all Muslims with the terrorism brush, otherwise you might find that the same theory could be used against the BNP.
whypat... I would respond 2 your hypothetical by suggesting the true litmus test concerning the question of the BNP's alleged Nazism B asked of the Gurkhas, Jews & other ethnic groups who R BNP members. One would have 2 call them self-loathing if their answer in the negative were rejected. Racism is irrational & immoral. When will people realise that this isn't a racial issue but an idealogical one? I admit that racists can probably B found in the BNP, but also in all political parties.
Your point concerning cheap labour is a good one. Indigenous Britons are not reproducing sufficiently to provide a workforce adequate to support over socialixation; the imported work force is intended to do that, but at a terrible price. Mass immigration must cease at once & many people must be asked to return to their countries of origin. I'm speaking of all Muslims, regardless of race; this is a racial issue but an idealogical one. Racism is irrational and immoral; I have no patience for it.
Now that you have access to the BNP constitution you can see for yourself that it is a racist organisation:-
"Membership of the BNP is strictly defined
within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal ambit of a defined 'racial group' this being 'Indigenous Caucasian' and defined 'ethnic groups' emanating from that Race as specified in law in the House of Lords case of Mandla V Dowell Lee (1983)"
So the BNP is for "Indigenous Caucasians', or 'white people'.
This is a great video. They keep diddling around with their manifesto too. At the moment they only have a "summarised" format available on their website, so they can hide all the stuff they said about "citizens' assault rifles to be kept in the home" and "repeal of all anti discrimination laws" in their 2005 general election manifesto, which can be sourced elsewhere, like via the BBC. I say "they" keep diddling, obviously Nick Griffin is the chief diddler.
Well I commented on that but put most seems to have 'mystiously' disappeared.
Anyway, like I said before:
The 2 year period is a PROBATIONARY period, not a length of service. The difference between the two is that one is a length of time used in order to deter lefties infiltrators disorganising the party politics, whereas the other implies that members have to contribute to the party other than their membership fee.
May I just say Zombat, you actually seem a nice chap, you are at least willing to discuss in a polite fashion with me. Thank you for that. We may disagree on politics, but it is good to know that we can be civil in our debate.
Please do not even hint that I've removed your comments, I only remove comments if they happen to be extremely rude, having said that, I've left a comment up from BNP supporter Mankie telling me to "go back to the slum [my] father was born in". You have to go quite far to get comments removed or blocked from this channel.
The 2 year period exists to force you to pay 3 seperate annual membership fees (£90) before you can even vote for a party leader or on the constitution. It is a device to keep Griffin in power.
All the other parties do not "protect" themselves like the BNP. Once you become a member, that is it, you can vote and have a say from day one, having paid only one membership fee.
The more I look into this and talk to BNP members, the more I think that the BNP is simply a personality cult for Gri££in
BNP are at the top of the membership fees leader board. And I've not mentioned the 'Gold Mmbership' yet, nor the fact that members of other parties get voting rights from day one, whilst BNP members must put in 2 years service before they can vote.
Why have you posted Labour's standard membership as £36 pounds?
Gold membership is entirely optional, and the only thing you get out of it is two extra newsletters and a gold party pin (made out of the finest jew gold naturally.)
And the BNP's membership fee is only a few extra pounds per year, hardly steep. Steep would be in the Gold Membership fee was the standard.
I downloaded an application form from Labour's site and it said "Standard Membership Rate £3 per month". Anything else is voluntary, as is the case with Gold Membership of the BNP, which is why I have only used the standard fee as given by each party.
Your aim was to try and prove that BNP membership isn't steep. It is officially the 2nd most expensive of all the parties you mentioned, including the 2 main opposition parties. Comparatively, it is so steep, it beggars belief.
This last year I was finishing a course at Uni. I was in classes 5 days a week so I could only work a few evenings and a day at the weekend.
I had a monthly income of about 300 quid.
Despite all my other expenses I was able to afford GOLD membership.
Granted I don't drink or smoke, or shoot heroin from afganistan into my veins like Amy Winehouse... but still, if I can afford to splash out for gold membership the standard membership fee isn't 'steep'
You wanted to compare how the BNP stacked up against other parties to determine how steep the fees were, now that I have proven you wrong, you have changed your story. We were not discussing how steep it was in relation to what you could afford, but in relation to other parties membership fees, which I think is the only objective measure available on this matter.
Here is something else to mull over, you said that "unlike the big parties we get most of our funding from memberships fees." Incorrect.
The official BNP accounts for 2005 and 2006 as seen on the Electoral Commission website show that membership income is much smaller than 'commercial activities', 'fundraising' and 'donations'.
sounds like the us government under obama lol and hes more socialist then fachist lol
13CannibalJester13 4 months ago
theresonly1stig 1 year ago
finally go to a BNP local meeting and met the folks before you peresume to judge them. They are mostly middle age hard working people. They speak in the broad spectrum of local accents. Their grievances are real, and THEY ARE NOT A GROUP OF SKIN HEAD YOBS as the media and the communist SWP falsely portray them to be. ASnyone who has reached the age of thirty and has a functioning brain should realize that the mass media is nothing buit a collection of shills,
johnb66y 1 year ago
@johnb66y Thank you for your comments, they seem sincere. But you will note that I did not attack the accents or appearance, age or work ethic of BNP members in my video. Only the Constitution that every BNP member signed up to. I take your point that this video is now dated as the Constitution has been changed, but that was only because the BNP lost a court battle that it fought against every step of the way. I must assume that the majority of BNP members signed up to the old constitution.
whypatcondellisntfun 9 months ago
People basically need to wake up turn off the TV (permanently) brouse the net do some REAL research and start to think for themselves rather than be a parrot and repeat establishment brainwashing. By all means go to the BNP site and READ everything. Also for those with a brain google the home page of J Orlin Grabbe and read the archives their as wellas their main articles ther is a whole world of knowlege out there for those who will go get it.
johnb66y 1 year ago
This video besides being obsolete is wrong the constitution is on the web site and has been for most of the time the exception were rare second the powers granted the chair under the current version of the constitution are in effect war time powers. That is because the BNP like democracy itself in the UK is under attack. anyone who does not believe that simply needs to read the court ruling against the party. it said the party must allow members who oppose its basic non immigration policy
johnb66y 1 year ago
do you mean manifesto?
thespiritman 1 year ago
@thespiritman No. I mean constitution. The constitution is a more important document than a manifesto as it is the constitution which is the glue which binds a political part together. The constitution says what a political party wants to do, the manifesto says how it will do it.
A manifesto is akin to the Articles of Association of a company. A company often changes or updates products and prints new brochures, but the Articles of Association spell out what the aim of the company is.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
Comment removed
thespiritman 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun errrr no dumbass a constitution are the rules that govern the government, a manifesto states the policies of a politcal party just like your video does. During the uk election recently, the parties published manifestos not constitutions. fuck tard
thespiritman 1 year ago
@thespiritman 1. Go to the BNP website. 2. Hover your mouse over "Publications" on the top menu. 3. Select "Constitution" (the current version is 12.2). 4. Read it. 5. Go to the BNP website. 6. Hover your mouse over "Manifesto" on the top menu. 7. Read it. 8. Try to figure out what the difference between a political manifesto and a party constitution is (hint, I've already explained it to you).
There is really no need to be rude, I was trying to be polite with my earlier answer.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun No, you're wrong. The constitution is basically a collection of laws that regulate how a country works. A manifesto is a collection of policies that a political party want to implement. The manifesto would include changing the constitution, meaning that the constitution is merely part of what the BNP want to change.
thespiritman 1 year ago
@thespiritman Gee whizz. You are so persuasive you must be right. All this time and I thought constitutions are the rules which bind a political party, but they aren't, are they?
Quick, tell the UK Electoral Commission to change their procedures as they require political parties to have a *written constitution* to legally register.
Surely this means they all just hand over a copy of the constitution of the UK? Oh, wait, the UK constitution is "unwritten". Oh, it so confusing, isn't it?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@thespiritman Seriously, do yourself a favour and look up constitutions on Wikipedia. Constitutions govern many things, countries, local governments, organisations and, yes, even political parties.
I will not respond to any further denial or disputes of these fact on your part.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
That reeks of Hitler and the enabling act he passed in 1933.
Rogerpowell765 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And 'Tis the Season to be an aloof and obnoxious killjoy Internationalist!
Click on my name and see the latest video. JOHNATHAN LEFTWINGER'S 'RED CHRISTMAS' MUSIC takes a satirical look at
how a 'PC' Labour Party approach to politics can be applied to Christmas just as disgustingly!
Happy Xmas to all the normal people who want to keep the Christ in Christmas!
TheDustpile 2 years ago
I think this video is taking the constitution out of context. This is meerly a way of keeping the party from splitting on disagreements - not as a way of supreme executive power. Having said that, the current parties dont operate to differently to what your worried about from the BNP. If a member of parliament disagree's with the general party consensus they are labelled 'Rebels' and are put on a backbench and very rarely heard from again. Stop trying to expose things that dont exist.
TheLordRose 2 years ago
I have removed this comment and blocked the author for promoting violence. Not on my channel.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
The cumulative effect of your favourites, subscribers, friends list (although you only have one friend, it is still a "friends" list, note it does say "Friends" at the top of the list) informs me that your views are particularly biased against Muslims and homosexuals both strong BNP themes.
You have a BNP friend, and 3 subscribers who all are closely linked to the BNP. You clearly identify strongly with BNP ideas, even though you claim not to support any party.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
This is complete crap. No main political party, Labour, Conservative, LibDems OR the Socialist Workers Party (GB) have their constitutions posted on their website either. Even when Clause 4 was part of Labour's constitution they constantly ignored it anyway!
I've noticed a lot of outright lies about the BNP uploaded onto YouTube with comments disabled. Clearly lying propaganda Stalin style.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
Please take a look at the more info section to get direct links to both the Conservative and Lib Dem constitution - admittedly, I am about to update it because the lib dem link is out of date but if you had bothered to do even some cursory research you would have found it as quickly as I did.
If you are going to accuse someone of lying, at least get your facts straight. This video was correct in June 2008, and at that time, the BNP constitution was not publicly available.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I did try and couldn't find them available. And anyway, like I said, it doesn't matter anyway, because they are ignored or abided by according to whatever the leadership wants, as with Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution, which was always ignored by the Labour leadership until Blair finally had it abolished.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
Now that we have ascertained that the BNP Constitution is finally publicly available, have you anything to say about the content of the constitution which I've highlighted as part of this video? Or is your contribution limited to rhetoric about Stalinist propaganda?
The truth, I find, takes a little longer to unweave from the propaganda, but it is worth the effort, something which you clearly have not gone to.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Re quotes at 1:12, The Labour Party practices this too. Officially, all Labour policy decisions are sanctioned by the NEC, but the leadership can overide it as it sees fit. The difference is that the BNP are more honest and open about it.
Re 4 points at 1:51 :
1. Whenever a part of the constitution fails to suit the Labour leadership, it is constantly ignored;
2. The Labour NEC has the power to block proposals;
3 & 4: No different from Labour Party regarding proscribed organisations.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
1. You are talking exclusively about Labour, is it your position that all parties ignore their constitution? There is a difference between wrongly ignoring your constitution, and having inequality written into the very fabric of it!
2, 3 & 4 The Labour NEC consists of over 20 individuals who represent all aspects of the party. I don't know that they can block proposals, but at least they are discussed by a broad representation of the party rather than under the despotic control of one man.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
My constitution? I've not been a member of any party since I left treacherous Labour. Regarding the Labour NEC, it is supposed to oversee and develop policy and direction, but in practice it is a rubber stamp for leadership decisions; it never contradicts the leadership. In other words, the Labour leadership is effectively a dictatorship similar, although more covert, than that of what you claim to be in the BNP. It's not much different from the Bolsheviks' 'Democratic Centralism'.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
Regardless of your membership of any political party. My point stands - and you did not address it at all - that there is a difference between *wrongfully ignoring* a written constitution, and having inequality and anti-democratic practices actually written into it.
At least Labour members can point to the constitution and require it to be upheld - it being democratic it just takes enough people to take a stand - but the BNP constitution would not allow members to get even that far.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Constitutions are not worth the paper they are printed on as they have no legal status. When I was a Labour member we in the grass routes were constantly demanded implementation of Clause 4, but we were ignored, and with no legal redress. What other parties, including Labour practice by underhand methods, the BNP practices according to its constitution. Instead of picking on the BNP, you should make a video criticising
the con-trick of pointless constitutions.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
Additionally, the recent media furore about Vince Cable formulating Lib Dem policy without consulting Lib Dem members demonstrates that the idea that democracy as the ideal state of affairs is alive and well in other parties, even if it isn't in BNP and, allegedly (though you haven't yet proven your case with any substantial evidence other than requiring me to beleive your say-so), Labour.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Regarding the media furore about Cable and the LibDems, that's all it is, a MEDIA furore. Nothing new there. It's never was put in place as LibDem policy, but rather Cable outlining what he would wish to do if he became Chancellor. No constitutional issues there at all.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
With regard to the Lib Dem media furore. My point was that when a top party activist announces a policy that the party has not discussed and not agreed to, the people, and the media understand that this is not democracy. My point was that this is *the normal state of affairs* according to the BNP constitution. No party member has to be asked. Policy can be decided and implemented by one man. Cable does not have that power, and neither should Griffin.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
What difference does it make if an individual dictates policy, or a cosy little committee, or a conference? Even the Labour leadership dictates policy - the conference is in reality a toothless talking shop. furthermore, Labout and LibDems even broke their pre-election promise to support a referendum in connection with further EU integration.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
Oh. Whilst you may claim not to be a member of any party, you surely lend support the BNP as your friends list, subscriber list and list of favourite videos clearly shows where your affiliation lies.
Your social network speaks volumes.
As does your attempt to apparently defend an indefensible constitution, using the same tired old BNP techniques (chit-chat about propaganda and an attempt to deflect attention elsewhere in order to avoid the a debate about the BNP regime).
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I don't subscribe with 'Friends'. that single 'Friend' was an accident I couldn't work out how to delete. My favourites contains no BNP videos, but one 'Multiculturalism and Islamification, others are UKIP, George Carlin, and Mireille Mathieu. So you are again incorrect there, which seems to be a habit with you.
Defend the indefensible? Trouble is, people like you want to act like mind police. You all claim to be for freedom of speech and thought until you don't like what's being said.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
Either you agree with the BNP or you don't. Your actions here and on your own channel indicate that you support the BNP. It is my position that the BNP constitution is indefensible. I've not stopped you defending it though, have I? I've engaged you with polite debate and not deleted any of your comments. So as far as "free speech" is concerned, I've already proven I'm all for it. Especially when it exposes bigots.
You, on the other hand, have resorted to personal insults...
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
as I've said before, there's nothing on my channel that indicates positive support of the BNP, but what is shown is duplicity by Labour and trade union barons. I've also posted comments regarding dual-standards by the likes of the fascist UAF, who would oppress free speech for anyone they don't like. I wish you'd be more explicit regarding this allegation.
Also, would you care to indicate my 'insults'?
CrankCase08 2 years ago
Do you seriously expect a rational person to believe that you "accidentally" made friends with a BNP supporter and now can't figure out how to remove him? And for some reason you have 3 subscribers all of whom explicitly support the BNP , and you have uploaded a video apparently against homosexuality and have favourited another decrying the "Islamification" (BNP tactics) of Britain and are here defending the constitution of the BNP and you think that none of this indicates support for the BNP?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Hold on mush. I have no control over my subscribers, nor do I care who subscribes to me. That video you claim to be against homosexuality is a BBC London News report.
So what is it? If I'm against the sexualisation of kids, and I'm opposed to Islamification (who's members far outnumber the BNP and have more influence), and then explained that no constitution has any legality and not worth the paper it's printed on, that makes me a BNP member? You are getting desperate.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
Whilst you have no control over your subscribers, as I've said before but you consistently and deliberately have ignored, the cumulative effect of having a BNP friend (sorry, nobody makes friends on YouTube "by accident" and fails to figure out how to un-friendify yourself), 3 BNP subscribers, films against "Islamification" and "homosexual indoctrination" and a dogged defence of the BNP constitution may not make you a member of the BNP, but clearly, you support them.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
A constitution may well not be a legally binding document, but it sets out the ideals of why a political party exists and how it will work. It is an important document.
The Labour Party constitution is more democratic than the BNP constitution because the Labour party members can vote for who is on the NEC, but BNP members cannot vote for the 'Advisory Council' which the BNP chairman has final authority over... though it is meant to be made up of BNP officials and organisers.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
When you start saying "people like you want to act like mind police" that is a personal attack.
You don't know me. But I would suggest that making a comment like "people like you" suggests that you have placed me into a category of people that you have pre-conceived ideas about.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Clearly, as far as people like you are concerned, if I don't subscribe to the liberal-Left agenda of multiculturalism, of opposing immigration into an over-populated Britain, of not wanting little kids exposed to sexual lifestyles, then I'm to be condemned. I'd say that you do indeed demonstrate a thought police mentality.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
I've said nothing about 'condemning' you at all. Are we not having a civil debate? You have failed to prove a single point that you have attempted to make and in addition to that are attempting to widen the debate we are having out to other points that you will also fail to adequately defend.
I think that on certain issues you are wrong. I may oppose some immigration, but recognise that Britain may well need certain types of skills to drive the economy.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I have clearly demonstrated in practice that even the Labour Party, in practice, supports a virtual dictatorship of the leadership. It's for the leadership to decide which policies they wish to enact or go back on, eg. European integration. Yet you criticise the BNP for doing the same, even though they do it more honestly.
So now you've split the discussion into various branches. so be it.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
But you have not proven your argument about Labour. You complained that the NEC merely provided a "rubber stamp" for leadership decisions and I've shown that Labour members voted off a person from the NEC who they thought was not supporting them enough against leadership, presumably he was replaced with someone with a mandate, from members, to disagree with Labour leadership! The NEC is made up of democratically elected people. Not so with the BNP Advisory Council.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I have already dealt with this. It is possible for the membership to replace an NEC member, but it is not possible for the membership to force their will over the leadership, ie. the leadership can do whatever it wants.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
Even if you were right about Labour, which you are not, your initial argument that a constitution is not legally binding and can therefore be ignored is laid bare by the issue we already discussed regarding Vince Cable. And even if you were right in your counter-arguments - which you are not - that just because the BNP uses undemocratic methods openly that makes it OK! It isn't OK. The BNP is constitutionally undemocratic, but we live in a democratic society, so the ethos of the BNP is wrong.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
"Even if you were right about Labour, which you are not" - please explain how I am not correct.
So a fuss was made about Vince Cable's statement, but nothing changed! He is still the LibDem economics spokesman and he stands by what he said. The fuss was supposedly about other MPs not being consulted.
You claim the BNP method is undemocratic - if that's so, then so are the other party's methods, the difference being that BNP don't disguise it as the others do.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
You seem to have a problem with children being "exposed" to homosexual lifestyles.
The video on your channel relates to 2 Princes having a homosexual relationship with each other. I'm presuming you don't mind children being "exposed to the sexual lifestyles" of, say, a Prince and a Princess as is more commonly the case in fairy tales?
If so, you don't really have a problem with exposing kids to sexual lifestyles in general, but in exposing them to homosexual lifestyles in particular.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I, like most, including many homosexuals, are against imposing single-sexed parents onto children. Natural reproduction required male and female, tried and tested over billions of years, and all this social engineering is going to do is cause psychological confusion and bullying from other kids. Furthermore, like it or not, if homosexuality were to flourish, humans would die out as a species. You can tolerate it, but not encourage it.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
I'm not sure who has 'imposed' single-sexed parents onto children. What are the aims of the social engineering that you are alluding to, exactly? Reading a fairy tale to a bunch of kids about two princes getting married is not 'encouraging' homosexuality. It is simply informing children about it.
Religious education informs us about the lifestyles of Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims and Sikhs without necessarily encouraging anybody to become an adherent of any of those faiths.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Parents are imposed on children, who have no choice in the matter. However, procreation is the result of the sexual act between one man and one woman, therefore this is the natural psychological blueprint for the child to follow, which he would hopefully emulate for the continuance of the human race. To impose an unnatural male + male or female+ female blueprint on the child is imposing a false reproductive example, and that is psychological abuse of the child.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
Homosexuality is not confined to the human species, but is clearly proven in other parts of the animal kingdom. Whilst we personally may not understand why this so, the fact remains unquestionable. Additionally, children will understand from mummy and daddy, and all the other examples bombarded at them that homosexuality is not the norm. I hardly think that teaching children about the existence of homosexuality will encourage any more of them to be homosexual then would otherwise be the case.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I completely agree. Whilst it is clearly obvious that perhaps due to the way a brain is developed, some may naturally be homosexual, teaching all children about homosexuality at a young age is likely to result in alot of confusion and as you rightly put it, is a form of mental abuse.
TheLordRose 2 years ago
@TheLordRose
You under estimate kids. If you live in a society where every media outlet bombards you with images of men and women in couples, I hardly think that being told that some men like to be with men, and some women like to be with women, and even sometimes, people can be bisexual, is not going to confuse someone into becoming homosexual or bisexual, or even give the impression that it is the norm.
It will, however, increase understanding that there are differences between people.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
@whypatcondellisntfun your right to an extent. But when was the last time you saw any medium show marriage or atleast a relationship with mutual respect.
They are selling the idea of sex and homosexuality. becuase they want the reduce population.
normalising sexual behaviour in any sort can be detrimental. Life is not all about sex. Sex good and normal. But love seems to be out of the picture.
If you get what i mean.
Medium is the most powerful entity on earth.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans I think I see your point about sex and love... they say that "sex sells" but who are "they"? The media? Governments? Corporations? I think population reduction is not such a bad idea, maybe less sex more love?
The planet has finite resources which we are using up at an increasing rate, the fewer children we have, the better the future will be for them. Of course, this means we have to address some of the premises upon which our economies are based!
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun Look the thing is reducing population with unhealthy and unhappy people is not the solution.
We have to sacrifice for sure but we can do this without killing any1. The thing is if the earth is expanding it needs more humans because trees need our oxygen.
Good fact: The entire worlds population could live comfortably in Australia.
They been trying to kill us long before resource reduction. Also i believe its more about control and less about the planet.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Can I ask where you get the information that led you to believe that the earth's population could "live comfortably in Australia." Is that with or without oil dependence? The current population couldn't live anywhere comfortably without oil which is set to become a scarce resource if not in my lifetime, then in the lifetime of the next generation. The global economy is built on oil and the by-products of oil. Corporations are consumers, but only because we are as individuals.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun look anywhere on internet and you will find dozens of sources that would verify my claims regarding land.
Regarding resource i did state we needed to sacrifice.
And HENCE killing the MATERIALIST ideoligies that indoctrinate us all to over consume.
So instead of killing the people kill the ideas.
And we can preserve our precious resource and not leave it for the rulling class to decide our fates.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans Industries and corprations actually hold the higest % in resource and pollution consumption. But they preferr to kill us than loose a cent.
Also if you think that promoting certain ideas don't confuse and indoctrinate children.
All you have to do is as a kid if he wants to buy a pair of NIKE shoes or just a good pair of no name shoe to get your answer.
Kids are smart but in the end they are human and those in power positions are exploiting every part of our lives.
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
@Unity4allhumans sorry i meant carbon dioxide lol
Unity4allhumans 1 year ago
With regards to Labour NEC which you say just "rubber stamps" leadership initiatives, this is demonstrably not true.
Clive Soley was voted off the Labour NEC in June 2001 because "Labour MPs felt he had not been robust enough in standing up for their views against the party leadership." according to the BBC. Google it.
If a party can vote out a man they consider weak from the NEC that shows that democratic change is possible within Labour. That is constitutionally impossible within the BNP.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Since when is the BBC the arbiter of truth? They have recently been exposed telling lies on their news website about the UN speech made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, doing their part to justify an unjustifiable attack on Iran. Plenty of people are voted off and on the NEC. so what? The Labour leadership does as it wishes anyway, and there are enough self-serving, brown-nosing careerists on the Labour NEC to do the leadership bidding, a la Stalinesque fashion.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
With regards to the BBC being the arbiter of truth, I agree. But is it your position, then, that Clive Soley wasn't voted off the Labour NEC? The point is that the Labour Constitution - a document you claim is worthless - enables Labour party members to vote people off and on to the NEC whom they think will put their point of view across.
Your position was that the NEC just rubber stamped the leadership, but that single BBC story proves you wrong... unless you can prove it wrong. Can you?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
While the Labour Party constitution may allow the membership to remove certain individual NEC members (only CLP members) it is worthless with regard to the membership enforcing their wishes on the leadership. The entire NEC is also made up of members representing other affiliated branches; the overall effect is that the NEC always falls in line with the leadership.
The fact that Soley was replaced still leaves the membership unable to enforce its wishes on the leadership.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
The point of the NEC is that it represents different parts of the Labour party, who reach a consensus on requests put forward by the various trade unions, constituency Labour Party groups, and so on. That is democracy. And regardless of what you say, it is a whole lot closer to consensual democracy than the Chairman appointing who he wants to the BNP Advisory council.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
You seem to be of the opinion that the Labour NEC always falls into line behind the leaders. You have yet to prove this with anything substantial. I've shown that the NEC appears so powerful that members will go to great lengths to remove somebody from it for not doing enough.
If you are right that Labour and the BNP are undemocratic, that still makes the BNP constitutionally *obliged* to be undemocratic, and Labour offering a form of democracy through the NEC which does have its own powers.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Individuals within the NEC may dissent, but the representation on it is so wide and diverse that the constituency members have no effective control over the Labour leadership. Whether you wish to justify it with names like 'consensual' or 'democratic' is up to you, but I'd prefer to call it 'divide and rule'.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
Are you for real? Democratic representation can be too wide? Too diverse? Are you seriously suggesting that the NEC can never make a majority decision on anything? I think a voting bloc of 12 trade unionists from a total of 33 members might be a force to be reckoned with.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
I didn't say 'too wide", I said "so wide". 12 out of 33 is a minority and would be defeated. There are 7 different interest groups on the NEC plus Leader & Deputy Leader, and within these groups are various shades of Left and Right. Consequently, the odds are that opposition to the leadership is very unlikely -divide & rule. In opposition the leadership and NEC can agree a policy stance, but in government there is no obligation by the leadership to stick to policy, so the NEC is ineffective.
CrankCase08 2 years ago
If there are 7 different interest groups on the NEC it is because the Labour party represents those interest groups and must therefore give them a voice at the leadership table. I would suggest that for a bloc of 12 votes to be defeated in a group of 33 votes would require that everybody else in the room disagree with the Trade Unions. I think that is what the Americans call "checks and balances".
Have you yet gathered any evidence beyond your own thoughts to prove your assertions?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why are we constantly talking about the BNP? They hold 0.2% of council seats, 0.013% of EU seats and 0.00% (i.e. nothing) of parliamentary seats. Stop going on about the BNP - they'll never amount to much. After all Britain is a country where people are so anti-racist that the term 'racist' is used as an insult. And look how the British were wetting themselves with excitement about Obama in the US. Relax people the BNP are practically miniscule.
inspectorgadget0022 2 years ago
where does it say;
The leader can;
Change sections of the constitution without consultation with the members
Block any proposals from anyone asking for a change to the constitution
Dismiss any BNP member for anything he sees fit
Proscribe members from having any contact with any individual or organisation he chooses
If you have already answered this, could you point me in the right direction please?
ResistanceMP3 2 years ago
I've added a link to the 10th Edition of the constitution in the info section. I advise you read it. If you haven't been a member for at least 24 months though it doesn't matter what you think if you are a BNP 'member'.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
*PARP. HONNNNNNK. PARP. HONNNNNNNNK*
Is that all the BNP constitution consists of, flare sounds of a musical instrument?
Mercdriver09 2 years ago
Under the resources section of the BNP website the 9th addition of the constitution is availble.
CommieDefectedToBNP 2 years ago
I'll take your word for it, but the fact remains that the new edition of the constitution was not available on the website within the time frame specified within the constitution!!!
If the BNP cannot follow its own constitution, what hope would they have in government?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Well the constitution is pretty much just a document to make the party legal.
It does greatly need updating though, and I do believe Nick yields too much power on party decisions. But then again, it might be whats kept the party together, instead of having petty internal squobbles. Thus leading to a split.
CommieDefectedToBNP 2 years ago
So what you are saying is that you are not bothered about what is in the constitution? It's just a silly little document that gives the BNP a cloak of legality?
With regards to internal squabbles, if the names Sadie Graham and Alan Smith mean nothing to you, then you should research them and try to figure out why Sadie Graham - a democratically elected BNP councillor - was expelled from the party in favour of Mark Collet, a non-elected self-confessed fan of Hitler.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
BNP 1 million votes. Lovely jubbly.
jerryaowen 2 years ago
The question is, why didn't the BNP do even better than that? Here is what it requires for the BNP to win 2 seats.
1. A global economic crisis
2. MPs expense scandal
3. 2 million unemployed
4. A massive begging campaign with the specific aim of winning EU seats
5. Collaboration with Andrew Brons, former leader of the National Front!
6. A total collapse in the Labour vote
These are the things that must be in place for the BNP to win elections.
Think about that for a while.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Oh, and don't forget to think about who released the membership list... if that wasn't the result of an internal dispute I'll be gobsmacked!
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
By the way, the 9th Edition is not the current edition of the Constitution. Changes were made to the constitution of the BNP and I'm assuming that we should be at the 10th Edition!
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
rember this was made in 2005 along time ago dont you think he has changed them
GFXFilms 2 years ago
i wont be voting bnp they havent convinced me they are not racists.
toir77 2 years ago 6
Hate video? The video outlined one contradiction between the BNP constitution and the BNP website / media output - I wouldn't describe that as hate in any context, but then again I wouldn't vote for a party that is so worrying.
ajmaal 3 years ago 4
Why do most Anti-BNP video's on Youtube have the comments "blocked out"
I suspect it's because they really don't care what the public thinks, here's our one sided hit-piece now buzz off?
uzijohn 3 years ago
I have no idea what you are talking about. You have been able to make a comment here, no? If you care to view all the comments to this video you will see that I've been engaged in polite rational debate with BNP supporters regarding the content of this video.
Whilst you may have viewed other videos which do not allow comments, that is patently not the case here and so I can only advise that you take up your grievances with the owners of those other videos rather than spamming mine.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
whypatcondellisntfun,
Actually your's was the 5th Anti-BNP hate video I watched and the 1st with comments left open,
I went on to look 2 others that were also blocked,
I've not seen a subject with that high a blocked comment ratio,
Thanks for bucking the trend!
uzijohn 3 years ago
Thanks for the support :) One thing I will say is that I'm pretty sure that a lot of people get fed up with the spam from apparent BNP supporters or members. I have removed some pretty rude comments in the past so I can see why people might do it for that reason, rather than a particular desire to stop freedom of speech.
Cheers :)
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
Interesting video. Thanks. Who would voluntarily vote in a dictator?
MissDefies 3 years ago
Some BNP people I've read the comments of seem to want a strong leader who can't be easily voted out by communists or lefties who may infiltrate the BNP with the desire to cause the party some damage. I think anybody who has fallen for that particular line needs to read the constitution and consider the full implications of it where the same principles to be applied to a national government.
The BNP constitution strangely directly contradicts BNP policy of giving more power to local people.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
It certainly does contradict the BNP "stated" policy of giving more power to local people. I don't think BNP members fully realise the implications of such a constitution, which grants such super powers to the leader. Perhaps they will moderate this in the 10th Edition which "should" have already been published.
MissDefies 3 years ago 2
labour, conservatives, lib dems, check out the lisbon treaty when they give over to the EU
IAmTheTrueEmperor 3 years ago
This is a complete load of Rubbish, nothing can happen in the BNP without first being put to national advisory commitee and then passed by the membership, period.
MutterUndKind 3 years ago
MutterUndKind, please read the constitution of the BNP to discover the extent to which the way you think the BNP is run is not in accord with the actual facts of how the BNP is run.
The 9th Edition of the Constitution is available on the BNP site now, although a 10th Edition should have been published following the changes at the RWB in this year, you can read about how that part of the constitution has been breached in the 9th Constitution though.
Thank you for your time.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fuck off bnp
yapira3d 3 years ago 3
hmmm interesting.
Thoug that may apply to the party it could never be applied to the government.
Too much red tape lol
CommieDefectedToBNP 3 years ago
The quote by Enoch Powell on your profile is an insightful glimpse to Powell's humanity. It's more than a coincidence that BNP supporters make frequent reference to his writings and display his image. The desire to preserve one's identity and customs is not racist, and he would agree.
Greenleanings 3 years ago
The desire to preserve one's identity and customs is not racist unless one tries to achieve this by joining a political party which allows only "Indigenous Cacausians" (AKA "white people") to join. It is not racist unless one plans to use political power to deny others of a different race their democratic rights. It is not racist unless you affiliate yourself with White Supremacist groups such as the National Alliance. Unfortunately, I'm describing the BNP.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
I think we must agree to disagree concerning the BNP. I may have said elsewhere on this thread that I think racism is irrational and immoral. There are racists in all political parties. The BNP don't perceive race the problem, but rather Islam as the problem. Islam is not a race.
Greenleanings 3 years ago
Please read the constitution of the BNP. Section 2 deals with membership and is based upon a legal case Mandla V Dowell Lee (1983) which went to the House of Lords:-
"For a group to constitute an ethnic group in the sense of the 1976 Act, it must ... regard itself, and be regarded by others, as a distinct community by virtue of certain characteristics"
Simply by calling "Islam the problem", you are being racist by the very definition which the BNP uses to define itself.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
You BNP guys must talk more about the reality of race and DNA, or no one will understand you.
Check out the video called 10 fallacies of race denial.
PreserveDiversity 3 years ago
Firstly, I'm by no measure a "BNP guy". Secondly, I think if the BNP went down the route you suggest, their veneer of respectability would well and truly be blown.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
Race isn't a scientific category, so for sure you can put forward as many fallacies of 'race denial' and 'race existence' as you like. It can't be proven either way.
alewisuk 3 years ago
so the black police association is racist. operation black vote is racist. the aboriginee party of australia is racist? No they are not.
when more money is spent on one communit than a one next to it. reallocation of resources isnt racist. they dont want create massive inequalities. more lyk put evry1 on the same level and make it so muslims arn't such a protected species.
lornaration 3 years ago
They let people in the Black Police Association.
But the BPA is NOT a Political Party.
Democracy is ALL INCLUSIVE.
Anything else is Undemocratic.
thebigbossnahhh 3 years ago 4
You are an idiot, you know that?
The examples listed by you work against you as the black communities in the UK, USA and the aboriginee community of Australia have been segregated for years and still have not as much recognition as the white communities.
What the BNP does is not put everyone on the same level, more like rise once again the supremacy of white people over the other peoples that finally see some well deserved right.
ThrashcoreBob 3 years ago 2
Dear Keegan343f, Always good to read your comments. But why on earth are you not a member of the BNP? Forgive me if I'm being impertinent.
Greenleanings 3 years ago
The Labour and Torry Party only have a policies page not a constituion
explain to me why your only targeting the BNP?
Slayerfied4evr 3 years ago
The Labour party Rule book - which contains the constitution - is available to Labour members once they log into 'Labour Members Net' which is part of the Labour website.
I've updated the information section for this video on the right to include a link to both the Lib Dem and Conservative Party constitutions. Take a look.
As I say in the video, the constitutions of the other parties are available for free and are downloadable from the offical websites of the parties.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
The BNPs 'Constitution' is basically the manifesto of political rules, which is easily found from the bnp's website
Slayerfied4evr 3 years ago
Please give us the instructions to find it then...
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
Do not confuse the constitution with the manifesto, they are 2 separate documents.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
Please contact your local BNP representative for further in formation on the BNP constitution. They should be able to give you all the information you require. If they cannot, you might want to question why that is.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Every election in this country is blatantly rigged, ballet boxes opened, media whores brainwashing the population for they're bosses in the LibLabCon. Police opppression of the BNP goes on continually, new laws passed each week designed to deny your freedoms.
WhiteridersMcc 3 years ago
why has this comment been marked as spam?
surely a comment like this should be the one getting marked (Below)
Slayerfied4evr 3 years ago
I didn't mark them as spam, somebody else did, but looking through the comments made here by WhiteridersMcc I'd have to agree with who ever marked them as spam.
I've not removed the comments so people can still read them, as you have proven.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Blacks fight for equality, don't make me laugh, 1000's of years they've been sittn in mud huts like Neanderthals they couldn't be bothered even to evolve. There was more human innovation an industry in Birmingham than in the whole of Africa with all its rich minerals & resources. Simply because they are primitive people.
And no they don't wanna kick the whites out, they just wanna kill them like the Mugabe did to the white farmers but no-one was bothered about them.
WhiteridersMcc 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mandela was a terrorist pure an simple, they are not equal now the white have gone the whole place is turning back to shit, the place is now a hell whole, even the blacks there now are wishing the whites would come back an sort the mess out for them.
If it was wrong of our fore fathers to have oppressed Black identity, then it is also wrong to suppress White Identity in our homelands now.
WhiteridersMcc 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
human rights act.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
It's a sham, the state will come down on you hard if you oppose them, Try going to your local council to organise a St Goerge's Festival in your Street & see how far you get.
WhiteridersMcc 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The time for sitting on the fence and grumbling about the state of our nation is over - it's an indulgence we can no longer afford if we are to survive! We owe it to our forbears - men and women who gave their all in the defence of our island home - as well as to the generations of brethren English, Scots, Welsh and Irish yet to come.
It's time to stand up and be counted and what other possible way than by joining the BNP - the British Resistance!
WhiteridersMcc 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mandela was jailed for trying to blow up CHILDREN in South Africa (His own black people on a train) and he tried to blame it on the whites to start a race war, but cos he is Black he must be a victim of white opppression an we must make him a hero, another excuse to beat the white man... an the stupid White Liberals again believe the shit they are fed. Such hypocrisy.
WhiteridersMcc 3 years ago
During apartheid, Mandela patently was a victim of white oppression, can you deny this? Mendela was there at the Congress of the People in Kliptown, on 26 June 1955, when the ANC Freedom Charter was adopted which states:-
"...that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and that no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of all the people;"
and also
"The rights of the people shall be the same, regardless of race, colour or sex;"
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
Read the Freedom Charter, and then compare it to the Constitution of the BNP. Keep in mind that black people had been oppressed by a white minority government, but did they say "lets deport the white people!". No, they adopted a charter that said :-
"All national groups shall be protected by law against insults to their race and national pride;"
Mandela was fighting for equality between blacks and whites, not an inequality where blacks dominated whites.
The BNP can't compare to this.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
All lies. Cottage wasn't a councillor, he was member of the Conservatives for 15 years and a BNP member for just 2 years. There's lots of pakies also in bradford & Pendle an everywhere else gettin ready for a race war long before Cottage's amateurishness .
If I was to list all the LibLabCon criminals and perverts I would be here all week. The Liblabcon is stuffed to the brim with every type of scumbag going. They're all traitors to boot.
WhiteridersMcc 3 years ago
What a load of shit this is.
If you think Britain has Democracy then you must be either stupid on drugs or probably both.
British Democracy is no better than in Zimbabwe, People in the UK & US are brainwashed by TV and the Papers into crazy reversed world where bad is good & good is bad.
Our freedoms are eroded week by week as you sit there hypnotised by beckham or Big Brother. The Resistance has begun, Join The BNP.
WhiteridersMcc 3 years ago
rofl; BNP choc full of o' Nazis ? You will find that is more your NF or Combat18 member; Get over it; The BNP moved on and grew up; Pity some never seemed too; ay Lion2Com?! Nazi collaborator;? rofl; This isnt 1945 France!
LIBR65 3 years ago
The BNP was a spin-off from NF, Combat18 is a spin-off from the BNP. The BNP has not "moved on and grown up"otherwise, why is Mark Collett, self-confessed admirer of Hitler, still part of the BNP team?
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
People like you, voting BNP . 70 000 voted for us in London alone, we are growing stronger every day so a big thank you to all who voted.
CT8655 3 years ago
Aww; Nice to be appreciated; Thank you for your thank you CT8655; Was most proud the day Richard entered City Hall;
LIBR65 3 years ago
Keegan343f, if you had a copy of the 8th Edition of the constitution, as I do, you would see it mentions major revisions to sections 1, 4 and 12, creation of a new section 5, and addition of the new section 5 and old section 12 (now 13) to sections 1 and 4 which cannot now be changed without a two-third majority vote at a general members' meeting.
This radical reformation of the constitution took place in 2000, Griffin become leader in 1999.
If you support democracy, do not support the BNP.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
Keegan343f, if Griffin didn't want to use the power, why did he change the constitution to give him that power?
The point of my video is that if "the party" want to change the constitution, members must first put the required change directly to Griffin, at which point he may veto it.
You would in effect be asking Griffin if he wouldn't mind awfully if he could give up some of his executive powers.
I wonder what his answer will be?
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
You, as a member of the BNP, believe that it it fine to have a non-democratic party in order to 'fight fire with fire'. You now expect me to believe that this argument wouldn't be used if the BNP came to power? Deporting legal citizens of the UK because they are Muslim, would that be fighting fire with fire?
You think it is fine to have a dictatorship in order to 'modernise'. Give me an example of where a dictatorship has ever resulted in anything but oppression.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
There is no such thing as a legal Muslim in Britain they should all be removed as soon as possible.
CT8655 3 years ago
whypatcondellisntfun, I for one would be grateful if your next vid included portions of the BNP constitution as a courtesy to those of us desirous of reading in their own words what they're about. I must say that I prefer the BNP over sharia law; 2 date the three main political parties have avoided the problem of the failed experiment called multiculturalism. What are they pretending not to know? If one of them had the courage 2 address this, there would be no reason 4 the BNP to exist.
Greenleanings 3 years ago
Check the information section which I updated recently, it has a link to the constitution on the BNP site. The BNP placed their constitution online because they wanted to change it and so had to let people read it. I think it has been slightly changed but maybe you can find an updated version on the BNP site.
You say that multiculturalism has failed, how do you prove this, and can you tell me how Britain could have maintained its economy without importing cheap labour?
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
Thx for the reference; I'll do my homework. Forgive me, but proof that multiculturalism failed is evident in the streets of Londestan, Birmingstan & other major British cities. Muslims can carry signs saying death 2 non-muslims, but God help a Brit from saying anything negative; Dutch film makers & politicians R murdered or in hiding 4 exercising the right of free speech; Death threat 2 Rushdie 4 writing a novel; Archbishop of Canterbury thinks sharia law a good idea; increase in murder, rape.
Greenleanings 3 years ago
Your definition of multiculturalism seems to extend only to the perceived influence of Muslims upon the UK, is that really the limit of multiculturalism?
What if I said that BNP supporters are all simply neo-Nazi skinheads who like to sieg heil pictures of Hitler? Now, of course that is not true of every BNP supporter, but it is demonstrably true of some of them. Please don't tar all Muslims with the terrorism brush, otherwise you might find that the same theory could be used against the BNP.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
whypat... I would respond 2 your hypothetical by suggesting the true litmus test concerning the question of the BNP's alleged Nazism B asked of the Gurkhas, Jews & other ethnic groups who R BNP members. One would have 2 call them self-loathing if their answer in the negative were rejected. Racism is irrational & immoral. When will people realise that this isn't a racial issue but an idealogical one? I admit that racists can probably B found in the BNP, but also in all political parties.
Greenleanings 3 years ago
Your point concerning cheap labour is a good one. Indigenous Britons are not reproducing sufficiently to provide a workforce adequate to support over socialixation; the imported work force is intended to do that, but at a terrible price. Mass immigration must cease at once & many people must be asked to return to their countries of origin. I'm speaking of all Muslims, regardless of race; this is a racial issue but an idealogical one. Racism is irrational and immoral; I have no patience for it.
Greenleanings 3 years ago
Now that you have access to the BNP constitution you can see for yourself that it is a racist organisation:-
"Membership of the BNP is strictly defined
within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal ambit of a defined 'racial group' this being 'Indigenous Caucasian' and defined 'ethnic groups' emanating from that Race as specified in law in the House of Lords case of Mandla V Dowell Lee (1983)"
So the BNP is for "Indigenous Caucasians', or 'white people'.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
Finally, it's time for Britons to get off their duffs and start making more babies.... Ditto for the Europeans.
Greenleanings 3 years ago
This is a great video. They keep diddling around with their manifesto too. At the moment they only have a "summarised" format available on their website, so they can hide all the stuff they said about "citizens' assault rifles to be kept in the home" and "repeal of all anti discrimination laws" in their 2005 general election manifesto, which can be sourced elsewhere, like via the BBC. I say "they" keep diddling, obviously Nick Griffin is the chief diddler.
BNPisKKK 3 years ago
Thanks for the support. Yes. I noticed that the BNP manifesto is only a "summarised" version to, I might look into that a bit more. :)
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
LOL @ "Nick Griffin is the chief diddler"
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
As for the 2 year probationary period...
Well I commented on that but put most seems to have 'mystiously' disappeared.
Anyway, like I said before:
The 2 year period is a PROBATIONARY period, not a length of service. The difference between the two is that one is a length of time used in order to deter lefties infiltrators disorganising the party politics, whereas the other implies that members have to contribute to the party other than their membership fee.
zombat 3 years ago
When you leave school you have a 2 year period you have to wait before you can vote (or more if your birthday happens to be after the elections.)
zombat 3 years ago
May I just say Zombat, you actually seem a nice chap, you are at least willing to discuss in a polite fashion with me. Thank you for that. We may disagree on politics, but it is good to know that we can be civil in our debate.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
Please do not even hint that I've removed your comments, I only remove comments if they happen to be extremely rude, having said that, I've left a comment up from BNP supporter Mankie telling me to "go back to the slum [my] father was born in". You have to go quite far to get comments removed or blocked from this channel.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
The 2 year period exists to force you to pay 3 seperate annual membership fees (£90) before you can even vote for a party leader or on the constitution. It is a device to keep Griffin in power.
All the other parties do not "protect" themselves like the BNP. Once you become a member, that is it, you can vote and have a say from day one, having paid only one membership fee.
The more I look into this and talk to BNP members, the more I think that the BNP is simply a personality cult for Gri££in
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
If it wasn't for ED and UKIP splitting the nationalist vote the BNP would've beat the greens for 3rd place.
zombat 3 years ago
Steep membership fees?
Only if you haven't got a job
BNP Standard membership: £30pa
Labour - £12(for the jobless)-£120(for the high earners) pa
Conservative: £25 pa
Lib Dems - £10pa (obviously can't tax the students too much), although the recomended amount is £46pa
UKIP - £20pa
English Dems - £26pa
So the BNPs rate isn't really that much higher than most parties, especially the smaller ones.
Do remember that unlike the big parties we get most of our funding from memberships fees.
zombat 3 years ago
Labour Standard Membership £36
BNP Standard Membership £30
English Democrats Standard Membership £26
Conservative Standard Membership £25
UKIP Standard Membership £20
Lib Dems Standard Membership £10
BNP are at the top of the membership fees leader board. And I've not mentioned the 'Gold Mmbership' yet, nor the fact that members of other parties get voting rights from day one, whilst BNP members must put in 2 years service before they can vote.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
Why have you posted Labour's standard membership as £36 pounds?
Gold membership is entirely optional, and the only thing you get out of it is two extra newsletters and a gold party pin (made out of the finest jew gold naturally.)
And the BNP's membership fee is only a few extra pounds per year, hardly steep. Steep would be in the Gold Membership fee was the standard.
zombat 3 years ago
I downloaded an application form from Labour's site and it said "Standard Membership Rate £3 per month". Anything else is voluntary, as is the case with Gold Membership of the BNP, which is why I have only used the standard fee as given by each party.
Your aim was to try and prove that BNP membership isn't steep. It is officially the 2nd most expensive of all the parties you mentioned, including the 2 main opposition parties. Comparatively, it is so steep, it beggars belief.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
This last year I was finishing a course at Uni. I was in classes 5 days a week so I could only work a few evenings and a day at the weekend.
I had a monthly income of about 300 quid.
Despite all my other expenses I was able to afford GOLD membership.
Granted I don't drink or smoke, or shoot heroin from afganistan into my veins like Amy Winehouse... but still, if I can afford to splash out for gold membership the standard membership fee isn't 'steep'
zombat 3 years ago
You wanted to compare how the BNP stacked up against other parties to determine how steep the fees were, now that I have proven you wrong, you have changed your story. We were not discussing how steep it was in relation to what you could afford, but in relation to other parties membership fees, which I think is the only objective measure available on this matter.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago
Here is something else to mull over, you said that "unlike the big parties we get most of our funding from memberships fees." Incorrect.
The official BNP accounts for 2005 and 2006 as seen on the Electoral Commission website show that membership income is much smaller than 'commercial activities', 'fundraising' and 'donations'.
whypatcondellisntfun 3 years ago