Talk:British National Party

	This British political parties related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

To link or not to link (to the BNP website)? On the one hand, it is a political party's website. On the other hand, it is basically a racist website (although not as blatantly racist as, say, Metapedia), and I know there is a semi-official policy of not linking to racist sites. At the moment I've put two links to it, clearly labelled, in footnotes, but haven't put a link to it in 'external links', where I put a link to an anti-BNP site instead. If the consenus is not to link to the BNP site at all, these can be replaced with links to Wikipedia, where most of these quotes also appear. weaseLOId~ 10:13, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

The question is, would linking benefit the article? Possibly not, I don't think we need to cite anything from it as you would do when trying to document something Metapedia has said, for example. So really, there's no need, although their shop that sells "patriotic" stuff is good for a laugh and might be worth linking to. ^gnostic 16:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

From elsewhere

It's all very well for white liberals to go on about freedom of speech, but they aren't getting their heads kicked in. Totnesmartin 17:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And the irony of that is, you cannot tell if it was Mr. Griffin or a Red from Searchlight who said it. Who did say it? ListenerX^TalkerX 17:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"A red from searchlight?" Do you mean "someone who dislikes racists", or are we all red from where you are? Anyway, It was someone I know online with strong anti-racist views. Totnesmartin 17:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Was Searchlight not founded by a communist? Is its publisher and first editor not a communist? ListenerX^TalkerX 17:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And therefore, everyone who ever worked for it is a communist. Of course. And if ludmer and gable were communists, what of it? Totnesmartin 18:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at their website recently? Just now I went over there and at one glance I saw: (1) T-shirts for sale commemmorating the communist British Battalion in the Spanish Civil War; (2) an advertisement to support a widow who is campaigning to overturn laws that invalidated the will of her husband, which left all his money to the Communist Party in Sweden; (3) iconography with raised fists.

What of it? They are equating "anti-racism" with communism, and in their battle against "hate," they are thumbing their nose at little insignificant things like civil rights. See here for an example. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What has any of this got to do with BNP? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. It's Listener's utter irrational hatred of communists showing through. Time time Hoover! 19:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As per always. I am tired of seeing threads on virtually every subject derailed in this direction. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Searchlight is an anti-fascist magazine that mounts large-scale campaigns against the BNP "in the courts and on the streets." ListenerX^TalkerX 19:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Time time Hoover! 19:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is poorly typed.

It would be a heck of a lot better if it weren't typed by little Stalins. I am disappointed in you all. ^{— Unsigned, by: 70.79.166.84 / talk / contribs}

The typing looks good to me. How about injecting a little red-hatred over at Cloward-Piven strategy? ħuman 06:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Listener didn't make the comment Human, only added the nosig. - π 06:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Well, my invitation still stands. ħuman 06:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not Red-bait with an allusion to Ward Churchill, in any event. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "bait", I said "hate". Either way, I meant it all in good fun. ħuman 07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with the BNP

Make them take the citizenship test - by definition they should all pass without revision.

Failure = banishment to "somewhere appropriate."^{— Unsigned, by: 212.85.6.26 / talk / contribs}

Hey 212.85.6.26 - your talk page is full of people asking you to sign you comments.--Bob^{It's windy!} 17:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Right Wing?

According to the political compass ([1]), the BNP is rather more socalist than capitalist. 110.32.136.49 (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is discussed at the populism article. - π 10:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

fascist groups are often labelled right wing (something to with all that race hate stuff i think), but they describe themselves as having a "third position" between socialism and capitalism. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that at the wild extremes of both right and left it starts to get hard to tell them apart. Perhaps there are only a certain number of really loony political ideas.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

BNP and the monarchy

Brenda is part German, part Scottish, part French, part Danish, and 'part quite a few other things' and is married to a Greek.

Where would the BNP send the family?

82.198.250.67 (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Brenda - byname Queeny.

82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Law and Order

In addition to hanging and flogging, in the run-up to the 2010 election, I heard a BNP spokescum say that they would send establish a penal colony on South Georgia (the Antarctic island, not the US state). Seriously. ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.179.239.196 / talk / contribs}

Interesting, do you think you could find a link? ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ brah yaaarrgh mrh gruh bruragh! 19:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Batty Nutty Pillocks? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Schlafly bit

Are we still keeping those sections in mainspace articles that are about CP? I though perhaps we were removing them. Blue (is useful) 04:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not particularly interesting or relevant so kill it. ^gnostic 04:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

(EC)We're trying to in general, yes. But this one seems like a decent little section. I suppose it could be moved the AS article to leave this one with one less racist... ħuman 04:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesus fucking Christ, let a conversation occur first will ya? ħuman 04:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see your comment, Human. Calm down. Blue (pester) 04:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So, um, one post after one minute is enough to delete a section? Sheesh. At least copy it to talk for posterity/discussion. ħuman 04:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I suppose I did pull a CUR (<- did I use that correctly?) I'm a WikiDragon by nature, so please forgive me. Blue (pester) 04:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My point is, why would anyone reading this article care about Andy's opinion? Correct me if I'm blatantly wrong, but that's why there's a separate CP namespace. Blue (pester) 04:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, I rescued it over to the AS article. ħuman 04:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick Griffin article?

Didn't there used to be an article dedicated to Nick Griffin on this site as well, or am I remembering incorrectly? I was planning to just go to his page and add Category:homophobes but I just got redirected here. I'm sure I remember seeing a portrait shot of him on RW.^{— Unsigned, by: Polite Timesplitter / talk / contribs}

No, it was only ever a redirect; perhaps the photo you remember was removed from this article for copyright reasons, or something. Balaam (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, a brief google didn't get me that image I was thinking of so that's probably the case. On a side note:

Nick Griffin Esq MEP

Y Gribin,

Llanerfyl,

Y Trallwng Welshpool

SY21 0JQ

01938 820560

Just being fair ;) Polite Timesplitter ^{talk to me sugar, but best keep it on the}_down-low 19:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we stop beating around the bush?

The BNP is Fascist. Here's my case. First, some external sources -http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00313220500045170 -http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00313220601118777?journalCode=rpop20 -http://books.google.com/books?id=5FiBQgAACAAJ&dq=isbn:1403902143&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cu20UZyfC4a6hAeKm4GgDw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA -http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/014466607X264103/abstract;jsessionid=99D5985C16E2BF5D2615BD04B068A3C1.d02t01 -http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/24/uk.thefarright For my input, Fascism is first very nationalistic, which the BNP clearly is by observation. The NF was so clearly fascist it can't be argued it wasn't.--P3A58NT86 21:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

We describe the BNP as nationalist in the opening line; something you tried to take out! I really don't see where you think this article is beating about the bush when it's very explicit about the party's racist policies & overtones from start to finish. Neither do I see much to be gained by tossing the word "fascist" around, a term so widely overused & misused it's become politically meaningless. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A good point, but its not meaningless if used properly. Fascism is also totalitarian. Look at the BNP's domestic policy. It's headed that way.--P3A58NT86 22:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

IANAB (I am not a Brit) but I was under the impression that the BNP is generally acknowledged as a fascist party in Britain despite its denials. Even TOW lists them as fascist and they are much more circumspect about such labels. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally known to be nationalistic, sure, but only really labelled "fascist" by the people who, as mentioned above, toss the term around so freely that it ceases to mean anything useful (such as by the people who label Boris Johnson as a fascist - Christ, I know he's a bit of a bellend but he's not Mussolini). The BNP are certainly acknowledged to be more nationalistic and racist than UKIP, although the line blurs when you look through their actual positions in detail. But fascist? Not really. Not sure why TOW lists it as fascist, and I can't see from the abstract of that first link why they should be, either. They're very pro-democracy as a party, albeit only when it suits them; you know, like almost all political parties. ^gnostic 00:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Fascism usually is totalitarian and advocates a single-party state, but the BNP doesn't have to try to take over the UK to do that. Fascists promote the establishment of such a state. According to Gentile, totalitarianism is their "conception of the primacy of politics, conceived of as an integrating experience to carry out the fusion of the individual and the masses in the organic and mystical unity of the nation as an ethnic and moral community, adopting measures of discrimination and persecution against those considered to be outside this community either as enemies of the regime or members of races considered to be inferior or otherwise dangerous for the integrity of the nation". All I'm saying is that the definition seems to fit, and that the NF was overtly fascist.--P3A58NT86 01:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Weaseloid and others. The introductory line loses any impact once it's changed to this[2]. I can imagine people reading it and thinking 'libtards call anyone who disagrees with them a fascist!!' I also think the placement of the strikethrough would only help support that assumption in their minds. IslamoCriticism (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but it doesn't have to be put there. I don't want to be THAT guy and make a whiny article yelling fascist, I was thinking that maybe we could make a subsection with some rational commentary about it. Facsism isn't always a dictatorship either, though it can be. The Italian ANI wanted an authoritarian corporatist state.--P3A58NT86 17:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

A section on prominent members with neo-Nazi backgrounds (such as the founder, John Tyndall) would probably suffice. Balaam (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. That would work. What does everyone else think?--P3A58NT86 19:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great. IslamoCriticism (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

St George and the BNP

Why St George's flag - he was Armenian. ^{— Unsigned, by: 171.33.222.26 / talk} 17:50, 10 June 2013

He's the patron Saint of England because he defended us from the Ottoman Turks. The fact that the British proudly adopt his flag as a national icon shows our gratitude to other countries so it's quite ironic that white supremacists such as the National Front and the BNP use St. George's Cross. ^{— Unsigned, by: Let Them Eat Cake / talk / contribs} 13:38, 26 January 2015‎

Huh, defended England from the Ottoman Turks, or do you mean Armenia? When? Where? Not to mention that Saint George died in 303 AD or about a thousand years before Osman I for whom the Ottomans are named. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: I think what's meant is that Saint George was adopted by the Norman aristocracy of England when crusading in the Holy Land (i.e. in the vicinity of where George had kicked around about 700 years previously). However, the opponent wasn't the Ottoman Turks, but the Abbasid Caliphate and the Seljuk Turks.

Extra dose of irony: The Normans were "Frenchified" and Christianised Vikings ("Northmen") who displaced some of what were originally continental Anglo-Saxons (from the North Sea coast of what is today the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark,) who in turn had displaced the slightly more indigenous Celtic peoples, such as the Welsh and the Scots, or at least those who hadn't already been displaced by the Romans. So yeah, English/British supremacists are really into some weird mental gymnastics. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Are all BNP members Neo-Nazis

Just wondering if I should add to those categories--Jakester499 (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really. It tends to drag in populist nationalists that don't necessarily hit the usual Neo-Nazi buttons. The core of UK extreme right groups is pretty much the same faces; EDL, BNP, NF, BF. A particular moniker tends to get dropped when it's no longer possible to pretend it's a legit political group, only for the usual suspects to rally around a different name. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 20:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

SHIT!!!1!1!1!!1--Jakester499 (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Page links from Nazism series. Not part of Nazism series.

Was reading the article on Lebensraum and saw the British National Party linked in the series, but this article doesn't list itself as part of a series on Nazism. Seems odd having it arise in the "part of a series on" area of another article without it itself also being part of that series. If A is an article about subject C, and B is linked in the bar explaining it as such, then, IMHO, B should be part of subject C, or should not be linked.^{— Unsigned, by: 73.37.12.78 / talk / contribs}