Pickled Politics on the BNP

Apologies for reproducing this in full but:

*The BNP would kick out all those people who were not born in Britain. What if every other country in the world kicked out the Brits? A staggering 5.5 million people would be sent back here – far more than would leave our shores. This includes 800,000 from Spain, most of whom are pensioners.

*If non-white people were ordered out of Britain then the NHS would collapse overnight. 16% of nurses are from minority ethnic communities, as are 40% of new dentists and 58% of new doctors!

*The BNP would introduce apartheid into Britain. The BNP call for whites to be given first preference in housing, education and jobs. This is no different from apartheid South Africa, a racist regime which the BNP supported.

*Mixed-race relationships would be outlawed. The BNP constitution opposes any racial integration. Articles in BNP journals condemn mixed-race relationships as “mongrelising the white race”.

*The BNP’s answer to violent crime is to allow every household to have a gun. We kid you not. This barmy idea was in the BNP’s 2005 general election manifesto.

You mean that only the least stupid idea, the one that isn\’t criminally insane, is described as "barmy"?

You know, the one like Switzerland, where every household does indeed contain a military rifle and they don\’t really have all that much violent crime?

This is barmy?

While attempting to stop human beings from shagging each other, an entirely insensible thought, one that not even South Africa ever managed (the existence of "Coloureds" shows that) is simply explained?

What is it about lefties and guns?

28 thoughts on “Pickled Politics on the BNP”

  1. “You know, the one like Switzerland, where every household does indeed contain a military rifle and they don’t really have all that much violent crime?”

    There are one or two differences between Swiss culture and ours (for example, I’m sure we wouldn’t complain to the stationmaster about the terrible moaning noise at night the Jews made while dying in the cattletrucks that were parked in Zurich station overnight). I think it’s fair to say that if we adopted liberal gun ownership laws, things would be more like the situation in the US.

  2. Why doesn’t some tabloid organise honeytraps for the BNP top brass – the less Aryan the better. Imagine the consternation if Nick Griffin were photographed conkers deep in someone with the wrong concentration of melanin… make her a Muslim and he might even wish he’d been caught barking Nazi orders at a girl on a NOTW video…

  3. Leftards work under the assumption that people in general are too stupid to to look out for themselves and cannot be trusted to make responsible decisions.

    Why?

    Because almost all of them are the product of a sheltered, orderly middle-class childhood that lasted well into their adulthood before they were ready to fly the nest and hunt their own grub. (Some of them still are crash-pilots to this day…)

    And a lot of think that a high IQ and the ability to plan and make decisions does not occur amongst the underclass and so, the peasants need them to do their thinking and deciding for them.

    ;-P

    Talking of crashpilots: http://kevintren.posterous.com/dont-let-these-people-borrow-your-car

    More about hoe to use guns for fun and profit: http://www.somalicruises.com/

  4. What it is is that the left know that they are in a small minority- that’s why they seek power through entryism rather than openly. If everyone had a rifle they’d have less chance of holding on to power if they got it. Which is why the BNP wouldn’t do it even if they had the chance. I wonder what all those campaigning to allow the Gurkha to settle would do to them, given rifles?
    From what I’ve seen of their economic proposals there would be a serious emigration problem if they ever got power- as everyone fled to Africa for better prospects.
    I love Mr. Eugenides idea- except that the honey would have to be properly Aryan (small and dark) rather than the fantasy of Mr. Hitlers imagining- yes Mr. H. got that wrong as well.

  5. Every household is already ‘allowed’ to own a gun. Except those containing only former criminals, mentally insane etc. who the BNP presumably dont have in mind anyway, anyone can apply for a shotgun licence.

  6. I think that the prominent lefty, Adolf Hitler, actually outlawed most types of privately-held firearms in Germany sometime between 1933 and 1938.

    That other lefty, Joseph Stalin, would not have got very far with his collectivizations, if the Russian and Ukrainian peoples had had more guns than they were at the time allowed.

  7. So Much For Subtlety

    Kay Tie – “for example, I’m sure we wouldn’t complain to the stationmaster about the terrible moaning noise at night the Jews made while dying in the cattletrucks that were parked in Zurich station overnight”

    And the evidence that this happened is?

    Of course the history of the German occupation of the Channel Islands suggests what? The British wouldn’t have cooperated? They did. The British would have resisted? They didn’t. The British would have protected the local Jewish community? Well it ain’t very big these days is it?

    I would be careful about throwing stones.

    “I think it’s fair to say that if we adopted liberal gun ownership laws, things would be more like the situation in the US.”

    At first. But I am sure that after a few decades it would be more like Switzerland.

  8. Every household is allowed to have a gun.
    It is not difficult at all to get a shotgun certificate.

  9. It is indeed true that most Swiss households have a military weapon. However, IIRC, they do not have any ammunition – it’s stored in local militia bases for distribution if needed.

  10. Well I hope we get to the situation in the US. Crime is shooting down where guns are freely available legally and shooting people breaking into your home or mugging you is acceptable and despite what everyone thinks of the US there are parts where it is just like the UK with guns banned. Strangely enough these are the parts with the high gun crime rate. Go figure. With more of the US relaxing gun control it won’t be long before their decreasing crime rate passes ours, theirs on the way down and ours on the way up. So enjoy your beliefs while you can. The facts don’t support it.

    The BNP will never get in anyway. However if enough people vote for them then the bickering in Westminster will stop the pollys screwing our country up even more. Only policies really good for the UK would get through.

  11. Does widespread gun ownership (cet par) make society safer? No, not really, as more disputes are then settled with greater levels of violence, and more people feel the need to carry a weapon to defend themselves. We can see this very clearly in European history.

    Put quite simply, if you annoy me, and we fight and are both unarmed, then it is very unlikely that we will kill one another. A gun massively increases that risk.

  12. re: guns in the US. Washington DC, where guns were virtually banned until the recent Heller decision, was one of the most dangerous cities in the US re: gun violence. It is absolutely true that an armed society is a polite society. Here in Virignia, where gun laws are not at all restrictive and gun ownership is widespread, gun violence is relatively low. In my small neighborhood of 78 families, at least 50 own one or more weapons. Massacres such as the one at
    Virginia Tech would not be nearly as costly if the victims had been allowed to arm themselves. By campus law, they were defenseless.

    Bad guys don’t care about laws. If they want guns, they will get them. Some of us don’t intend to be their victims.

  13. It is a bit odd how recently so many blogs had a pattern of sneering at the BNP in their opening statement but arranging the later part so that comments are about something else.
    viz here – gun ownership.

  14. *The BNP would introduce apartheid into Britain. The BNP call for whites to be given first preference in housing, education and jobs. This is no different from apartheid South Africa, a racist regime which the BNP supported.

    It’s also no different from Harriet Harperson’s vision for the country. It’s only people of a truly Liberal persuasion who have the option of feeling smug here. We don’t judge people by their group characteristics but by their character.

  15. Bishop Hill:

    When Britain had more liberal gun ownership laws there was no bloodbath.

    Obviously never been to Northern Ireland then, because what happened there could fairly be described as a bloodbath. Or Dunblane. Or Hungerford.

    Idiot.

  16. FFS, the BNP are nutjobs but the only thing they’re right about is guns.
    Currently, you can get a shotgun if you want one and can satisfy the licensing authorities requirements.
    I’m happy with that (I own a shotgun).
    I would not want ‘to allow every household to have a gun’ and no sane person would.
    At least, anyone who lives within – say – five miles of any rough housing estate in any major British city. It would be carnage.

  17. What is it about lefties and guns?

    One small quibble: You’ve argued before that fascists, including the BNP, are just another perverse manifestation of the soialist ideology. Ergo the lefties you talk about must include the BNP.

    That aside, lefties (or authoritarians) hate civilian gun ownership because, in the final resort, a man with a gun is much less easy to push around. Whatever they may say about their doings being the “will of the people”, deep down they know that people actually dislike being ordered around. Do it too much and eventually they will start to fight back. That’s why all leftie/authoritarian regimes need repressive laws and police forces.

    Personally I suspect the BNP’s “gun in every household” promise is smoke and mirrors. Being authoritarians I think they know that arming the population would be a stupid move* and I suspect that they actually have no intention of implementing that particular manifesto commitment.

    *A certain Austro-German, popular in BNP circles, certainly thought so; he actively went about disarming his own population when he got the chance.

  18. Brit in Aussie

    Your arguments fall very short. Both examples you use are extremes that would be cut from the dataset of any reputable scientific study of legitimate firearms ownership versus crime.

  19. Brit.in.Aussie,

    The conflict in Northern Ireland has roots going back centuries. It flared and subsided throughout the years in a manner quite unrelated to the gun laws in Britain, which varied through this time from allowing practically any weapon to forbidding practically every weapon. Why should Northern Irish terrorists be affected one way or the other? They fought with illegal weapons.

    Kay Tie, count me among the sceptics about that thing about the complaints to the Zurich stationmaster. A documentary was made alleging this some time ago but despite a lot of innuendo and dramatic music even the documentary makers did not claim to have proved it.

    I believe that it is more generally accepted that Italians were transported through Switzerland to forced labour in Germany after Mussolini fell. Apart from anything else, looking at the map, this makes more sense.

  20. Dunblane and Hungerford are both examples of a gunman attacking unarmed victims. Quite how Brit.in.Aussie thinks they prove anything whatsoever about what would happen if a gunman were to attack armed people able to defend themselves and fight back, I do not see.

  21. The BNP would introduce apartheid into Britain. The BNP call for whites to be given first preference in housing, education and jobs. This is no different from apartheid South Africa, a racist regime which the BNP supported.

    Actually this is more akin to the current policy in South Africa under the ANC, with the indigenous population getting jobs and housing instead of ‘settlers’. The difference being that indigenous Brits actually did the overwhelming amount work in creating the modern British economy and social system (for good and ill), while it was the ‘settlers’ – Afrikaans and English –that made South Africa relatively successful for an African country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *