Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 85

Thread: BNP Votes to Change Race Rules

  1. #31
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 @ 09:29 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Mainly Yorkshire
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,109
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    30
    Thanked in
    30 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturmtiger View Post
    The decision to allow ethnic's into the BNP has caused even further division in Nationalist ranks. Some who I have spoken too, who are not BNP member's but voted for them in previous elections as a nationalist party are now turning they're attention to the National Front. The National Front has done some "growing up" over the past few year's and is trying to launch itself as a more viable Nationalist party than the BNP. Recent events have only aided they're cause and lost Nick Griffin and his party some Nationalist support.

    I for one, who is not a BNP member, but has voted for them in the past, will have to give any further support much thought.
    I'll continue to vote BNP because they're the party I disagree with least, but if my predictions prove true and they become the new UKIP, I doubt I'll participate in many future elections.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Horagalles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 01:53 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    mainly UP
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Politics
    Natural Order
    Posts
    1,376
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Where the cycle closes again, that without some form of power you will not be able to change the current system.
    It's a process and to some extent there are cycles in that process, so far I would agree. But one shouldn't be so formalistic to believe that forms of power are limited to representations in governments, parliaments, city councils and the like. There are types of social power and economic power as well.

    Taking part in elections is a pretty expensive enterprise and the cost per seat won are especially high, when the social and cultural climate isn't right for it. It's kind of driving up a mountain against the wind. Social and intellectual activism is far cheaper then political one and it's preparing the road for the political enterprise to come.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    I agree that we are not going to rebel, and there simply is no however colored "thinking elite" either. As long as this system as is exists, nothing will change.
    I'm not sure, if I am understanding you correctly. This system (and I'm including here the UK) has to rely on support or tolerance by it's subjects or "citzens" including those who work for the state, business or civil society institutions. In part this support is encouraged by the fact that people get paid, but this support also has to rely on the fact that people accept the system as legitimate. This legitimacy also has to account for the policies, legislation and other decisions the system (or rather it's representatives) is making.
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Since we cannot take over the system, nor change it peacefully, and btw even if, we would not manage that soon enough (within the next 20 years, otherwise it is too late anyway), there is only one way left: to let the system collapse.
    ... But at least use some guerilla tactics to attack the ideological hegemony.
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Yes, this mean anarchy, violence, civil war and a lot of dead people. But when people otherwise are unable to remember basic truths of life, and this system is anyway nothing to hold up, it is the only way.
    ... Someone needs to convince people from these basic truth so that they'll be able to regroup.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    What we need to understand it that as long as too many people have a too good life and "something to lose", NOTHING will ever change.
    ... I'm familiar with this argument of "it's going to good with people" linking up to an imparative to worsen things. While crisis has its uses, I don't think that you've to be poor, powerless and distressed to be able to think and say certain basic truth. In fact I deem it necessary for a movement and activist leaders to be well off economically. The best would be financially independent. That enables you to speak and do things an unemployed dockworker won't be able to do.
    "And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring;..." Plato Politeia

  3. #33
    New Member
    sturmtiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 @ 04:32 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scottish/Scotland
    Subrace
    Germanic
    Country
    Scotland Scotland
    Location
    Glasgow
    Gender
    Family
    Married parent
    Politics
    National Socialist
    Religion
    National Socialism
    Posts
    12
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamar Fox View Post
    I'll continue to vote BNP because they're the party I disagree with least, but if my predictions prove true and they become the new UKIP, I doubt I'll participate in many future elections.
    I understand your logic and would agree with you, but the thing that trouble's me is, can I, as a Nationalist give my support to a party that allows the same monkeys to join it that hopefully we are trying to expel. I understand they're reason's behind it, but, it sit's very uneasily with me and the more I think about it the less likely I will ever be to support the BNP again. They have diluted they're Nationalist ideal's to appeal more to a general public by removing any so-called racist stigma. It's bad enough they allow jews as it is but this is a new low, and will cost them dear. I see the National Front now as my only alternative and I don't totally agree with them either, as you said, "they're the party I disagree with least".

  4. #34
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, January 13th, 2012 @ 12:16 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    England
    Subrace
    Possibly Borreby
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Family
    Widowed
    Occupation
    Retired
    Politics
    Nationalsocialist
    Religion
    Nationalsocialist
    Posts
    114
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe McCarthy View Post
    My question for the Englishmen here --

    If you don't see change electorally as being feasible, then what precisely do you propose? Surely the talk of armed struggle is bluster. The idea of armed revolution in the US is even a ridiculous notion, and we're a country with a heavily armed civilian population. You people have long since been disarmed. You're not going to rebel.
    You are absolutely right, we are not going to rebel, not because we are unarmed but because despite all the whining the vast majority of us still have life far too easy. Most of us have decent housing, plenty of food, late model cars, all the latest electronic gadgets and can jet off, almost at the drop of a hat, to the latest "in" exotic location, usually in Africa or Asia, for a holiday.

    The truth is that most of us (but that does not include myself) get by pretty well. It will only be when the established order has totally collapsed and all the things that we have always taken for granted just aren't there anymore, that we might, just might, actually do something. And of course we must prepare for that.

    In the meantime, whenever anybody tells me that they believe that they can change things by so-called democratic means, I am reminded of the old joke which goes something like this:

    A man is seen crawling around on his hands and knees, at night underneath a street light. A friend asks him what he is doing and the man replies that he is looking for his ring which he has just dropped. The friend asks "are you sure that is where you dropped it?", to which the man replies "no, it was over there, but the light is better here!"

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 28th, 2010 @ 05:34 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Scotch-Irish, Welsh, English, Dutch, German, French
    Subrace
    Alpine-Nordic mix
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Ohio Ohio
    Location
    ohio
    Gender
    Family
    Single, looking
    Politics
    Libertarian/Tribalist
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    23
    Thanked in
    23 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Godwinson View Post
    I've felt for some years now that elections in this country, and most probably in other "democracies" too, are RIGGED!!!
    Yep. Similiar thing in the U.S. I voted Libertarian and I heard of many people who said they voted the same way. Libertarian got 0% of the vote. 100% of the vote was divided between Democrats and Republicans even though there were 6 parties competiting. How can all those other parties put together not even get a 1% vote? Especially when I hear from all sorts of people saying they are voting this way? I don't trust the system either. The only real elections are local ones. I think Democracy is a sham.
    “success and survival are above all the rule of life. As such it is the highest command of moral law” –Lord Livwell (me)

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, March 8th, 2020 @ 03:10 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    47
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    5,000
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,295
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,476
    Thanked in
    672 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Horagalles
    I'm not sure, if I am understanding you correctly. This system (and I'm including here the UK) has to rely on support or tolerance by it's subjects or "citzens" including those who work for the state, business or civil society institutions. In part this support is encouraged by the fact that people get paid, but this support also has to rely on the fact that people accept the system as legitimate. This legitimacy also has to account for the policies, legislation and other decisions the system (or rather it's representatives) is making.
    ... But at least use some guerilla tactics to attack the ideological hegemony.
    ... Someone needs to convince people from these basic truth so that they'll be able to regroup.

    ... I'm familiar with this argument of "it's going to good with people" linking up to an imparative to worsen things. While crisis has its uses, I don't think that you've to be poor, powerless and distressed to be able to think and say certain basic truth. In fact I deem it necessary for a movement and activist leaders to be well off economically. The best would be financially independent. That enables you to speak and do things an unemployed dockworker won't be able to do.
    Only when you want to keep up the system, just shift it to 'something worthy'.

    I've just given up the hope that the system, politically, economically or socially, does have a worth in itself to keep up, or is something I should fight for to safe from decline.

    And I also dont see people revolting against the system, when their income, their financial independence or personal wellbeing bases on exactly this system. You cannot meaningfully rebel against something which you are an integral part of.

    In so far I would consider the 'victims' of the system a more useful 'first target' for re-education (read: radicalisation, extremisation). They dont have anything to lose, only a lot to win. People in good positions, good paid jobs, a nice little house etc do have a lot to lose, the chance of them being willing, or able, to fight the system from which they profit, I guess is very low.

    I agree that only fighting against the system with these people will not offer a solution for after the battle. But the thinking elite, the leaders and the ideological formers will just come about during the battle (and granted this position out of intellectually freed circumstances), while the battle will not come about through a thinking elite. They will not be the ones to fight.

    And I dont want to fight against the system (which is the same as fighting windmills, pointless) I want to crush the system itself, including economy, society, and especially the criminal financial structures and the dominating ideologies behind, to have a tabula rasa on which to rebuild from the very bottom. I think (my opinion) it is the only way, because everything else so far failed, or is not even in sight to ever happen, despite some 'thinkers' have worked on funny utopian theoretical constructs with countless "ifs" and "whens" and likewise utopian dream- (pre-) conditions, that you would need an utopian revolution to get the conditions for the revolution (which doesnt make any sense at all).

    Change from within the system doesnt change the system nor its fundaments. Such a 'change' only shifts the emphasis, not the rotten core on which it bases.

    This might be a radical view, and I agree it is. But only people who have nothing to lose will (start a) fight. This also is a basic truth of life
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Horagalles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Saturday, August 25th, 2012 @ 01:53 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    mainly UP
    Country
    South Africa South Africa
    Gender
    Politics
    Natural Order
    Posts
    1,376
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    ... I'm familiar with this argument of "it's going to good with people" linking up to an imparative to worsen things. While crisis has its uses, I don't think that you've to be poor, powerless and distressed to be able to think and say certain basic truth. In fact I deem it necessary for a movement and activist leaders to be well off economically. The best would be financially independent. That enables you to speak and do things an unemployed dockworker won't be able to do.
    Only when you want to keep up the system, just shift it to 'something worthy'.

    I've just given up the hope that the system, politically, economically or socially, does have a worth in itself to keep up, or is something I should fight for to safe from decline.
    So how are you going to achieve anyting meaningful, without the necessary resources? Or asked differently how do you expect leaders and activists to achieve anything meaningful, if they struggle to make ends meet? Frankly any form of leadership or activism requires that one has more then is necessary to bare existence and often this means far more. While you can have a spare time activist that does do a few things on weekends, you can't use this approach to be the leader of a movement or any deeper involvement in intellectual, political or social activism.

    A full time writer be add a journalist or book author will not be able to sustain an extra job. He'll at least needs something to sustain it's daily needs (shelter, food, clothing, travel + an office). + Ability to publish of course, which is made easy nowadays, if one knows how to handle the internet.

    An activist leader socially, judicially, civil or politically. Will even require more. He will have to be presentable in public and privately. And he will even have more time at hand to use then the writer. It's basically an executive officers job and this will require attending meetings, travel, continued education and the like. Add to this running campaigns, possibly cost and a supportive staff to sustain.

    And then we are not even talking about military resistence here, which will cost you far more.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    And I also dont see people revolting against the system, when their income, their financial independence or personal wellbeing bases on exactly this system. You cannot meaningfully rebel against something which you are an integral part of.
    That always depends on the motivation for the stance of a point of view a person takes. True convictions, resentment, persuasion, etc. These are all different types of motivations a person has. You'd have to set the boundaries of "the system" as well, when discussing it.

    And let me add to this, if you have no assets, you will have to depend on the system especially it's bureaucratic, administrative part. To really distance yourself from "the system", you'd have to be financially independent. Which means investments that give you returns equalling the salary of a good engineer or medium manager. Preferably these investments and bank accounts are situated in another country to prevent "the system" from interference.

    Needless to say that activism will cost you even more, requiring more resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    In so far I would consider the 'victims' of the system a more useful 'first target' for re-education (read: radicalisation, extremisation). They dont have anything to lose, only a lot to win. People in good positions, good paid jobs, a nice little house etc do have a lot to lose, the chance of them being willing, or able, to fight the system from which they profit, I guess is very low.
    I'd consider them last in the line for predominantly two reasons:
    1. They'll anyway easy to convince.
    2. If you utilize them to early, they become a liability.

    And practical experience has shown this as well. If you attract and collect all the resentful loosers and downtrodden, you'll end up in an dead alley. You'll have people in higher positions whose motive is resentment and day will easily turn away those more successful that could really make a difference.


    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    I agree that only fighting against the system with these people will not offer a solution for after the battle. But the thinking elite, the leaders and the ideological formers will just come about during the battle (and granted this position out of intellectually freed circumstances), while the battle will not come about through a thinking elite. They will not be the ones to fight.
    Having a tyre of poor, disgruntled, emotionally motivated people around your neck will make sure that your movement is going to run in circles (like many WN orgs indeed do). This will make it easy for the enemy to recruit informers, too. And said that, it will also prevent anyone with good leadership potential to come "about during battle".

    Take for instance the French revolution. It didn't break out, because some poor Parisians got hungry and so angry that they challenged the state to chop of the kings head. The pretext of the revolution was that more succesful middle class people and even some aristocrats doubted the legitimacy of that system(absolutism) AND they thought that they had valid alternatives to offer. Their ideas came from the writers and orators of the time before that revolution. Additionally those in charge and their social support base lost the confidence in their own legitimacy. When the revolution started all the disgruntled people came out of their holes and joined the bandwaggon. Other revolutions or political changes followed similar patterns.


    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    And I dont want to fight against the system (which is the same as fighting windmills, pointless) I want to crush the system itself, including economy, society, and especially the criminal financial structures and the dominating ideologies behind, to have a tabula rasa on which to rebuild from the very bottom. I think (my opinion) it is the only way, because everything else so far failed, or is not even in sight to ever happen, despite some 'thinkers' have worked on funny utopian theoretical constructs with countless "ifs" and "whens" and likewise utopian ...
    OK, you start to define the systems a bit here. Just that what you suggest sounds quite utopian as well. Any "revolutionary" will have to make use of existing infrastructure, institutions and social networks. To get anything done without that is futile and totally pointless.
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    Change from within the system doesnt change the system nor its fundaments. Such a 'change' only shifts the emphasis, not the rotten core on which it bases.
    By system I usually would mean the core group within establishment, the "social, therapeutical state" and some other institutions. I'd not necessary include into this the bigger part of the legal system, civil service and 90% of privately owned business.
    Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
    This might be a radical view, and I agree it is. But only people who have nothing to lose will (start a) fight. This also is a basic truth of life
    No, you can loose the battle by making fundamentally false decisions now. And people that have nothing to loose also don't have the means to fight anymore. That's actually a tactic many dictators do use. They impoverish their country by looting the assets and instill corruption so that they can controll the masses better. The fact that there is NO real middle class makes sure that no real opposition can be organized against them. Rebellions only break out, if someone with access to money, supplies and weapons starts this. Often these are gained from outside forces.

    What's left? we'll need to win the hearts and minds of smarter, emerging middle class people in the age group of 20-45. For that purpose we need to train different sorts of leaders. Their needs to be some social diversity in terms of the background of people. We will need engineers and entrepreneurs as well as academics, journalists and the like. Once they are ready, they'll need to infiltrate civil society organisations like clubs, sport leagues, cultural associations, chambers of commerce, study groups, think tanks and the like. To make them efficient our ideas must be thought through and convincing so that our people will convince their new mates from their rightfulness.
    "And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring;..." Plato Politeia

  8. #38
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Friday, January 29th, 2021 @ 09:20 AM
    Ethnicity
    Celtic-Germanic
    Gender
    Posts
    437
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sturmtiger View Post
    I for one, who is not a BNP member, but has voted for them in the past, will have to give any further support much thought.
    If your thinking of voting NF then you might as well not bother, the NF have never won a thing (in modern times) and never will - there simply spliting the Nationalist vote.
    Even if the NF did get some success they would eventually make their party more 'moderate' to get any further, its just political reality and the BNP have realised this.
    Furthermore Britain doesn't have the time required to build-up another Nationalist party, the BNP are strong now so their the party people should support.

  9. #39
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, January 13th, 2012 @ 12:16 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    England
    Subrace
    Possibly Borreby
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Family
    Widowed
    Occupation
    Retired
    Politics
    Nationalsocialist
    Religion
    Nationalsocialist
    Posts
    114
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by InvaderNat View Post
    If your thinking of voting NF then you might as well not bother, the NF have never won a thing (in modern times) and never will - there simply spliting the Nationalist vote.
    Even if the NF did get some success they would eventually make their party more 'moderate' to get any further, its just political reality and the BNP have realised this.
    Furthermore Britain doesn't have the time required to build-up another Nationalist party, the BNP are strong now so their the party people should support.
    I think that you are seeing things that simply are not there.

    The BNP has indeed had some (very, very limited) success but not by any stretch of the imagination can the party be regarded as "strong now". You say that the NF would eventually "moderate" itself to progress futher. That is exactly what the BNP has already done, and please don't tell me it had to change to comply with the law and that, wink wink, really it's business as usual.

    By accepting non-whites as members, not only has it gone against its own fundamental principles, but it is now slipping irreversibly down the slope which will inevitably lead it to becoming hardly distinguishable from the mainstream parties.

  10. #40
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, January 13th, 2012 @ 12:16 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    England
    Subrace
    Possibly Borreby
    Country
    England England
    State
    Yorkshire Yorkshire
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Family
    Widowed
    Occupation
    Retired
    Politics
    Nationalsocialist
    Religion
    Nationalsocialist
    Posts
    114
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sturmtiger View Post
    I understand your logic and would agree with you, but the thing that trouble's me is, can I, as a Nationalist give my support to a party that allows the same monkeys to join it that hopefully we are trying to expel. I understand they're reason's behind it, but, it sit's very uneasily with me and the more I think about it the less likely I will ever be to support the BNP again. They have diluted they're Nationalist ideal's to appeal more to a general public by removing any so-called racist stigma. It's bad enough they allow jews as it is but this is a new low, and will cost them dear. I see the National Front now as my only alternative and I don't totally agree with them either, as you said, "they're the party I disagree with least".
    Your words "a party that allows the same monkeys to join it that hopefully we are trying to expel" hit the nail on the head. It just does not make sense.

    Although I can't see it ever happening, just suppose for a moment that the BNP won an election and thus became the government. What would it do about all its non-white members then?

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 710
    Last Post: 3 Weeks Ago, 06:41 PM
  2. BNP To Change Leader In 2013
    By SaxonPagan in forum England
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Tuesday, July 27th, 2010, 07:18 PM
  3. The Laws of the Game - What Would You Change About Football/Soccer Rules?
    By Þoreiðar in forum Sports, Leisure & Hobbies
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Sunday, July 4th, 2010, 11:04 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: Saturday, January 30th, 2010, 04:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •