The BNP, the EHRC, and revealing a historical moment

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 28 January 2010 22:11.

The judge also accepted ‘powerful submissions’ from the Commission that the BNP’s proposed new constitution is likely to remain unlawful. We will be back in court in March where we hope to conclude this matter by ensuring that whatever constitution the BNP adopts does not break discrimination laws.

John Wadham, EHRC, quoted in a Commission press release following the BNP’s return to the county court today.

The two parts of this statement contain the entire purpose of the EHRC in its action against the BNP. The first part is to make the party non-racial in its politics. The second is to render it financially incapable of campaigning in the (May 6th) General Election.

It is part one - the exclusion of all reference to the native British in the party constitution - that is of significance, and more for what it reveals about the historical moment than any political or legal aspects. In fact, I would go further and say that unless the EHRC pushes its luck to the point of taking out a prosecution against one of the BNP’s leaders for publicly speaking of Britain’s native peoples, none of the legal or political consequences of today’s ruling will do any real, lasting damage. Instead, the party will simply hold the two AGMs required of it and the voting membership will come to the view that, to quote Lee Barnes:

The sole aim of us participating in the political process is to take power.

Amen to that. Everything is now clarified. We have reached a defining moment in the long process of racial destruction which began with the Atlee government turning its back on the people’s rights and instincts in 1948. The BNP has stripped away everything but the one essential principle that it must fight, and fight, and fight. The Establishment has, in attempting to force the discourse of the BNP to match its own, stripped away everything but the one essential principle that the native British must die as native Britons. This is no longer about “fascism” or “the hard right” or even “hate”. It is existential, and well enough put by a commenter to the BNP’s website named Rijker:

This is no longer your country.
You cannot have a culture of your own.
You can not represent yourselves in Parliament.
You are to be persecuted until you no longer exist.

Out of this moment will quickly emerge a new clarity and urgency in racialist discourse, and not the death of racialist discourse the EHRC would wish. What would have been seen by the public as the most extreme and contentious interpretation of “immigration” - that of a designed genocide by population transfer - will slowly but surely become the accepted version of events. And when that happens, a general awakening is close.

Inevitablism has just been given a huge shot in the arm.

Tags: British Politics

Comments:

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:33 | #

Inevitablism has just been given a huge shot in the arm.

Imagine that.

In addition, as Rousseau remarked, “man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains.” One problem with that is the lemmings apparently love their chains yet also bristle under the weight. Even if the muds go will the security cameras follow? I friggin’ doubt it. Similarly, being forced to Kraut-march down the street may rankle, but if at the same time the chests of those marching don’t swell with pride then I’ve got a billion dollars I will forthwith transfer to your bank account - and I don’t have a billion dollars.

Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:00 | #

A very good example, Brigadier John Durnford-Slater, a man who would have resisted military service in lieu of becoming an Argentinian horse breeder but for maternal pressure. And once in the military, wanted to quit due to a lack of ‘action’ and responsibility sent his way. But once the war came, he was tasked with and was largely responsible for the creation of the Commandos, the proto-special forces, men whom he personally led into battle, whose often brutal conduct contra the Geneva Convention led Hitler to issue the infamous Commando Order. One wonders what mischief he would have gotten up to on the Eastern Front were he fighting for the Krauts.

Posted by Bill on Sun, 31 Jan 2010 13:18 | #

I’ve not taken much interest in the Chilcot Enquiry which has dominated our screens and airwaves of late.

The same old faces talking to the same old faces about why Britain went to war with Iraq.

I suppose there is some purpose behind it all, but I doubt very much whether the ordinary people of Britain have genuinely been considered in all of this by our elites.

It goes without saying the whole thing is a total waste of time. This type of show trial would not have been out of place in the old Soviet system.

Another such enquiry was held not long ago among the Bankers, about the cause of the recent economic meltdown - which none saw coming.

That enquiry was also toothless and irrelevant, bankers prostrating themselves with remorse, throwing themselves on the politicians for forgiveness. Not a pretty spectacle and equally useless in outcome.

Blair is the latest in the dock, I didn’t see any of it, but the Guardian gives a credible account of what Blair is all about. His consummate style reduced the panel to even greater irrelevance.

Blair is a thoroughly modern postmodern politician, he, like the rest, do what they do because it’s the right thing to do.

Blair and newLabour were chosen to usher on to the British people the New World order, they were to be the pioneers, the pathfinders to a Brave New World. Looking back, it is easy to see Blair’s agenda was not in the best interest of the people who had hoisted him to power.

No, from the very beginning, Blair embarked on the agenda he had been briefed to carry out, namely to destroy Britain and its people for enrolment into the NWO.

How do I know this? Because I am living it.

Will the Chilcot enquiry get to the bottom of why Blair went to war in Iraq, will they enlighten the nation as to what the Iraq war is all about? (LOL)

Why did Blair strut the world stage with his old mate, sleeves rolled up, jackets nonchalantly slung over their shoulders. The Magnificent Two, gunning for Saddam.

How did they get away with it?

Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:19 | #

Will the Chilcot enquiry get to the bottom of why Blair went to war in Iraq, will they enlighten the nation as to what the Iraq war is all about? (LOL)

Rumblings about the composition of the Chilcot committee still continue. The two Jews remain uncomfortably in the spotlight, ironically being kept there by the bleatings of fellow tribalists like David Cesarani, who had this piece in Friday’s CiF section:

Britain’s affair with antisemitism

Together with the Afro-Asian asylum-seeker ‘Baroness’ Ushar Prashar they form the majority of members on the inquiry committee. Is it any real surprise that Blair & Co. are having such an easy ride?

Posted by ic1male on Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:51 | #

The BNP will win two parliamentary seats imo, some people say three. Time is so short however as the ruling elite are still flooding area’s with 3rd world immigrants. In my city (Birmingham) whites are officially a minority and we have 0% chance of gaining a parliamentary seat. It will be a massive boost to get some MP’s however, and as is happening in Holland, immigrants do leave when the far right get very strong. http://northfieldpatriot.blogspot.com/

Posted by Al Ross on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:44 | #

Thanks, Fred. Both videos are well worth viewing.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:40 | #

There’s a good new column by Professor Tom Sunic in which, among other valuable services, he exposes the depravity of today’s West European/North American Catholic Church in regard to the race-replacement crisis and notes the superior record of the East European Catholics. (The Russian Orthodox also have a superior record.) He includes brief disussion of the tactic some “Conservatives” adopt, smuggling WN-type communication past anti-WN Jewish media guards by camouflaging it exclusively as anti-Moslemism, a tactic he sees having little chance of getting to the real point:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sunic-RaceReligionIV.html .

In a related piece, also well worth reading, Professor MacDonald comments on Prof. Sunic’s entry:

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=749 .