BNP Membership Change

Lee John Barnes on the BNP membership change:

This membership change is the equivalent of a political revolution. . .

The BNP have in effect just become ‘mainstream’. . . .

The far left killed its own coalition. . . .

Today marks a historic moment in the evolution of British Nationalism. . . .

By forcing us to join them, they have given us the weapons we can use against them. . . .

We have captured the high ground – morally, legally and politically and the irony is that they unlocked the door to power for us and forced us to enter. . . . .

Pretty good spin for a catastrophic legal defeat. The BNP has decided to travel down the same road taken fifty years ago by American conservatives. Instead of fighting the culture war, they have traded their principles for temporary political gain. The inevitable long term result will be deracialization and irrelevancy.

About Hunter Wallace 12380 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. At least the white trooper wasn’t fired. At least he will still be in place, in the future, when things take a turn for the worst.

  2. Because other races have organizations that will stand up and defend their own. Who is helping that white state trooper? No one, he’s all by himself in public.

  3. Do you understand that if the BNP did not do this, they would face a very expensive legal process that they would almost certainly lose? The possibility that this would happen was discussed as far back as 2000. It’s not a surprise or something the BNP was unprepared for.

  4. If, as seems likely, the Conservative Party forms the next British Government, its leader should make a priority of a Freedom of Association Act which should mean exactly what it says in terms of White citizens’ right to separate ourselves and our clubs, associations, societies and political parties from our racial enemies.

  5. Because other races have organizations that will stand up and defend their own. Who is helping that white state trooper? No one, he’s all by himself in public.

    Don’t you find the mentality of most whites (i.e., demonize race consciousness/cover up or minimize non-white crime/etc all in the name of proving “I am not a racist”) a little sick? Whites are utterly unwilling to help their own. The common misconception is that this is due to fear. But in many cases it is white people accepting or aiding sickening actions willingly. This is why I have very great pessimism for the future; so many of our own are gleeful traitors. It is as if this post-Christian humanist anti-racism has become the new “opiate of the masses.”

  6. The BNP has decided to travel down the same road taken fifty years ago by American conservatives.

    I don’t think so. The American conservatives went down that road voluntarily. Everyone knows the BNP were forced to do this. Don’t worry, other than the odd high-caste Hindu non-whites are not queuing up to join the party.

  7. The Conservative Party in the UK would never make any kind of “freedom of association act.” Where on earth did you get the idea that something like this might happen?

  8. This is nothing new for the BNP leadership. In fact it is probably welcomed.

    April 8, 2006
    BNP split after decision to field ‘ethnic’ candidate in local polls
    By Will Pavia

    THERE was turmoil among the rank and file of the British National Party yesterday after a Greek Armenian was selected as a BNP candidate for the local elections.

    The party, which is preparing for its biggest-ever electoral campaign, has chosen Sharif Abdel Gawad to fight Bowling and Bakerend ward in Bradford.

    It describes Mr Gawad as a “totally assimilated Greek Armenian” whose grandfather, an Armenian Christian, claimed asylum in Britain.

    But the posting of his name among the party’s list of candidates has caused uproar among members who believe that the party must field all-white representatives.

    Workers at the party’s headquarters spent yesterday fielding angry calls from members who refused to accept Mr Gawad’s candidacy on race grounds, “even when it was explained that he was not a Pakistani or a Muslim”. There were calls for the regional organiser responsible for Mr Gawad’s selection to resign, and anger at party bosses.

    In 2004 Nick Griffin, the BNP’s leader, tried to force through rule changes allowing non-whites to join the BNP. He backed down after widespread opposition.

  9. The BNP has long thought that niggers, pakis or other shitskins are just fine as long as they “assimilate” and “act British”.

  10. Nordmacht – Proof?

    Seriously, if they really thought that, they would not have waited until *now* to change their constitution.

  11. @Hunter:

    Given that the forthcoming Equality Act will place the illegality of the BNP’s present membership criteria beyond any possible doubt (it is specifically intended to do just that), what benefit do you feel would have accrued to the party by continuing to contest the current action by the EHRC?

    All that has happened is the BNP is changing it’s constitution now, rather than in six months time. What difference does it make?

    The alternative would be to refuse to comply with the law and then be de-registered as a political party once the Equality Act comes into force in esrly 2010.

  12. The BNP is more interested in contesting elections than fighting a discursive struggle over race and identity in the UK. They were not forced to choose that path.

    In order to remain politically relevant, the BNP will moderate its rhetoric. The long term result will be deracialization and subversion from within.

  13. The BNP is more interested in contesting elections because as a political party that it is what it is designed to do. In order to continue to do that, it has to comply with the law as it exists, not how it might wish it to be.

    The existence of the BNP does not preclude the parallel existence of political pressure groups which can display the ideological purity that you seem to seek. In fact several such groups already exist.

  14. By complying with the law, the BNP is gambling with its own constituency. It is betting that the following it has already created will remain ethnocentric and racialized when the new message from the top will be just the opposite.

    I doubt that will remain the case. If anything is true, White Southerners were once even more committed to segregation than the British are to nativism. In the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Southerners complied with the law and flocked into the conservative movement.

    Within three decades, the result was massive deracialization. Southern racial attitudes softened considerably and began to converge with Northern racial attitudes. Racialists used to control entire states. Now Jim Giles can’t even get elected in Mississippi.

  15. Well, the alternative would be for the BNP to cease to exist, which would leave indigenous Britons with no political party that is prepared to speak for them and promote their interests. Please explain why this is a desirable outcome.

    We still await the detail of the modified constitution however the leadership assures us that the core principle of standing up for indigenous rights remains intact, and that anyone who violates the party’s core principles will be expelled. If resident Sikhs or whatever feel compelled to join a party that supports such principles what is so awful about that?

  16. I think we’re getting the BNP’s ‘message’ and its membership criteria a little entangled here. The constitutional change that is being forced upon the BNP by forthcoming legislation relates to the latter only. There is no indication that its core messaging or its basic policy stance and platform have been affected although, as stated, we still await the fine detail.

    There is nothing in the race relations legislation that prohibits a political party from campaigning on a platform of indigenous rights.

  17. DD, why do think the mainstream parties care who gets admitted to the BNP? Why pass a piece of legislation just for the BNP?

  18. HW – It’s not entirely clear what Barnes’s role is in the party, he is officially the in-house legal expert but seems to take it uopn himself to make wide-ranging pronouncements on policy. To what extent he is officially encouraged to do that I have no idea, since Simon Darby is the official party spokesman.

    FB – In the first part, I suspect it was a gamble that went bad. The expectation and hope amongst the BNP’s enemies was that it fight the action and be bankrupted in the process or simply refuse to comply and then go down with all guns blazing. As we can see, neither have come to pass.

    As for the second part, the amendment to the legislation which closes the exemption loophole for political parties organised on racial or ethnic lines does not mention the BNP by name, but since it is the only party whose constitution applies such criteria for membership it was the obvious target.

    Additionally, the amandement has been specifically cited (twice) in Parliament by ministers as an ‘anti-BNP’ measure.

  19. I don’t know if the fatal pessimism is warranted.

    This is like the old roaming bands during the Ice Ages. They not only endured, but found ways to prosper and through this adaptation under crushing hardship for so long, their descendents still benefit, genetically, today.

    They could take this as an opportunity to pull the rug out from under the oppostion. They migh transform into a pan-nationalist, separatism and total autonomy for all (races of) people type party.

    By turning the opposition’s major assault around 180 degrees, into something horrifying to the internationalist liberal establishment, they would set the board for checkmate, or at worst, a stalemate.

Comments are closed.