The BNP policy on protectionism is based on what we call 'Ethical Capitalism' which is a form of capitalism that is based on strict environmental, social and ethical principles which do not exploit workers, children, the natural environment, communities, society or rights of workers in foreign nations - both in the UK and abroad.
The endless list of faulty goods imported into the West that have injured and killed people, the environmental destruction caused to developing nations, the corruption caused by the West in developing nations, the child labour and slavery - all these things must be stopped and in order to do that we intend to prohibit any imports into the UK from nations that exploit their own people and environments.
This is the antidote to the poison of globalism, a free market model that places the people and the environment before profits for the global corporations and corrupt governments.
The Tories in Nothing British About the BNP, and their left wing lackeys, all support the globalisation of the planet - the Tories because it makes them rich when they import in cheap consumer goods to peddle to people and the Left because a global free market means the free movement of people around the world to act as surplus labour.
Any political party that does not adopt our model of Protectionism and Ethical Capitalism is a party that is in the grasp of the global slave traders and eco-destroyers.
The BNP does not want cheap consumer goods peddled in the UK that make the rich richer and the poor in Britain and abroad poorer.
The BNP are the only moral and ethical political party in Britain, as only we put the interests of our people - AND THE INTERESTS OF ALL PEOPLE AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT - before the interests of the global exploiters.
Here is what our manifesto says below ;
Globalisation and the Protection of British Industry
The BNP opposes globalisation which is extremely harmful to our nation for two reasons:
- It results in the importation into the West of millions of immigrants (in the form of “cheap” labour) from the Third World; and
- It transfers technology, manufacturing and industry to the Third World. This in turn causes the exploitation in labour in those nations and ultimately the collapse of our own living standards due to the inability of our industries to compete with that “cheap” labour.
The BNP also objects to the existence of disagreeable practices in the Third World, often tolerated by globalist corporations in the pursuit of international profit.
Such examples include the employment of child labour, the use of political and other prisoners to produce goods, lax environmental rules that would not be tolerated in the West, poor protection for workers, the absence of trades unions and employees’ representation, onerous working hours, an absence of social security systems, health insurance and so on.
Clearly, this places overseas enterprises at a considerable commercial advantage and facilitates cheap competition.
We are also aware of the restrictions many countries impose to protect their home industry, either in the form of red tape or direct tariffs.
We shall therefore impose selective tariffs on the import of goods from the Third World. Only those foreign nations and corporations who agree to abide by our strict social, environmental and ethical trading policies will be permitted to export their goods freely into the United Kingdom market.
To allow industry and commerce to adapt, tariffs will be imposed gradually through the years of our first term in office.
We are wary of the burden this may place on British consumers. In consequence, to avoid any general upward price movement, we shall reduce VAT (or such equivalent as we may introduce) with a view to securing revenue neutrality.
As already observed, some 60 percent of the world’s trade occurs as internal transfers within multinational corporations. This is detrimental to the environment and the measures outlined in this manifesto will diminish this proportion.
Not least, the option of closing down British manufacturing or services in favour of the Third World will become an unattractive proposition.
Finally, whilst we oppose globalisation, we would observe that the process creates disequilibrium within developing countries where self-sufficiency is eroded in favour of cash-crops, for example, at an expense to the environment.
22 comments:
Lee,
if you were partially responsible for dropping up the policy, then perhaps you can help clarify:
a)what levels of tariffs you're proposing to implement and on what industries?
b) if you're reducing VAT to compensate for your tariff increases, then how do you plan to pay for your long proposed income tax cuts?
We will establish an independent body that will 'audit' the nations and corporations we trade with - and if nations and corporations that exploit their people, workers and natural environment are discovered then their imports will be banned.
The tariffs would be set by the audit body, and would reflect the harm being done in the nations they are assessing and the damage being caused by the corporations that are causing the problems.
Seeing as our aim is to create a re-vitalised British industrial and manufacturing base - then the imports policy will apply across the board.
Whilst imports will be banned VAT will be lowered, or scrapped, on British produced goods - thereby incentivising people to buy British produced goods.
Of course the worst offenders will be targeted first - nations such as China, India and others that use slave labour and child labour and that destroy their own or the natural environments of others eg China and the rape of Africa for resources.
Our income tax reductions are based on ;
1) leaving the EU = 15 billion per year
2) scrapping the 150 billion pounds per year EU regulatory burdens on British business which will kick start the British economy via improving productivity and competitiveness
3) scrapping the Servile State and political correctness in all its forms = around 5 billion per year I estimate
4) Re-Nationalising the NHS and banning the 1-2 million illegals in the UK accessing all public services, which means we can improve those public services, improve waiting times and deliver better services without spending a penny on them extra - as we are removing the parasites who abuse them at the moment
5) creating a manufacturing industrial base that will export goods to the world - we will develop high energy efficiency and green energy systems for export to the third world for example and develop our own coal mines and create coal fired power plants to produce electricity.
6) We will incentivise our talented British people who have white flighted to foreign nations to come back to the UK with business development grants and loans to set up new businesses to replace the foreign imports - hence producing a new economic boom.
I have one disagreement with the BNP policy on paying immigrants to leave, I believe they should not be paid a penny.
If they are here illegally then they get booted out without a penny.
All the money we have should be spent on paying our people to return - not paying people to leave as that way the money stays in the UK and is used to develop our national economy.
These are just a basic outline.
I would type more but my fingers ache.
Meanwhile, in the puppet theatre -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7639406/General-Election-2010-Parties-misleading-voters-over-deficit-warns-think-tank-IFS.html
Thanks for that response.
Nick Griffin in the past suggested that the income tax policy would be paid for by a VAT increase (as did, from memory, the 2005 manifesto - has that policy changed?
If you're using all your proposed savings to pay for your income tax cut then how do you plan to cut the deficit?
And I'm guessing when you say "imports will be banned", that was just a figure of speech?
Yes, the policy has changed.
The deficit will be cut in many ways, reduced public spending expenditure, increased business tax revenues as the economy grows under a BNP government, from taxes on the banks and a Tobin tax, the deficit will be cut from as many sources as we can as we cut back the PC servile state and re-nationalise the British economy and public services.
Imports that are based on exploiting workers and the environment, the environment or that derive from regimes like China that use slave labour or India that use child labour will be phased out, and as we rebuild our manufacturing base in the UK to produce those goods for ourselves to replace imports, then eventually banned.
We will create a national economy for our benefit, not for the benefit of the globalists.
I favour VAT being reduced on British produced goods whilst VAT increased on goods imported from nations that are in breach of our ethical trading rules.
If you want to buy a chinese produced DVD player you can, but you will pay a lot more for it.
Wonderful stuff Lee, really impressed by this, it has moral as well as financial benefits for all.
again the corporate owned Tories and Labour slags want everyone to work for a bowl of rice a day!
They think their class based superior private education will save them - not in the soviet EUSSR it wont that will seek to shut down the class system they are so fond off and not against the intelligent Chinese.
Lee,
Protectionism does not protect in a global environment. It isolates, and that is not the same thing at all. If you understood business and trade you would know the difference.
One of the three great difficulties the BNP has, after its lack of intellectualism and the identification of nationalism generally with fascism, is its lack of economic literacy. It doesn't matter too much while the party is at its present stage of electoral development. But it will matter in the future, we must hope. The time is coming when actual thinkers - specialists in economics and other fields - will be needed.
How will it be decided if some country is exploiting enough to warrant an import ban.
Can I suggest that the public have a role to play, if the internet is free, the public can play a role in alerting people about overseas abuses and so form their own lobby groups to ban or restrict imports.
I suspect the reason we have so much foreign technology is not because the Public do not care about overseas exploitation or the loss of their own jobs but because these issues have not been pointed out to them.
The BBC have rarely if ever talked about globalization and what it really means, for very good reasons of course, the powers that be know the collective mind cannot see more than one move deep without assistance.
Tens of thousands might know the truth but as long as millions don't, they can get away with it.
Making the public more aware of the consequences of their actions is one tool.
EG Going out for a meal at your favourite Indian restaurant might be enjoyable, but have you thought that your local Pub could use your business too.
These seemingly simple points need pointing out to the public at large, the fact that their cheap imports are exploiting child labour etc.
Sort of on Topic this one, with regards to individual protectionism, it's no real stretch of the imagination to see that the very basics of life are being placed out of our reach as a means of social control.
Agenda 21 specifically states we are to be herded into cities ( Floods and loss of postal services, local community facilities and bus routes to outlying areas help this agenda along )
Agenda 21
Obviously what is needed is a counter culture to oppose this such as alternative means of food, energy, cooking and fuel.
Here are a few suggestions I've come accross on my travels around the internet that I hope people can find usefull and will maybe help spread the info around.
Veg Oil used in Deisel Cars
Fresnel lens, cooking and energy concentration
Solar Cooking in General
Natural Bushcraft UK
Parabolic reflectors/concentrators
More on reflectors
Ok a lot of these are used in Africa etc but they will work in the ~UK in summer and in winter.
In winter, although it may be cold, we still have sun, a large reflector will concentrate enough energy to be able to cook with and more importantly boil and distill water.
This is important since people can live for weeks without food, only days without water.
If I were an evil deranged Globalist psychopath and wanted to get rid of a lot of people very quickly, I'd use water to do it.
Water needs to be taken to around 160 def F to sterilize it but this will only kill off most pathogens, it will not remove toxins ( I'm thinking chemtrails )
For that, distillation is the answer, throwing away the first bit of condensate since more volatile compounds will boil off first.
Let's not forget we also have the use of Fire, so all in all, while a little inconvenient, there is no need for us to be slaves to the Globalists.
Fost small scale electricity production there are Peltier devices, these can operate in one of two ways.
By passing a current through them, they can be used to transfer heat from one side to the other.
IE one side will get warm, while the other side gets cold.
These devices are used in small portable picnic coolers, fridges etc.
Conversly, if you arrange it so one side is warmed or cooled, this will GENERATE a small amount of electric current, depending on the rating of the device, enough to power a radio or small lamp, or trickle charge larger Batteries.
These devices are readily available from Ebay (imported from china of course )
Peltier Devices
Guessedworker,
you are playing semantics again.
You say isolate, we say protectionism. And if they equate to the same thing - good. Isolationalism and autarchy is far preferable to globalism.
The economics manifesto was written primarily by Andrew Moffat, an international stocks trader - so I think he has a good idea on the economics of globalism.
I think that the time has come for those who have something to contribute to our development do so - instead of lecturing us from the sidelines.
If you have ideas then join up and impress us with them.
Those outside the party have no idea who, or what, those in the party think nor their qualifications.
Good idea Adrian - the people that buy the goods have a right to know how the goods they buy are produced.
Lee one thing the globalists and brainwashed free market zombies ignore is the deliberate deindustrialisation of the west.
This was set out as a planned agenda by the NWO globalists many years ago, the manufacturing base was deliberately moved to china to destroy the west and they used the free market dogma to do it.
It is used to break down a nation states ability to be self reliant and also to weaken the more powerful nations, so no one nation could rise above the rest to gain dominace - or rather claim its country back from the globalist NWO elite, and to strip its citisens of any financial clout to be independant of the state, it is a game of interdependance and a race to the bottom.
as said if you want a global system of trade you will end up competing for a bowl of rice a day.
an interesting video from an ex mi6regarding the matter and others NWO related -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMb05Zndt1g&feature=player_embedded#
We also object to scum Traitor Communists that now fill "our" Parliment taking vast sums of money to letting the likes of Muslim Lybian filth called Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who killed 270 of our people.
T
Surely Protectionism is just common sense, If you liken the world to a ship and various calamities to the sea, it makes sense that there should be individual bulkheads, mso that the destruction of one economy or crop failure, does not take the whole ship down as has happened.
The Banking crisis that started in America has taken us all down.
The Swine flu which started in Mexico has, or could have affected us all.
etc.
Globalism puts us all in the same boat with no protective bulkheads.
There can be doors between these bulkheads and people can still trade between each other but in safety.
We should build our own cars, if someone wishes to buy a BMW they should be allowed to, imports should be allowd where it stimulates our own manufacturers to be competitive but not so much that it threatens the work of our own people.
Currently we are all at sea in the same boat, with no protective bulkheads and the hull is filling with water.
We need to elect Nationalist Govts who will put in place protective bulkheads.
If we still had our fishing grounds, if we still had car manufacturing, consumer electronics manufacturing, ship building, if there was no eu red tape, if we still had coal, and oil, if we grew a small fraction of bio fuels and if we had kept control of our borders would we be in this position now.
I'm a Libertarian, I think but even I can see the state needs to provide some services, if you let industry conspire together they will do exactly that to fix prices and fleece the people.
Look at energy, for decades, the people have been told they can save money by insulating, buying eceonomy electricity, double glazing, lagging their tank, buying low wattage bulbs.
All this has done is cut into the profits of the energy companies.
So what do they do, they put their Prices up of course.
The public can never win this because there is no one currently who thinks of the people.
Companies think only of maximizing Profit.
The role of Govt ought to be to protect its people.
So the basic utilities need to be under public control, if some company can supply energy or water as an alternative and provide a reasonable alternative, all well and good, they should be encouraged but the bottom line is as the BNP says, Industry and Govt should serve our society, not the other way round.
Going back to the public involvement in ethics bit, if the public are simply made aware that company X exploits its workers, then the public can choose to buy or not.
Company X sufferes as a result, until they change their ways, very little cost to Govt, all it has to do is allow the public to be informed.
Saves money on enforcing import controls and helps the people of the third world.
IE you will only sell more products here if the public see you treating your workers better.
Needs to be backed by intel, and proper ~Journalism because Company Y could spread malicious romours about Company X etc.
As for the need for economists monetary specialists, I think I'm with Ron Paul on this one, when asked how he would run the economy he responded he wouldn't, it runs itself, if a company fails it fails, we are in a mess as a society because Govts have interfered with Natural selection and run the economy for big business rather than for society.
Lee,
This is not a semantic issue. The country that protects in isolation is economically isolated, and in the long term will starve.
The English economy needs not isolating protectionism but relief from the burden of specific cost factors.
Foremost among these is the cost of debt-servicing. I understand if the BNP cannot be seen to intend to end the banking dynasties control of issuing our currency. But that is the revolutionary step, nevertheless, leading to the one-time abolition of all debt - household, private, business and corporate, institutional, public and national.
The banks have to be destroyed and reformed, and the currency has to be issued by our own government and be pegged to a basket of leading currencies.
In addition to targeting the cost of money, we need to target the costs of land, transport, energy and employment through the tax system. Maximising international competitiveness is a much more effective model than protectionism.
"If you understood business and trade you would know the difference."
I'm sure that the BNP are far ahead of the game in their rational future policy of stopping the billions of pounds wasted in foreign aid to third world countries and paying off the EU to aid EU foreign aid to third world countries. We even gave millions to India whilst India spent a billion on their space rocket technology. The UK not giving to foreign aid will be able to use those billions to create UK jobs, build UK infrastructure and so invite more people to live and work in modernised towns, use state of the art public transportation and enjoy a major improved roads system Or would you rather, literally, watch your billions spent on foreign rocket ships, foreign projects to build the infrastructure of developing countries? or the billions of British tax pounds which are going to help pay off brutal dictatorships, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan etc etc
Ask cameron if he will stop foreign aid, the answer will be no.
Anonymous,
You appear not to have understood the point at issue. It is this: how best to shape economic policy to serve the wishes and wellbeing of our people.
Government need actually do very little. In fact, it must do very little. The most dynamic force in the economic world is the desire of men to compete. Government's objective should be to maximise this healthy instinct.
There are many ways that this can be attended to. But if government attempts to either compete directly for us or protect us from competition (or, God help us, do re-Distributism), it will cock it all up. There is nothing special about BNP people that makes them immune to this iron law of human organisation.
It is important to understand that socialism is not economically valid because effect - even in the medium-term - is negative on the competitive instinct. As a word describing the social policies that emerge naturally from a recognition of kinship it is fine. But it is social policies that need to attend in the main to negative freedoms. Economic policies must in the main attend to positive freedoms.
There is a great deal more to running a country than near-horizon, bells and whistles stuff like the EU and foreign aid. In that respect there is absolutely no sign that "the BNP is far ahead of the game". I concede that it does not need to be at this point in its electoral development. But it will need to intellectualise to move forward - that is my point, really, and a point I have been making consistently for some years now.
And verily yet again the great genius Guessedworker cometh forth from his cloud and bestweth upon us mere mortals his divine wisdom - pity he hasnt got the balls to actually get out from behind his keyboard and actually contribute something positive to nationalism instead of whining and pissing all the time about the real nationalists that do the real work - such as standing for election.
YAWN.
Keyboard warriors = a fucking joke.
Lee,
You should ask me about why I am not a party member before answering for me in the rather shrieky-Marxist way that you just did. You do it too often. It isn't your most attractive feature.
He is a "real nationalist", by the way, who stands upon the shoulders of thinking men to scan the horizon. The fellow who is staring at the ground is a nativist. The BNP is a nativist party. The members bandy this word "nationalism" around, but it is a husk. It has no intellectual content.
That does not matter too much yet, because Nick's project of taking the party away from the fascist model and towards the democratic model was completely necessary and continues to yield results. But its narrowness - nativism is inevitably narrow - will prove constricting. It is only a question of time.
So what, in the meanwhile, are people interested in ideas supposed to do? Hang around the village war memorial every Saturday sadly nursing a flag-draped stall of unsold newspapers? Stand for councillor in a ward where, to quote Jeffrey Archer, they don't count the Tory vote, they weigh it?
Lee, thinking people want to contribute their thought. But the party is anti-intellectual, and that's the problem.
I am sure you, and a million others, could make a long, long list of a myriad reasons why they are armchair nationalists who hide behind a keyboard.
I can give you one good reason why you need to stop hiding behind a keyboard - because in less than thirty years we will be a minority in our own country.
You have to be in a political party, and involved in the struggle, to win.
Thoughts are not enough.
Deeds count.
Lee,
It is exactly the other way around. A month ago at MR I was asked by an old-school British nationalist - an intelligent and articulate man - what I meant when I used the term "Inevitablism". This was my (slightly florid) reply:-
You are insisting, Lee, that "the universal bloke" can deliver himself from danger. I am pointing out that it has never been done before. It seems inevitable. But that is the most dangerous of all the dreams.
You missed the florid bit out.
A combination of bad code and the fact that your software doesn't accept blockquotes. I'll try again without them. Here's the missing passage:
Inevitablism is, if you like, the overcoming nature of the life energy as it manifests in political struggle. In our age and in our racial context it is bound up with the tendency of the adversity we face to provoke the will to survive, and to shape a political means of survival. Adversity drives us, as a people, not apart but together. Our comprehension of that adversity does not fail or fade but intensifies and flows into populism. Seeming barriers to unity are overcome and agreement is forged, and the impossible becomes possible. The result, if it is not too dramatic for me to say so, and given that our national symbol is the sea, is that we become the skiff in the storm that sets its prow to the rolling waves and drives indomitably upward towards each crest. And, after all, it is inevitable. No skiff ever voted to sink.
Of course, skiffs do sink. Storms do overcome them. The overcoming nature of the life energy is not an absolute guarantee. So the question becomes what more is required, what additional buoyancy and motive power, to deliver us from our imperilment. And the answer to that lies, imo, with our intellectuals.
The entire project can be reduced to nativism and Inevitablism. These two describe everything. This isn't to decry it, because I think it is a very extraordinary thing. But its historical mission is also extraordinary, and is, in brief, the complete replacement of liberalism as our thought-world, together with all the elites and institutions and historical trends, including demographic trends, that exist today.
That is our task, of which "getting elected" is but a part. Am I getting through to you yet, Lee?
Post a Comment