Is the BNP a spent political party?

Scroll to see replies

So what? Muslims are responsible for some of the crimes perpetrated in the UK so he has the right to bring these difficult issues to the public's attention.

That would hold true if it was applied across the board. But Muslims seem to be the only ones mentioned. You don't hear Griffin pointing out white people's crimes do you? I wonder why not.

Reply 41

chefdave

Original post by de_monies

That IS the argument. Exclusive clubs and political parties CAN harm others, especially as initially the BNP said they wish to deport any one non White who hasn't been here since the 1850's

This is another irrelevence. This issue is whether it's ok to allow white people to form private clubs along racial lines, as we have a history of allowing civil society to operate without state meddling I believe the BNP had every right to deny blacks, women, dwarfs etc membership of their exclusive club. The whole point of a club that it sets up a divide between us (the members) and them (the non-members), if you're saying this is dangerous because it fosters inter-community tensions then logically it would suggest we should close all clubs down. If you just have a problem with whites and the BNP you're prejudiced. Which is it?

Whilst I believe that they should have men as members, because it is sexist otherwise, they do have a male secretary
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8229754/Womens-Institute-appoints-first-male-secretary-in-95-year-history.html

Great, the token male! They still deny men the ability to join their club and they're perfectly entitled to do this because they're a private organisation.

So are some Christians, so are some Sikhs etc... It makes much bigger news if you happen to mention Muslim throughout the article. Take the DM for example. There was an article about a husband who supposedly raped his wife, and he was White. No where in the article did it mention his nationality or religion. If a Pakistani Muslim was to do the same thing, it would have been plastered throughout the entire article

I think the difference is that we're lumbered with white criminals whether we like it or not. The government in all their wisdom however decided to import large numbers of foriegn immigrants because thought the UK was too homogenous and subvertly racist. There's nothing wrong with exposing the fallacy of left-wing 'logic' by highlighting the social problems their ill thought out experiment is now causing.

I also mentioned that he does occasionally target Jews as well, and he occasionally targets Black people. What are your excuses for them?

So jews and blacks are angels who have never commited a crime?

There are going to be rape gangs, consisting of "Christians" as well y'know....

Prove it.

The BNP have only been told to accept non Whites. The Black police association does not discriminate against non Blacks and nor should the BNP

In a tolerant society this wouldn't have happened. The victimisation of the BNP demonstrates we live in intolerant times.

They already denied people's rights by refusing them to join a party, purely on the basis of their skin colour.

Don't be silly. I don't remember having my rights compromised because I was never offered BNP membership. I expect you weren't even aware of this policy until the courts made a big fuss over it.

Nah, but threatening to deport every one who isn't White is fine

It's a statement that should be allowed to made in a country that respects freedom of expression.

Reply 42

chefdave

Original post by frankieboy

How does immigration and multi-culturalism have anything to do with "blending" white people out of existence? That's the typical twisted fallacy we always hear from misguided BNP supporters.

They only "blend" out of existence if they mate with people from different races, which should be left up to them, and is going to happen whether or not we have mass immigration etc.

In other words - white people may be surrounded by people of different ethnicities, but no one's forcing them to mate with them or adopt their culture. Just live alongside it and tolerate it, that's all.

Deliberating flooding a racially homogenous area with immigrants from across the globe in my opinion constitutes a form of soft ethnic cleansing. If the citizens of a community consent to such a policy then that's one thing, but forcing it upon them against their will and then branding them 'racist' or 'fascist' for voicing their concerns borders on human rights abuse.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 43

Some random guy

Original post by chefdave

Deliberating flooding a racially homogenous area with immigrants from across the globe in my opinion constitutes a form of soft ethnic cleansing. If the citizens of a community consent to such a policy then that's one thing, but forcing upon them against their will and then branding them 'racist' or 'fascist' for voicing their concerns borders on human rights abuse.

But the majority of people are fine with this. BNP are a tiny minority bub.

Reply 44

chefdave

Original post by frankieboy

That would hold true if it was applied across the board. But Muslims seem to be the only ones mentioned. You don't hear Griffin pointing out white people's crimes do you? I wonder why not.

IIRC he has labelled some people "white scum", it's not language I'd choose to use but to say he focuses soley on the transgressions of Muslims is a tad dishonest.

Reply 45

chefdave

Original post by Some random guy

But the majority of people are fine with this. BNP are a tiny minority bub.

Fair enough, I can only ask that people who support mass immigration are honest about their intentions.

Reply 46

Some random guy

Original post by chefdave

IIRC he has labelled some people "white scum", it's not language I'd choose to use but to say he focuses soley on the transgressions of Muslims is a tad dishonest.

Isn't that what he calls white people that mate with non whites?

Reply 47

chefdave

Original post by Some random guy

Isn't that what he calls white people that mate with non whites?

Again if I recall correctly it was in relation to the riots we saw last year. If you have any evidence to back up this outrageous claim you've just made I'd like to see it.

Reply 48

Azog 150

The party was never anything but a failure. The only reason the party is even well known is because of all the focus the media and government put on it to use it as a scapegoat- a useful distraction and not much more. I don't think they have ever received more then 2% of the vote. Extremist parties don't do well in Britain and they never have done.

Imagine if people put all the time they spent on anti-BNP rants into doing something worthwhile...

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 49

frankieboy

Original post by chefdave

Not the same as "blending them out of existence" though. That phrase suggests the white race will dissapear. It will only dissapear if it wants to, i.e. if the members of the white race want to breed with members of other races.

It depends whether by "ethnic cleansing" you mean the relocation of the whites, or the eradication of the whites. The latter I can't see happening unless the white people themselves choose to do so.

Reply 50

Ben Butler

Far right and far left parties tend to do well in times of economic downturn and with no growth at all and a small number of jobs around, I'm suprised that they have fared so badly. I think the negative perception people have of them, largely caused by the media has been a big factor in this.

People in this country just don't want to vote any more and don't have any faith in the politicians. The BBC had to give the BNP a voice on Question Time because it is PSB channel which means it has a remit to cater for the views of all the political parties and viewpoints across this country. It's suprising that the far right party in this country do so bad, yet Marie Le Pen had no trouble across the channel. That in itself is a worrying tale and a sign of huge voting discontent in France, a country where the electorate do actually bother to vote.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 51

User237126

I think a better question would be: were they ever in with a chance anyway? I think they were never really better than "spent"- they're a great representation of a "protest vote" party, so you vote for them if you're pissed at mainstream parties (or if you constantly think "dey durk urr jaaaabs!" about anyone who doesn't look like Bob from down the pub), whilst knowing they're never going to have an MP in parliament or ever actually achieve anything.

Reply 52

Spaz Man

Yep. Bankrupt, penniless, leaderless, losing votes and have lost their only London assembly seat.

Reply 53

Spaz Man

Original post by Pyramidologist

Is there any reason you are posting misinformation? They just recieved £500,000 and have cleared their debts.

Oh wow. I'm so scared. They are finished as a political force. Even at a time when extremist parties are thriving across Europe, the BNP lose votes.

Reply 54

frankieboy

Original post by Pyramidologist

Everyone suffered in this years local elections, except Labour.

I guess that's the knee jerk reaction against the Cons and Libs. And people ike to play it safe, so the other "big" party is Labour.

Once Labour are back in power, they'll mess it up, then people will vote the Cons in again and the whole cycle starts again. Liberal will go to the wayside, I imagine, having had their 15 minutes of fame.

What I'm worried will happen now is this kind of reactive knee jerk voting, which never allows one party to get their teeth into things properly. Strikes me it always takes a least a term for a party to get settled in. That, combined with the obsession with image over politics and the future is pretty bleak in that respect IMHO.

I don't think any of the small parties will get in for a while at least, because in this current climate of fear that's being manufactured by the media, people are too scared to stray from the straight and narrow.

Reply 55

username133326

Original post by chefdave

Except that the powers that be have connived to deny the BNP a level playing field though thus depriving them of the support they may have otherwise won. Look at the fuss made over Griffin's appearance on Question Time for example, that wasn't a 'private' event it was a very public attack on a legitimate political party that have decided to focus on certain pertinent issues. People like yourself need to realise that the systematic supression of the people and views you disagree with is the hallmark of an authoritarian regime.

Yes, you're right.

All white people are secretly racist... We'd all vote BNP if we weren't bullied into not doing so.. :rolleyes:

Reply 56

chefdave

Original post by Barden

Yes, you're right.

All white people are secretly racist... We'd all vote BNP if we weren't bullied into not doing so.. :rolleyes:

The BNP aren't racist though so I'm not sure why they'd attract the racist vote. Here's their immigration policy:

-Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;
- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;
- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;
- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;
- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;
- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain

These seem like very reasonable manifesto pledges to me. Which of these policies is it that'll turn us into the next Nazi Germany?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 57

jumpingjesusholycow

Original post by chefdave

The BNP aren't racist though

BNP leader Nick Griffin appearing on stage alongside the KKK

Reply 58

chefdave

Original post by jumpingjesusholycow

BNP leader Nick Griffin appearing on stage alongside the KKK

Yes, yes, we all know about that. I'm talking about the BNP POLICIES that I just listed. How are they racist? Character assassinations on Griffin because of a speech he made 10-15 years ago are starting to get a little tired, especially since he's been proven 100% correct about certain, *ahem*, multicultural issues the media up until very recently have been too afraid to touch due to political correctness.

Reply 59

jumpingjesusholycow

Original post by chefdave

It's not a character assassination. The leader of your party chooses to share a stage with white supremacists. If he doesn't want people to believe he's sympathetic to racists, he probably shouldn't hang out with them so much.

The fact it was 10-15 years ago is irrelevant. To my knowledge, he still disavows the event.

And he hasn't been 'proven 100% correct' about anything. He's a political leper, responsible for making his party a fart in the wind on the radar of professional politics. That is what he and your party will be forever remembered for.