Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Is the BNP a spent political party?

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
What are your mock exam revision tips?! Share them with our year 10 & 11 students! 19-11-2014
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    It's an important term because it indicates that the people in question have a legitimate homeland, by denying white working class Brits 'indigenous' status it's akin to saying that they have no right to a safe and secure territory of their own.
    I could argue this country is overrun with white working class. They have no need to be "safe" and "secure". They are not threatened.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    If liberal-left ideology disseminates the view that 'ethnics' are entitled to an enhanced set of human rights then it's fair to describe it as inherently racist and anti-white.
    They are not entitled to an "enhanced" set of human rights, just "equal" human rights. Big difference. "Equal" negates any anti white racism.
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankieboy)
    I could argue this country is overrun with white working class. They have no need to be "safe" and "secure". They are not threatened.
    You could argue that, but if you replaced the term "this country" with Africa and "white working class" with blacks you'd immediately see why some people may find your statement offensive. I personally don't get offended by such statements as I believe in freedom of speech, but we're living in times where the merest hint of concern for whites will see you branded a 'white supremacist', 'nazi', 'xenophobe' etc etc so I understand why patriots are keen to turn the tables on liberal-lefties.


    They are not entitled to an "enhanced" set of human rights, just "equal" human rights. Big difference. "Equal" negates any anti white racism.
    How does this square with your claim that only ethnics are deserving of indigenous status?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pyramidologist)
    The historical and genetic evidence supports the fact that there is a native population of Britain, for example the vast majority of who the goverment classifies as ''White British'' have ancestors going back to Ice Age settlement (see for example British Have Changed Little Since Ice Age, Gene Study Says, National Geographic. 2005). In contrast immigrants don't have this Mesolithic ancestry. Non-indigenous immigration here is something that has only occurred at a large scale in the last century under Lib-Lab-Con's ''open border'' immigration policy.
    This is true. The arrival of Anglo-Saxons, and especially Normans, was more a replacement of whatever the ruling class/most powerful faction was rather than a demographic and genetic overhaul. Britons are genetically akin to the Basques if I'm not mistaken.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    You could argue that, but if you replaced the term "this country" with Africa and "white working class" with blacks you'd immediately see why some people may find your statement offensive. I personally don't get offended by such statements as I believe in freedom of speech, but we're living in times where the merest hint of concern for whites will see you branded a 'white supremacist', 'nazi', 'xenophobe' etc etc so I understand why patriots are keen to turn the tables on liberal-lefties.
    Sure, if you replaced this country for Africa, and white for black, sure. But we're not talking about Africa and we're not talking about black people. We're talking about white people in Britain. Also, why do people put these things in terms of either "patriots" or "liberal lefties" as if it's two football teams against one another? I am neither a right wing patriot or a liberal lefty. I am fairly neutral in this respect. Persoanlly I just call it like I see it.


    (Original post by Pyramidologist)
    for example the vast majority of who the goverment classifies as ''White British'' have ancestors going back to Ice Age settlement
    Again - sure. "The vast majority". But what about those that aren't? What, if for example Nick Griffin was to find out that he was not in fact a descendant of the indigenous people, what then? Is he going to deport himself?
    The point I'm making is not so much arguing about whether an indigenous white population exists, rather than to say that white people better be careful before pronouncing themselves "indigenous" without actually knowing this for a fact, or they could be in for a shock.
    I for example am white and British, but I have no idea whether I'm truly "indignenous" or not. How would I find out?
    In other words, just the fact that someone is white and British is not a sure indicator of whether they are in fact indigenous. We ought to think more carefully about this before getting on our soap boxes and hammering on about the "poor white indigenous population of Britain". Otherwise we may find ourselves caught out by our own theories.
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankieboy)
    Sure, if you replaced this country for Africa, and white for black, sure. But we're not talking about Africa and we're not talking about black people. We're talking about white people in Britain. Also, why do people put these things in terms of either "patriots" or "liberal lefties" as if it's two football teams against one another? I am neither a right wing patriot or a liberal lefty. I am fairly neutral in this respect. Persoanlly I just call it like I see it.
    But how do you know the way you see it hasn't been tainted by left-liberal ideology? Anyone who argues that there's too many white people here while refuting the existence of an indigenous population strikes me as someone who's unable to view the situation objectively. The 'common sense' approach would be to accept that the natural homeland of white English speaking people is England just as the natural homeland of Black Kenyans is Kenya. We don't need to subject individuals to invasive genetic testing to find out whether they qualify for indigenous status or not, everyone is indigenous to somewhere. The fact that I feel the need to spell such things out indicates (to me) just how far the leftist rot has set.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    But how do you know the way you see it hasn't been tainted by left-liberal ideology? Anyone who argues that there's too many white people here while refuting the existence of an indigenous population strikes me as someone who's unable to view the situation objectively. The 'common sense' approach would be to accept that the natural homeland of white English speaking people is England just as the natural homeland of Black Kenyans is Kenya. We don't need to subject individuals to invasive genetic testing to find out whether they qualify for indigenous status or not, everyone is indigenous to somewhere. The fact that I feel the need to spell such things out indicates (to me) just how far the leftist rot has set.
    Part bolded is an incorrect train of thought.

    Likewise, though I live in a black majority country, I feel it of no importance as to whether or not a person is "indigenous" or not, no matter if they're white, black, indian, or any other race or ethnicity.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    Anyone who argues that there's too many white people here while refuting the existence of an indigenous population strikes me as someone who's unable to view the situation objectively.
    Hold the phone a minute.Let's just get it straight - I have said neither of those things. I've never said there's "too many" white people here, neither have I outright refuted the existence of an indigenous population. Questioned it, maybe, but refuted, no. All I'm doing is questioning who's actually part of that indigenous population, and how we would go about establishing that?

    (Original post by chefdave)
    The 'common sense' approach would be to accept that the natural homeland of white English speaking people is England
    So a German fellow comes over here in the 60's, has a kid who's first language is English - so that kid is now an English speaking white person who lives here. Is that kid indigenous? His heritage certainly doesn't fit in with your definition of "indigenous", seeing as he actually is one generation removed from German?
    Or are we counting white European second generation immigrants as indigenous?

    It may surprise you to know that I am not altogether against the tightening of immigration etc. - but by the same token I find parties like the BNP take it too far. I'm neither a "liberal lefty" or a "facist right winger". I think one thing we could do is stop seperating people into these two categories, like I say, similar to two football teams or soemthing similar.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I say again a point I made earlier - what if Nick Griffin was to find out he is descended from French/German/Italian etc. ancestors that immigrated here in say the late 19th century or early 20th century? Not exactly the Ice Age is it? Would he then deport himself back to Germany/France etc. ?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by djj)
    This may seem a strange thing to say but I hope the BNP and Nick Griffin keep going. The BNP is pretty pathetic & they have a pathetic leader if they collapse there will be something to replace it. A lot of people are going through tough times and are angry therefore a replacement new far right party could be very appealing to them.
    This.
    • 9 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I wish but I'm not so sure, and it could always come back in another guise.
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dgeorge)
    Part bolded is an incorrect train of thought.

    Likewise, though I live in a black majority country, I feel it of no importance as to whether or not a person is "indigenous" or not, no matter if they're white, black, indian, or any other race or ethnicity.
    But in your country is anyone denying the host population indigenous status? An open border policy agreed to democratically is one thing, but in Britain it's being forced upon us without popular consent while the liberal-left insist that the British are nothing more than a 'social construct' undeserving of basic human rights.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    while the liberal-left insist that the British are nothing more than a 'social construct' undeserving of basic human rights.
    Eh?

    You certainly have some kind of bee in your bonnet about this mythical "liberal left" you keep talking about in every post. Some imaginary monster you've invented in your own head.

    You seriously think that liberals think that the British are "undeserving of basic human rights"? This is just simply twisted paranoia - I don't know where you got this crazy idea from, but it has been distorted somewhere along the line. Probably in rhetoric by the BNP or similar, using fake logic to underpin their twisted ideas.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    But in your country is anyone denying the host population indigenous status? An open border policy agreed to democratically is one thing, but in Britain it's being forced upon us without popular consent while the liberal-left insist that the British are nothing more than a 'social construct' undeserving of basic human rights.
    In my country no one CARES about an "indigenous status" There are no "indigenous" or "non-indigenous" citizens.

    All citizens are equal.

    PS - politicians make the decisions, as opposed to the mass of people. Not every single idea that is "popular" should be implemented - or else there would be chaos. The fact that something is popular does NOT mean that it is the best idea for the country.

    I'm also not sure how British (indigenous or otherwise) are denied "basic human rights" Can you clarify this obvious over exaggeration on your part?
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    But in your country is anyone denying the host population indigenous status? An open border policy agreed to democratically is one thing, but in Britain it's being forced upon us without popular consent while the liberal-left insist that the British are nothing more than a 'social construct' undeserving of basic human rights.
    PS - what open border policy are you SPECIFICALLY referring to here?

    And immigration is not the pet of the "liberal left"
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankieboy)
    Hold the phone a minute.Let's just get it straight - I have said neither of those things. I've never said there's "too many" white people here, neither have I outright refuted the existence of an indigenous population. Questioned it, maybe, but refuted, no. All I'm doing is questioning who's actually part of that indigenous population, and how we would go about establishing that?
    You said this country is "overrun" with white working class people who are undeserving of indigenous protections because we're not under threat (yet). Do we have to become an endangered species before we can be thought of as a distinct people with a legitimate homeland? This seems like a self-defeating proposition.

    As someone who also likes to ask lots of questions I totally understand why you might take issue with the term 'indigenous', but I'm confused as to why you explicitly accept it for aborigines but reject it for white Brits. The sensible option (imo) would be to either reject the concept altogether or accept that it's applicable to all peoples, not just those who are thought of as 'victims' in the public's conscience.


    So a German fellow comes over here in the 60's, has a kid who's first language is English - so that kid is now an English speaking white person who lives here. Is that kid indigenous? His heritage certainly doesn't fit in with your definition of "indigenous", seeing as he actually is one generation removed from German?
    Or are we counting white European second generation immigrants as indigenous?

    It may surprise you to know that I am not altogether against the tightening of immigration etc. - but by the same token I find parties like the BNP take it too far. I'm neither a "liberal lefty" or a "facist right winger". I think one thing we could do is stop seperating people into these two categories, like I say, similar to two football teams or soemthing similar.
    Your German example demonstrates that you havn't really grocked the issue. Nobody (not even the BNP as far as I'm aware) has a problem with a few Europeans coming over here and breeding (to put it bluntly) with the locals to create familes that test the notion of a thoroughbred indigenous Brit. This at least suggests that a genuine effort is being made to integrate. What people actually complain about is the sort of deliberate mass immigration that leaves parts of Britain looking and feeling like a foreign land. If you don't believe this is going on then take a look at these youtube videos, no doubt you'll have a problem with the source but I think they're getting the essence of their (I'm UKIP for the avoidance of doubt) message accross very well.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1b9J8D3tOg

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HN9fOTpidhU
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pyramidologist)
    Nick had his ancestry checked, as far as he could trace it he is indigenous. The media checked it and were disappointed they couldn't report he had an immigrant in his family records anywhere which is why they concocted the whole ''Nick is a Gypsy'' smear back in 2009.
    Well bully for Nick! I bet he breathed a sigh of relief when he found that one out.

    So - back to the word "indigenous". This is a word which actually implies a group of people that have been conquered/invaded/had their rights taken away from them/been outnumbered.

    Therefore, no such thing as an "indigenous" Britain. It's simply a word that has been hijacked by the BNP, similar to the skinhead culture being hijacked by the far right (originally an anti racist culture), the Swastika symbol being hijacked by the Nazis, etc. etc.

    It's a tactic employed by the facist right all too often. Hijacking terms and cultures to further their cause.

    You might argue that is not in fact the meaning of the word indigenous. How would we resolve that? What sources of information would we use?

    I think this whole point revolves around, not the fact of ancestory, but on the fact that there is no such thing as an indigenous people of Britain, as portrayed by Griffin and his cronies.

    Sure, there could be an indigenous Britain in the future, if we were overtaken in some way.
    Nick should be saying that he's worried about British people becoming indigenous rather than currently being indigenous. He has it slightly wrong. Or, as I suspect, he relies on the fact that other people will buy into the "slightly wrong" version. See what he's doing here? Mis-using the word indigenous to try and represent white British people as victims, or an opressed minority, trying to make out that immigrants are the oppressor.

    I use myself as an example to reinforce this. See how I got caught up in a conversation discussing whether Nick Griffin was "indigenous" whereas what I should have been doing was pushing the point further that there is no such thing as an indigenous British person in the first place?

    This is how the far right work. Confusion by smoke and mirrors.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chefdave)
    You said this country is "overrun" with white working class people who are undeserving of indigenous protections because we're not under threat (yet).
    Balls. Sorry, I made my last post before reading this one.

    Ok - I feel the white people of this country are undeserving of indigenous protections, because we're not indigenous. However I do also feel that we deserve the same kind of protection as any other race who want to live in this country. We are equal to anyone else.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    Do we have to become an endangered species before we can be thought of as a distinct people with a legitimate homeland?
    No. But we do have to become endangered to be classed as indigenous. To debate the meaning of the word is what this is all about, I guess.

    (Original post by chefdave)
    I totally understand why you might take issue with the term 'indigenous', but I'm confused as to why you explicitly accept it for aborigines but reject it for white Brits.
    Well put quite matter-of-factly, the Aborigines have undergone the kind of opression and marginalisation, have been "conquered" and pushed away from a lot of their resources. This qualifies them as indigenous. The British however, have not. Therefore do not qualify for that word.

    As far as your mass immigration point goes, not trying to duck it, and I think you have a valid point, but I really feel that is a whole other discussion in itself.

    Edit - before you have me down as some kind of "Lefty liberal" - I'm not saying I think mass immigration is a good thing. Immigration is a delicate thign and has to be done right. If you put my head on the block, I'd say that I think immigration is an excellent idea, but mass immigration is not so good.
    • 36 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankieboy)
    Eh?

    You certainly have some kind of bee in your bonnet about this mythical "liberal left" you keep talking about in every post. Some imaginary monster you've invented in your own head.

    You seriously think that liberals think that the British are "undeserving of basic human rights"? This is just simply twisted paranoia - I don't know where you got this crazy idea from, but it has been distorted somewhere along the line. Probably in rhetoric by the BNP or similar, using fake logic to underpin their twisted ideas.
    Hmmmm. So I suppose I've been imagining all those offensive things you've been saying about white working class Brits? How there's no way to prove they're indigenous to these islands and they're not under threat anyway so their collective political needs can safely be ignored. Perhaps not.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pyramidologist)
    Those concerned with immigration in UK don't vote UKIP, they vote BNP or National Front.
    I'm not concerned with immigration but I hope my compatriots on the right will give you some flack for suggesting they vote for the ****ing national front.
    • 101 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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...
    Indeed. I mean hardly any one has heard of the "British Freedom Party" - the one that looks like it has a pepsi logo

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 12, 2012
New on TSR

GCSE mocks revision

Talk study tips this weekend

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.