|THE MISCEGENATION OF THE UNMARRIED http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicky_Pollard|
From the BNP constitution
ANNEX 2 CODE OF CONDUCT
5 The Chairman may proscribe individuals, organisations or publications which are so hostile to our Party, or whose views and/or behaviour are so likely to bring discredit upon our Party, that Members should have no contact with them.
6 Such a hostile individual, publications or group is thenceforth regarded as a rotten apple and proscription is the means by which they are prevented from contaminating others. Not only are the proscribed barred from attending party functions and activities, but Members are barred from attending events organised by them and barred from sharing platforms with them, distributing or advertising literature and electronic media produced by or in support of them, and promoting events at which they are known or – in the opinion of our Party leadership – likely to be attending.
7 Proscriptions shall come into effect on publication in the National
members' bulletin and remain in force until further notice. A full list appears on our Party's website."
I do not know if I really have been PROSCRIBED by the BNP or not. Eddy Butler the ex-National Organiser and ex-member of the BNP is proscribed, so perhaps he will be able to offer me some guidance.
- Is the proscribed individual formally made aware of his or her proscription?
- What is the procedure for proscribing someone?
It is thankfully rather different from the kind of proscription the Romans had to suffer.
Proscription (Latin: proscriptio) is a term used for the public identification and official condemnation of enemies of the state. It is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as a "decree of condemnation to death or banishment" and is a heavily politically charged word, frequently used to refer to state-approved murder or persecution. Proscription implies the elimination en masse of political rivals or personal enemies, and the term is frequently used in connection with violent revolutions, most especially with the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution.
Sulla proceeded to have the Senate draw up a list of those he considered enemies of the state and published the list in the Roman Forum. Any man whose name appeared on the list was ipso facto stripped of his citizenship and excluded from all protection under law; reward money was given to any informer who gave information leading to the death of a proscribed man, and any person who killed a proscribed man was entitled to keep part of his estate (the remainder went to the state). No person could inherit money or property from proscribed men, nor could any woman married to a proscribed man remarry after his death. Many victims of proscription were decapitated and their heads were displayed on spears in the Forum.
Jeffrey Marshall mentioned yesterday rather tentatively he had heard that there was a letter going round a couple of weeks ago to the effect that I am banned from BNP meetings.
This letter was for some reason not circulated to him.
He didn't suppose he was divulging any party secret to me, since if I really was to be banned from meetings then clearly I needed to know about it.
I found this rather puzzling since I already knew that Steve Squire, who invited me to the London Social in September at which the Chairman was present (as you can see at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/09/bnp-social-in-london-on-25-september.html) was subsequently reprimanded for inviting me, though he broke no rules as far as I could see. The rules say nothing about not allowing expelled members to come to meetings.
Rules Governing Official Meetings of a Branch or Group
19 No rigid rules shall govern the holding or conduct of Official Meetings or Executive Meetings of a British Homeland Branch or Group save as are set out in this Annex 4 or otherwise provided for in the constitution of such Branch or Group.
23 Any Official Meeting of a Branch or Group may be open or closed to guests as the Branch Organiser or Group Organiser shall determine on the occasion each such Official Meeting shall be called.
Anyway, whether or not this reprimand was deserved, he would have told the others, I imagine, and none of them would want to invite me and risk getting a similar reprimand.
If I am not told about meetings and don't know when or where to go, I can hardly attend them, can I?
The letter said that anyone who invites me to any meetings will be expelled.
But I don't think it is really about me.
I think this is the beginning of a campaign to expel Jeffrey Marshall who is in my opinion the only credible leadership challenger that has any hope of keeping the party together and connecting with the public.
While Jeffrey would not dream of inviting me to a BNP meeting now that he knows the position, it is probably intended that our known association would be looked at askance by the leadership. First marginalise and damn with faint praise, discredit, and then eventually, expel. If the leadership wants the party to do well, it would give him more responsibility and show him off to the public to see if he shines or wilts.
How sad to discover that it is really true that Nick Griffin will expel anyone who presents himself as an alternative leader, which was a rumour I heard years ago before I was even a member of the party.
Jeffrey Marshall could have been the 2012 London Mayoral Candidate, but I have heard that the Chairman did not even look at it his CV.
In fact, so infuriated by this was one of the members of the LMC selection panel Tess Culnane (who thought that Jeffrey was the best candidate) that she has left the BNP to join the NF. I know Tess did not want me to be LMC on grounds of race, but as far as I am concerned that is fair enough as I am aware of her ideological roots. Our relations have always been perfectly cordial and I find her to be a lady of poise, charm and integrity.
Carlos Cortiglia, who is now the LMC, interestingly, was on the LMC selection panel, which seems highly irregular to me.
The ostensible reason for my proscription was because I said what I said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show found at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/07/transcript-of-what-i-said-on-victoria.html
Apparently, what I said was so terrible that I am to be regarded as a bad apple and to be proscribed to prevent my "contaminating others".
Apparently, the Chairman fears that the London Organisers will suddenly start asserting their right to free speech and expressing controversial views on politics that not everyone will agree with(Oo er!), perhaps even venturing to say that they would not be exactly over the moon if they were faced with the prospect of bringing up a severely disabled offspring as severely disabled as Riven Vincent's, out of taxed income, thereby "bringing the party into disrepute".
Some of us enter politics to advance ourselves, others to serve a Cause.
Those who enter politics to advance themselves will be known for disposing of their rivals by all means possible, irrespective of whether the disposal of their rivals would serve the Cause, as long as they themselves remain Top Dog. This is of course how gangsters behave.
Those who enter politics to serve a Cause would be happy to step aside for someone else better able to do the job.
I like to think I am of the latter persuasion. What is my cause? The expression of what I feel to be the Truth that is defensible on rational grounds in serve of what I feel is in the British National Interest. Since my Cause is entirely dependent on the exercise of Free Speech: use it or lose it. Alarmingly, many educated people these days are not aware of the principle of free speech or cannot articulate or apply it. Here is an easy to remember definition: THE FREE SPEECH OF THE PEOPLE WHOSE VIEWS YOU DISLIKE IS YOUR FREE SPEECH TOO.
But I digress. As I was saying, I have been looking around for someone to do what I am doing for years and years and years. Sadly, rather like the Dutch boy who found that he had to stick his finger in the dyke to prevent his village from being flooded, there really was no one to do the job, and that was why he did it, and stayed out all night with his finger in the dyke - tired, cold, hungry and longing for his bed.
What I find even more alarming is that even now no one has emerged to replace me, who can do the job better, in my opinion.
What is the job?
The job in question is that of articulating a set of policies loudly, frequently and consistently enough for them to be understood in terms of a viable and coherent political ideology that is to replace and draw a line under the failures of the past. No one in nationalism seems interested in talking about anything other than immigration, hatred of Muslims and the EU or addressing (or even discussing) any of the social, economic and political problems that beset this country at root.
This may be because they have no particular opinion and think it is enough to whinge weekly and weakly about these things, or because they are afraid to discuss their ideas in case someone takes offence and gives them a hard time.
For the BNP to advance and prosper, it needs to dump the worst of white people who bring the party into disrepute who make nationalism repugnant to other white people. I apologise for any offence given to anyone reading this who may live in the EU Regions of Yorkshire & Humber and the North West which the Chairman and Andrew Brons represent as MEP, but it does appear to me that it is in these regions where disability and illegitimacy are most prevalent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3749548.stm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillsborough_Disaster#Controversies suggests that English people do not think well of Scousers, for one reason or another. I believe this may be related to their perceived or actual illegitimacy and disability, but I will leave this for others to decide. The point I wish to make is that for the BNP to be dependent on its MEP support from this section of society has been and remains a walking PR nightmare and disaster.
I for my part met a lovely Catholic Liverpudlian couple and their children at a christening not so long ago and they really could not have been nicer. It is of course the rotten apples that contaminate the reputation of this once fair city that I have yet to visit. They will probably shoot me on sight now, I suppose.
The BNP to be successful would need to be non-racist, educated, courageous and cultured with just the right balance of inclusivity and exclusivity (perhaps I am subconsciously describing myself, I do not know), and not associated with people without the education and the inclination to compete with foreigners, associated with Scunthorpe and Scousers. We already know what an incorrigible snob the English voter is, who voted for David Cameron because he is a toff and rejected David Davies because he is not, even though he had all the policies.
The BNP should be the party for the put-upon lower middle classes - not welfare scroungers, but the independent trader and small businessman (and this would include the Asian shopkeeper who works so hard). These are the people with the initiative and the enterprise who know they want
- selective education
- lower taxes (20% flat rate income tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums)
- fewer laws
- the repeal of all totalitarian "liberal" thoughtcrime anti-discrimination legislation
- their children to be taught properly
- criminals to be punished properly
- family values supported by marriage ie child benefit to be abolished and slut single mums to be stigmatised
- the end of usury (which would prevent governments and individuals from borrowing and lending irresponsibly and make the pound in your pocket keep its value).
In other words, the BNP should seek the vote of the likes of Derek Trotter of Fools and Horses rather than the characters in Shameless. The BNP really started in the East End of London where, Jeffrey Marshall, the cockney son of a publican whose clientele included the Krays, was born. Let us hope he has the energy and inclination to reclaim the party from the Northern cities that get such a bad press for all sorts of social and historical reasons.
The BNP could reclaim its London roots and make London claim it as a party, but only if it had a new constitution that would be the version here more or less based on the old BNP constitution http://www.thenationalparty.org.uk/constbnp mutatis mutandis, embraced civic nationalism and courted the non-white vote. (What I liked most about the old constitution was its annual leadership elections, which would have the effect of keeping the Chairman/Mdm Chairman on his/ her toes. This was what John Tyndall whom I believe to be an honourable man whatever you think of his views believed was right and just.) We all know how right-wing most non-whites are. My belief is that they could be got onside the moment they could be made not to feel turkeys voting for Christmas if they voted BNP. (Once this happens, the scaredy cat white people will start voting BNP too.)
The BNP should be the party of the aspirational and the enterprising, not the already failed but who never tried class who have been on the dole after generations of illegitimacy and who are now apparently also disabled to a significant extent and who have become, it pains me to say this, degenerate.
The BNP should raise its game and aspire to a better class of voter instead of clinging desperately to its "core supporters" that continue to bring the party into disrepute.
Of course I would be saying that it is the Khaw supporters (pun intended) who are the Great White Hope of Civic British Nationalism, which I maintain will be enough to give the Ethno nationalists enough of what they want through eventually achieving a merger with UKIP and getting on with the business of effective and Muscular Euroscepticism.
It is not I who brings the party into disrepute, otherwise the liberal media would not be ignoring me. If I were bringing the party into disrepute I would be hounded by the press just as Chris Hurst was during the "Hand of Hate" incident, but the liberal media give me a wide berth, because they know that any reporting of me would in fact put the party in a good light. In any case, they know they are forbidden by the totalitarian NUJ from reporting any story that would make the BNP look good. http://www.reportingthebnp.org/ evidences this clear statement of bias against impartial reporting.
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/11/something-for-nationalists-to-do-while.html contains my proposal on how to have a leadership contest even amongst ex-BNP members. I have every intention of throwing my hat in the ring in the event of this idea having enough support in the Nationalist movement.